Mr. Trong
~~American "journalism" folks.~~
I thought this was a mistake, but according to Vietnamese customs "Mr. Trong" or "Trong" is indeed a valid way to refer to Comrade Trong. This is a humiliating display in lack of investigation by myself.
I put the whole speech through DeepL and found the second part of the speech to be the interesting part:
Well, I'd like to tell you this: my ministers have quoted all the figures they could quote, so I'm not going to tell you. I'm just going to give you one thing. Just one thing for you. This country has spent four years. In fact, since the coup against President Dilma, this country has been like an old truck going downhill without control. This country stopped making social policy. How many houses were built after we left government? How many houses for the poor? Today we build houses for the poorest people and people on Bolsa Família and BPC don't pay for the house, because the state has the right to guarantee people the right to housing. It's in the Federal Constitution of this country. If we want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don't have to read a book by Marx. We don't have to be Leninists. We don't have to be Mao Zedong. We don't have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian Constitution and let's regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people that are there. And that's what we're doing.
I've found hundreds and hundreds of paralyzed hospitals in this country. Hundreds and hundreds of paralyzed UPAs. Almost 6,000 kindergartens paralyzed in this country. I found 87,000 Minha Casa, Minha Vida houses abandoned. The other day I went to Ceará to inaugurate a house that should have been inaugurated in 2018. Because this plague of locusts that has swept through this country in recent times has only come to destroy, not to build anything.
When we came into government, they sent away the More Doctors that Dilma had brought in. They sent them away. Do you know how many doctors there were when we arrived in this country? Anyone who works in healthcare here should know. There were only 12,500 doctors. Today we have 26,000 doctors covering the health of the poor people of this country, in cities that often can't even afford a doctor, because doctors are expensive. So I said to you: I want to be president again. I had already been president. I had already been, you know, it was like, but I wanted to come back to teach a lesson to the people who don't like us.
This country has always been governed by only 35% of the population. It never reached 40%. It has always been governed. The poor were only seen at election time, because at election time, every candidate speaks ill of bankers and embraces the poor. When the elections are over, to hell with the poor and they go and look after the bankers they despised during the elections. And I wanted to prove that politics can be different. I, for example, think that bankers have to make money, because if they don't, the government is obliged to do what Fernando Henrique Cardoso did with PROER. Twenty-something billion to save the banks. I want businesspeople to earn money, because if businesspeople earn money, they'll invest, they'll hire workers, they'll pay wages, wages will turn into consumption, consumption will go to commerce, commerce will grow, stores will buy more things, industry will produce and people will eat more. That's the country I want to build. And it can be built.
Now, as this country was governed with only 35% of the population in mind, we decided to include the people in this country. In other words, the people have to be taken into account, because the people who are poorer are not poorer because they want to be poor. Nobody chooses to be poor. I choose to be a doctor, I choose to be an engineer, I choose to be a lawyer, I choose to be a teacher. The only thing we don't do is "I want to be poor, I want to eat badly, I want to live badly, I want to dress badly". There's no such thing. We want to eat well, we want to dress well, we want to live well. We want to have the latest television, we want to have good cell phones, we want to go on vacation, we want to go to the beach, we want to eat meat like people who eat meat. Why do we have to be trampled on all our lives?
Then someone asks me, a journalist: "But, Lula, don't you think they're spending too much? The minimum wage has already been increased twice. Good heavens, the minimum is the minimum. The name says it all. There's nothing lower than the minimum. Now, how can I discuss, make a fiscal adjustment, over the minimum of the minimum. What I wanted to do was make a fiscal adjustment to the profitability of this country's bankers, who make money speculating on the stock exchange, speculating, you know, every day. I'm not going to touch the humblest people. The humblest people, the state has to take care of them, because a middle-class citizen doesn't need the state. The guy who has a house, the guy who has a car, the guy who is well married, the guy who has a family, his children studying at a good school, he doesn't need the government. The government needs to look at those who need it, like a mother. I always say this: governing is about putting a mother's heart in our heads so that we learn to take care of everyone, on equal terms, and to take more care of the most fragile, the most dependent. This is the country we're going to build, people. This is the country I'm proving it's possible to build.
I'd like to say to the deputies and senators. I wanted to say something to you. I'd like to say to the vice-governor, to my companion who is perhaps the oldest person here, apart from me. I want to say the following: I doubt, and the press is here, there must be a lot of intellectuals here, I doubt that there was a day in the state of Minas Gerais that a President of the Republic came to announce the number of things that I came to announce here. I doubt it. I doubt it.
And we're going to build the BR-381, because we've already tried to hold an auction once, and the auction was empty. There's a stretch near Governador Valadares that's very complicated. So I said to my minister: "Minister, here's the deal: whatever the businessman doesn't want to do, which is to gnaw on the bone, the government will gnaw on the bone and we'll make this road". That's what's going to happen in Minas Gerais.
And so I forgot to tell you, but there's going to be an institute in Barreiro. There's going to be an institute. All that's left is for the mayor to sign the document. I hope that Camilo and the mayor agree to sign it, because what I want is to educate these people, because people who are well educated, people who have a profession, go ahead and nobody needs the state. And that's what I'm going to build. And I'll say it again, I said it here: I want to be president again to prove that we can take care of poor people. And I want you to know: I'm going to take care of you the way I take care of my son, the way I take care of my granddaughter, the way I take care of the things I love, because I'm only where I am, I'm only what I am, an illiterate northeasterner who's only trained as a lathe operator, to become president of the Republic. There are two things: the work of God and the work of the courage of those of you who had the pleasure of electing me.
Video subtitles:
If you want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don't have to read any book by Marx, we don't have to be a Leninist, we don't have to be a Mao Zedongist, we don't have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian constitution and we will regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people.
For reference: Brazil's constitution
Did some searching and found the full speech: https://www.gov.br/planalto/pt-br/acompanhe-o-planalto/discursos-e-pronunciamentos/2024/pronunciamento-do-presidente-lula-durante-anuncio-de-investimento-do-governo-federal-para-minas-gerais
Here's the entire paragraph that includes the part shown in the video at the end:
Bem, eu queria dizer para vocês o seguinte: os meus ministros citaram todos os números que poderiam citar, então não vou dizer, não. Vou apenas dar uma coisa para vocês. Apenas uma coisa para vocês. Esse país passou quatro anos. Na verdade, desde que deram o golpe na presidenta Dilma, esse país parecia um caminhão velho descendo ladeira abaixo, sem controle. Esse país deixou de fazer política social. Quantas casas foram feitas depois que nós saímos do governo? Quantas casas para o pobre? Hoje a gente faz casa para as pessoas mais pobres e as pessoas do Bolsa Família e o BPC não paga a casa, porque o Estado tem o direito de garantir o direito de moradia para as pessoas. Está na Constituição Federal desse país. Se a gente quiser fazer uma revolução nesse país, Pacheco, a gente não tem que ler um livro de Marx. A gente não tem que leninista. A gente não tem que ser Mao Tsé-Tung. A gente não tem que ser Fidel. Leia a Constituição Brasileira e vamos regulamentar todos os direitos do povo brasileiro que está lá. E é isso que nós estamos fazendo.
(DeepL translate) Well, I'd like to tell you this: my ministers have quoted all the figures they could quote, so I'm not going to say it. I'm just going to just give you one thing. Just one thing for you. This country has spent four years. In fact, since the coup against President Dilma, this country has been like an old truck going downhill, with no control. control. This country has stopped making social policy. How many houses were after we left government? How many houses for the poor? Today we build houses for the poorest people and the people on the Bolsa Bolsa Família and BPC don't pay for the house, because the state has the right to to guarantee people the right to housing. It's in the Constitution of this country. If we want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don't have to read a book by Marx. We don't have to Leninist. We don't have to be Mao Zedong. We don't have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian Constitution and let's regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people that are there. And that's what we're doing.
Press Statement of Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK Kim Yo Jong http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2024/202405/news29/20240529-13ee.html
Pyongyang, May 29 (KCNA) -- Kim Yo Jong, vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, issued the following press statement under the title "The ROK is not entitled to criticize the freedom of expression of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on Wednesday:
As already warned by the DPRK vice minister of National Defence, a large amount of waste paper and rubbish are being scattered in the border and deep areas of the ROK from the night of May 28.
According to the ROK media, waste paper and rubbish were found not only in the border area with the DPRK but also in Seoul and other parts of the ROK.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the ROK puppet army said that the DPRK is scattering a large number of balloons over the ROK from last night. It urged the DPRK to stop such an act at once, claiming that it is a clear violation of international law, an act of seriously threatening the security of ROK people and an unethical and lowbrow act.
We have tried something they have always been doing, but I cannot understand why they are making a fuss as if they were hit by shower of bullets.
After all, they hoisted a white flag just one day after they themselves have been exposed to the despicable article-scattering which the DPRK has called into question and demanded a stop for years.
I doubt whether those in the ROK could only see the balloons flying southwards without catching sight of the balloons flying northwards.
Scum-like clans of the ROK are now blatantly claiming that their leaflet-scattering towards the DPRK is "freedom of expression" and that the corresponding act of the DPRK is an "obvious violation of international law".
Are the "freedom of expression" and "international law" defined according to the direction in which balloons fly?
It is the height of impudence.
It is an opportunity to reconfirm how clumsy and brazen the ROK clans are.
The ROK clans must be subject to due pains as they tried to scatter leaflets, the political agitation rubbish slandering the idea and system of the DPRK regarded by all its people as sacred, and inject their mixed ideas raised at cesspools to the DPRK, and made a serious mockery of our people by scattering the cheap money and trifles which even mongrel dogs wouldn't like.
If they experience how unpleasant the feeling of picking up filth is and how tired it is, they will know that it is not easy to dare talk about freedom of expression as to the scattering near border area.
Today, I will get the following stand into shape:
"As the leaflet-scattering to the ROK belongs to our people's freedom of expression and provides the people in the ROK with the right to know, there is a limit for the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to immediately stop it. I courteously seek the ROK government's consent. …"
The ROK clans cannot deprive the DPRK people of their righteous "freedom of expression".
They should continue to pick up rubbish scattered by our people, regarding them really as "sincere presents" to the goblins of liberal democracy who are crying for the "guarantee for freedom of expression".
We make it clear that we will respond to the ROK clans on case-to-case basis by scattering rubbish dozens of times more than those being scattered to us, in the future.
Additional context to answer some of the questions here: His superior Lai Xiaomin:
As for Bai Tianhui:
So the jig was up when Lai was investigated in 2018, Bai was already doomed from that point on.
China before Xi’s reforms was pretty much a capitalist hellhole. Corruption, environmental degradation and poverty were rampant
Those issues do not justify calling China during that period a "capitalist hellhole".
even the CPC’s official stance is that Deng made some rightist errors
Could you provide the source for this?
The CPC has also made errors in recent years by becoming more nationalistic and has moved slower on LGBTQ rights than is expected of a socialist country.
China's nationalism is controversial to some, probably because they think it's like the toxic "America First", or that it is not a very communist stance, but I do not see it as a mistake. Nationalism is fundamental for the survival of any nation that wishes to be independent and not controlled or invaded by foreign powers.
LGBTQ rights are important in the sense that they are treated as normal people, not "special" people. China is certainly lacking some LGBTQ rights that are available in other countries like same-sex marriage.
I think the state of the internet is currently telecom landlords providing the basic hardware infrastructure like cables and routers for a fee, big tech corporations and traditional news outlets dominating mainstream websites/apps, and finally other groups doing things like maintaining technical standards, improving FOSS ecosystem, and building decentralized platforms to combat mainstream centralized platforms etc.
The pervasive anarchist "freedom" mentality on the internet brought by the US, that it shouldn't be regulated by the government, has led to an anarchist-style landscape that is instead regulated by private entities. Sure there are still some restrictions on what corporations can do like privacy laws, but the bigger problems are that relating to "free speech" and valid information.
Note that although we are on Lemmygrad, one of the many decentralized platforms in the Fediverse, this doesn't mean that decentralized platforms are a good alternative to centralized capitalist platforms. For starters anyone can setup a platform for their own reactionary groups. Without clear guidelines for development, decentralization is nothing more than chaotic anarchy that capitalists can take advantage of. The internet is already decentralized on the lower physical/link/transport layers (OSI model), the fact that we now have to "re-decentralize" it on a higher layer for applications like social media and file sharing is why I think this model is not sustainable for socialism on the internet.
From https://president.gov.by/en/statebodies/belarusian-people-s-congress
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus that was amended and supplemented at the national referendum on 27 February 2022, the Belarusian People's Congress has become a constitutional body. The responsibilities, the order of formation, and the actitives of the Belarusian People's Congress are specified in Chapter 31 of the Constitution and the law.
The Belarusian People's Congress is the highest representative body of people's power of the Republic of Belarus, which determines the strategic areas of development of society and the state, ensures the inviolability of the constitutional system, the continuity of generations, and civil accord.
The delegates of the Belarusian People's Congress include:
- President of the Republic of Belarus;
- President of the Republic of Belarus, who has ceased to exercise his powers (expiration of the term of office, early resignation);
- representatives of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches;
- representatives of local Councils of Deputies;
- representatives of civil society.
Delegates from local Councils of Deputies and civil society are elected from each oblast and the city of Minsk in the manner determined by law.
The maximum number of delegates of the Belarusian People's Congress is 1,200 people.
The term of office of the Belarusian People's Congress is five years.
The meetings of the Belarusian People's Congress are held at least once a year.
The Belarusian People’s Congress is empowered to approve the main guidelines of the domestic and foreign policy, the military doctrine, the national security concept; to approve the social and economic development programs of the Republic of Belarus; to receive the Prime Minister’s report on the implementation of the social and economic development programs of the Republic of Belarus. The Belarusian People’s Congress has the right of legislative initiative.
The resolutions of the Belarusian People’s Congress are mandatory for execution and can revoke the legal acts, other resolutions of government bodies and officials that contradict the interests of national secutrity, except for the acts of courts.
Some more info from a reactionary article: https://constitutionnet.org/news/belaruss-upcoming-referendum-lukashenka-stacks-deck
The ABPA would be given wide-ranging competences and significant powers, including the following: appointing and dismissing judges of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, as well as the Chairperson and members of the Central Electoral Commission; proposing constitutional amendments and referendums; giving binding instructions to state bodies and officials; introducing a state of emergency or martial law; and approving the main directions of domestic and foreign policy, military doctrine, and national security (Section 3). Further, and ominously, the ABPA can impeach the president (currently the prerogative of the parliament), has “the right to consider the question of the legitimacy of elections” and can “annul legal acts and decisions of other state bodies and actors which run counter to the interests of national security....”
So it looks like the All-Belarusian People's Assembly (ABPA) or Belarusian People's Congress went from being a CPPCC to NPC in terms of China's political structure.
As a comparison, here are China's NPC powers: https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html
Article 62 The National People’s Congress shall exercise the following functions and powers:
- (1) amending the Constitution;
- (2) overseeing the enforcement of the Constitution;
- (3) enacting and amending criminal, civil, state institutional and other basic laws;
- (4) electing the president and the vice president of the People’s Republic of China;
- (5) deciding, based on nomination by the president of the People’s Republic of China, on the successful candidate for the premier of the State Council; deciding, based on nominations by the premier of the State Council, on the successful candidates for vice premiers, state councilors, ministers of ministries, ministers of commissions, the auditor general and the secretary general of the State Council;
- (6) electing the chairperson of the Central Military Commission and deciding, based on nominations by the chairperson of the Central Military Commission, on the successful candidates for other members of the Central Military Commission;
- (7) electing the chairperson of the National Commission of Supervision;
- (8) electing the president of the Supreme People’s Court;
- (9) electing the procurator general of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate;
- (10) reviewing and approving the plan for national economic and social development and the report on its implementation;
- (11) reviewing and approving the state budget and the report on its implementation;
- (12) changing or revoking inappropriate decisions of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee;
- (13) approving the establishment of provinces, autonomous regions and cities directly under central government jurisdiction;
- (14) deciding on the establishment of special administrative regions and the systems to be instituted there;
- (15) deciding on issues concerning war and peace; and
- (16) other functions and powers that the highest state organ of power should exercise.
Article 63 The National People’s Congress shall have the power to remove from office the following personnel:
- (1) the president and the vice president of the People’s Republic of China;
- (2) the premier, vice premiers, state councilors, ministers of ministries, ministers of commissions, the auditor general and the secretary general of the State Council;
- (3) the chairperson of the Central Military Commission and other members of the Central Military Commission;
- (4) the chairperson of the National Commission of Supervision;
- (5) the president of the Supreme People’s Court; and
- (6) the procurator general of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate.
If I'm not mistaken, the US does not have direct democracy for presidential elections (https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college) nor the lawmaking process (https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made). Unless you're referring other forms of direct democracy in the US (https://ballotpedia.org/Forms_of_direct_democracy_in_the_American_states) or elsewhere in the world like Russian presidential elections.
As for how China's president is elected, these two videos basically sum it up:
According to the news last year: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202209/1274861.shtml
China would pay Gazprom for its gas based on a 50-50 split between the ruble and yuan
Thanks for the ping @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml .
Chinese in China here, I think a better question than "Do you support your government" would be: "If the US government were to replace the CPC and current government tomorrow, would you approve?" Sorry to folks in Nordic countries (another stereotype propelled by liberals) because the US is the "beacon" that liberals use mainly.
If people from any country have no experience with living in other countries, they might be more inclined to topple their own government if their living conditions aren't great and someone were to advocate for the toppling. Even if people read about how bad some foreign governments are in the news, some people would just brush it off as "propaganda", they would have to see it for themselves to believe. This goes both ways for both the people of the US and China.
Comparison is a powerful tool, but some people whip out the "whataboutism" card when you try to do that, they tell you to address the problem instead of finding worse examples from other places. Indeed it's always better to address the problem at hand, but people who scream "whataboutism" in relation to China's issues are really saying "don't look at worse places to make yourself feel good, overthrow the SEE-SEE-PEE regime now!"
Do I support the CPC and Chinese government? Yes and yes.
Does China have problems. Yes.
Do I need to hear from egotistical maniacs in other countries on how to handle issues in my country? No.
PSA: Comrade Nguyễn Phú Trọng's surname is Nguyễn, not "Trong", his first name is Phú Trọng, not Trong.
~~NYT also made the same mistake, by referring to him as "Mr. Trong"~~: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/world/asia/nguyen-phu-trong-dead.html
~~This would be like referring to Mao Zedong as "Dong" or "Mr. Dong".~~
I thought this was a mistake, but according to Vietnamese customs "Mr. Trong" or "Trong" is indeed a valid way to refer to Comrade Trong. This is a humiliating display in lack of investigation by myself.
The point about Mr. Dong still stands for Chinese names.