Lawyers' New Party Loyalty Oath: A Sign of Weakness - Wall Street Journal (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

By Stanley Lubman

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to tighten its grasp on the legal profession with Ministry of Justice (MOJ) announcing that every new Chinese lawyer must now swear an oath of allegiance to the party. The oath is yet another ominous step in a continuing campaign in recent years to restrain lawyers from representing clients seen as challenging Party rule. It should be interpreted as an expression of anxiety rather than a sign of strength.

Associated Press

The oath’s dominant themes are clearly stated at the outset:

“I volunteer to become a practicing lawyer of the People’s Republic of China and promise to faithfully perform the sacred duties of a legal worker under socialism with Chinese characteristics; to be faithful to the motherland and the people; to uphold the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist system; to safeguard the dignity of the constitution and the law.” (This is a slightly altered version of a translation provided by human rights researcher Joshua Rosenzweig; the original Chinese is available as a pdf here.)

Formerly, newly admitted lawyers had to swear before local lawyers’ associations to protect the law, the Constitution and clients’ rights, and to follow lawyers’ professional ethics. That oath was not very different from those required by various American states, in which newly admitted lawyers swear to support the constitutions of the U.S. and the state in which they are being admitted and to behave ethically.

The new oath contains similar principles after the portion quoted above, obligating the lawyers “to practice on behalf of the people; to be diligent, professional honest and corruption-free; to protect the legitimate rights and interests of clients, the correct implementation of the law, and social fairness and justice.” It closes, however, with a promise “to diligently strive for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

The new Chinese oath places heavy emphasis on the CCP and its policies (“socialism” is mentioned three times, and “Chinese characteristics” twice). It is consistent with the slogan of the “three supremes” that President Hu Jintao proclaimed in 2007 as the policy that should dominate the application of law, namely giving priority to “the Party’s cause, the people’s interest, and the Constitution and laws.” Since then, obedience to the CCP has been given precedence over the “the people” and the Constitution, and since 2008 the MOJ has promoted the creation of more Party cells within law firms. As Elizabeth Lynch, a close observer of Chinese legal policies has noted, an MOJ opinion in 2010 on lawyers’ activities “candidly states the role that the Party will play in leading the legal profession.”

But why underline Party supremacy now, given the consistency and aggressiveness of Party policy since 2007?

Another long-time expert on Chinese law, Professor Donald Clarke, has suggested that what the oath really shows is “the complete bankruptcy of the imaginative faculties of those in charge of keeping society in line.” Clarke is dubious that the oath will make a difference to outspoken lawyers who have been undeterred from speaking their minds despite earlier oaths and policies.

A few Chinese lawyers have already publicly criticized the new oath. Mo Shaoping, a prominent human rights lawyer, has been quoted as saying that the oath is “inappropriate….As a lawyer you should only pay attention to the law and be faithful to your client.”

Certainly the oath adds no new element to existing policies, but it might be a sign that the MOJ and its superiors feel that the threat of more support for increasing legality has grown among lawyers and rights-conscious ordinary citizens. In other words, it may signal policy-makers’ intensified apprehension about growing pressure for strengthening the rule of law in China.

That policy makers may be acting more out of a sense of weakness than of strength was manifested last year when government authorities, apparently fearing the growth of an Arab-style protest movement, suspended or revoked some lawyers’ licenses and detained others to prevent them from taking sensitive cases, such as those involving dissidents or government critics.

The new oath may also be intended to reinforce support for the change in leadership that will soon occur, particularly as speculation spreads about a breakdown in party unity tied to the recent purging of populist Chongqing party chief Bo Xilai.

Regardless of the motive for requiring the new oath, it could inhibit lawyers from representing clients whom Party-state officials could regard as threats to social stability or to Party dominance: Suppose a powerful state-owned enterprise is involved in a civil suit against a foreign-controlled joint venture or wholly foreign owned enterprise, and fiercely alleges that the defendant is trying to destroy the Chinese enterprise and thereby cause damage to the Chinese economy. Might lawyers think twice about taking on the foreign client for fear of being accused of threatening “socialism with Chinese characteristics?”

The reach and impact of the oath have yet to be ascertained. It applies to new lawyers and those who are re-applying for their licenses; the MOJ’s announcement does not mention its applicability to current lawyers when they make their mandatory yearly re-registration.

Symbolic or not, behind the oath are policies that bode ill for the future of the rule of law.

Stanley Lubman, a long-time specialist on Chinese law, is a Distinguished Lecturer in Residence at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and is the author of “Bird in a Cage: Legal Reform in China After Mao,” (Stanford University Press, 1999).

View the original article here

Joe Nosef: Attorney, Chairman of the Mississippi Republican party, 43, Jackson-Jackson Clarion-Ledger

Tell us about yourself.

I was born and raised in Clarksdale. My father was Mayor of Clarksdale in the early 1970 's. He was the youngest Mayor in the State and died in office at the age of 35 when I was 6. My mom has taught in the public school system in Clarksdale for over 40 years and my stepfather has been in the banking business for over 40 years as well. I graduated from Lee Academy in 1987 and Bachelor's and master's degrees in accounting from Ole Miss received. I have a J.D. degree from Ole Miss law school, and an LL.M. in taxation from the University of Florida School of law. In addition to acting as Chairman of the Republican Party of Mississippi, I'm a lawyer at the Watkins firm in Jackson & Eager.

Why are you a Republican?

My first real experience with comparing the Republican and democratic parties was the presidential race of 1980. I remember very clearly how strong and comforting Ronald Reagan was in a time when the threat of a nuclear war with the former Soviet Union was part of the daily discussion. I also remember the stark contrast between Reagan's confident presence and Jimmy Carter, who appeared weak. Basically, I am a Republican because I believe in limited Government and very strongly feel that the Government is not the solution for every socio-economic problem that we face. Many times an intrusive, useless Government force in our personal or business lives and our party needs to against that trend.

What are the basics? Is there a difference between Mississippi Republicans and the national party?

The core principles of both the national and the State Republican party are: 1) limited Government; 2) low taxes, and; 3) a strong national defence. Many things stem from these principles as our position against the President's new health care program. An advantage of we have about the Democratic Party in Mississippi is harmony with the National Republican party. Many times Mississippi Democrat elected officials will have to distance themselves from the national liberal leaders of the Democratic Party. Republicans in Mississippi, however, are very comfortable and supportive of the views of the National Republican party.

What are your goals as President?

I want the Republican party more active, disciplined and always expanding. We must actively communicate with our membership and local parties as they are the lifeblood of our organisation party State. Now we have so many Republicans in office, we have to be disciplined and to ensure that we reduce our differences with that of principle and not fight among themselves. Finally, let us not as a party. We must continue to expand our range and ready to defend our success at any level.

The GOP has caught all but one statewide office and majorities in the legislature possesses. What's next for Mississippi Republicans?

There are still areas in our State where voters support Republicans at the national level but not at the State level. There are also areas where we have Republican lawmakers but conservative local officials who feel that they need to run as a Democrat. We are determined to change that. The most important thing for us to do now, is however reign. If our elected Republican leaders enact good policy, will then take care of politics itself.

Former Governor Haley Barbour brought party discipline. It will remain under the new leaders?

All political leaders have their own unique style of governance. I worked closely with gov. Barbour during the years he was in office and have also worked very closely with gov. Bryant on a daily basis. They are different but obviously both very effectively. With more than 20 years experience in or with the legislator, is gov. Bryant unique positioned to ensure that his Government is successful. Insofar as the key to the party discipline in general I think will happen if all our elected officials and staff are committed to working together. I am convinced that this will be the case, because ultimately it is in the best interest of our State, the Republican Party and each of the individual elected officials.

What do you think about how the GOP presidential primary in Mississippi ended?

The Mississippi Republican Party was very fortunate this year as a relevant and important part of the struggle for the Republican nomination for President. Multiple candidates came to Mississippi to campaign in almost every corner of our State. This was an excellent opportunity for our soldiers to meet these candidates and hear from Members why they want to be close to the president of the United States. Mississippi Republicans are of course interested in the same thing as Republicans nationwide, which makes a term a president Barack Obama. The Republican primary in Mississippi was obviously a tight race of the three-man with little separation between the candidates. Even though it seems as if Santorum got more total votes, he will win about one more delegate than Romney and Gingrich.

What was the largest political affect you personally?

The greatest political influence on me without a doubt was the conservative movement that began after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and in the Republican revolution of 1994 converted. I was at the time and begin to focus more and more on politics and things other than law school in Oxford in Domino's Pizza. I was fascinated by the Contract with America that resulted in the historic election campaign and how we saw that year. There were good lessons during that period of what to do and what not to do.

You ran for the legislature in 2003. Do you think you would ever run for office again?

That would obviously depend on the circumstances and a provision of my highest and best use at the time. I never thought I would be the Chairman of the State Republican party. I'm only the 11th State President in the history of our party, so of course it is a huge honor for me. There's no question this is the right place for me at this time instead of a public office. Becomes President offers me the opportunity to travel all over the State and not only build our party but also an advocate for issues and policies that affect our future. I'm gov. Bryant and the Executive State Committee very grateful for giving me this honor.

-Editorial Director David Hampton

View the original article here