By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Lawful behaviour - "respectful"?
Aka, - do you follow laws out of respect for the laws?
A comment that is often heard here is about not 'respecting' China - its laws or its culture, or its people or politics.
So Q - do you do things (or not) out of 'respect'... or is there some other reason?
Personally, I don't follow (most) laws because I 'respect' them - I follow them because they usually make sense. Sometimes they don't - particularly when laws are made to handle the lowest common denominator in a society - and not those who are able to think just a little bit!
This question can be quite obviously demonstrated when some tosser does something that is clearly disrespectful, and deserves a punch in the face... but the law says you shouldn't.. If it wasn't for the law (or more correctly, 'fear' of the punishment), the 'respect' shown to the other person would be a few broken teeth.
(and this, J, is why I wrote what I did... that particular phraseology - VERY standard Chinglish)
To add to what ScotsAlan says
Back home, if I ride my bike on the sidewalk, I can be fined €100 or so. If I do it as a grown man, I will get the fine, if I do it as a kid, the police will say "Never ever do that again or we will tell you mommy".
In Chine, if I ride a bike on the sidewalk, most certainly nothing will happen.
When I walk on the sidewalk I personally enjoy NOT being run down. Thus the law does something good for me.
The same applies to driving. When the laws are followed, I will actually get to where I am going faster and safer. The risk of a fine, well, I'd rather spend that money on beer, but that is not the main motivator for following the law.
ScotsAlan:
This is the other side of law is it not Scan?
To protect innocent people from the actions of the stupid. You have a right to walk safely of the pavement, and in the UK that is protected by law. I am very careful when I ride on the pavement here, but many are not. Whizzing around blind corners at speed etc. So I agree with what you say.
I have always believed there are too many laws, in general.
I see what you mean with your question. Are you respecting the law because it's Just, or obeying the law to keep out of trouble.
I would tend to say I am obeying the law to stay out of trouble. Remove that law, or live in an environment where it is not enforced, my behavour changes.
The biggies though, the laws about harming people, drunk driving etc, I follow because they make sense. Same as yourself.
Best example I can think of is cycling on the pavement. In the UK it's against the law. In China, everyone does it. And so do I. Same with riding through red lights or the wrong way up the road.
In the UK I would never cycle on the pavement. I would obey the law to keep out of trouble, and to save me from being shouted at.
To add to what ScotsAlan says
Back home, if I ride my bike on the sidewalk, I can be fined €100 or so. If I do it as a grown man, I will get the fine, if I do it as a kid, the police will say "Never ever do that again or we will tell you mommy".
In Chine, if I ride a bike on the sidewalk, most certainly nothing will happen.
When I walk on the sidewalk I personally enjoy NOT being run down. Thus the law does something good for me.
The same applies to driving. When the laws are followed, I will actually get to where I am going faster and safer. The risk of a fine, well, I'd rather spend that money on beer, but that is not the main motivator for following the law.
ScotsAlan:
This is the other side of law is it not Scan?
To protect innocent people from the actions of the stupid. You have a right to walk safely of the pavement, and in the UK that is protected by law. I am very careful when I ride on the pavement here, but many are not. Whizzing around blind corners at speed etc. So I agree with what you say.
I am a law abiding citizen.
some laws are stupid and me and a lot of others break them regularly here in China
survival of the fittest might be a way to describe the streets here in China
then there is a police 'BLITZ' my wife had her e-bike impounded and taken to an impound 30 miles from here, when she got busted for no helmet and driving on the wrong side of the road. .... my wife is 40+ ... been doing what she did since she was 10 ............not knocking at all the modernization of my little city... actually hoping that some day they all obey the laws and rules, and that they never catch me breaking them.
Like Shining said, I follow laws that I believe in and blatantly ignore those that I don't.
Lord_hanson:
If I believe the law to be just or fair I will follow it. I don't steal or kill people for example. I would not do anything to harm an innocent person either. Laws that protect the environment and animals would also be followed. I jaywalk if it is safe though (that includes safe for the vehicles). If I am on the motorway I generally speed when it is safe (and there are no cameras). I by what Bill and Ted said be excellent to each other.
Shining_brow:
Q1 - what punishment would a rapist or child molester deserve?
Q2 - if a rapist/child molester got off due to a legal technicality, would you then impose that punishment if it were possible?
Lord_hanson:
They are usually two seperate crimes. Lets use rape to answer the questions. Imprisonment would obviously be the punishement through a fair trial. For sex crimes I think the current state is in need of improvement. I personally don't think any details should be released until after the judgement. At the moment the person accused of rape is usually reported in the media before they are found guilty. Bill Cosby for example, although it is likely he is guilty his reputation was destroyed long before he got to any courtroom, imagine if he was in fact innocent his reputation would never recover. As for your second question technicalities are part of the law I dislike and I would be more conerned about fixing loopholes then vigilante justice.
Lord_hanson:
I should point out that I am not against the idea of laws but as we can see most laws are actually to keep those on the ladder of success are safe. What we need to remember is that just because something is legal it doesn't mean it is right. Laws can be made to repress just as easily as they can be made to protect.
Shining_brow:
You very cleverly didn't answer the questions ;p
I definitely won't disagree with you that there are some issues in the 'justice' system at the moment, and it's such a HUGE thing that I don't think we'd have real space on here (nor that much interest in debating it... logic would suggest, if this were the case - that those accused of a crime ought not to be made public until after a trial, Bin Laden would be a name few had heard of!).
As it currently is, getting "vigilante justice" is going to be a lot easier to achieve than fixing the holes in the system - especially since the media has a lot to do with those holes.
Socrates (himself, like many of you here, was permanently pissed) was an Athenian. He fought for Athens, climbed through the social ranks of Athens, benefited from the advanced civilisation that Athens was.
However, he made enemies in Athens, was brought to trial, and found guilty of "corrupting the young" and "impiety", and sentenced to death.
That sentence back then mean drinking a cup of poison (hemlock??) - so, effectively, suicide (is it suicide if you just let yourself be hanged, instead of fighting all the way to the gallows?)
His followers told him to escape, and had devised a plan.
He refused.
He reckoned that if he was a good Athenian, then he had the obligation to follow all of Athens' laws - and by extension, to follow out the punishment inflicted upon him - as he would expect every other criminal sentenced for their guilty crimes to do the same.
(would it be any different to going to war for your country and dying there?)
Just a thought... 
Janosik:
With Socrates it's not that easy.
There are commonly accepted about 4 possible reasons why he chose to die and rejected to escape.
Just one is that he willingly accepted the rule of the law which put him to death ...
Shining_brow:
Granted. Quite likely, all 4 reasons were at sometime discussed during his last hours. And, as each supporter again tried to convince him to escape, he had to come up with another reason.
Other than the 'guilty friends' argument, they still all point to a man who chooses to die for his convictions.
It's a trope only idiots and wumaos use.
Come on, law in China isn't a means for stability and social order and there is litteraly no one to enforce it just for the sake of it, it's a guidebook of excuses to frame/intimidate/bully anyone when needed.
Janosik:
I do not really understand what have the local law obedience in common with the simple fact that all immigrants and expats shall follow it without fail.
I think it was you who argued so fierce fully with Shining how immigrant into EU have to follow the law and culture habits but certainly will not!
So why being Westerner changes the rules for you?
I think the main trouble is you mix up together the premises in inappropriate way.
There is quite a difference how you follow or not follow the law (or understand the law) in your own country and how is the same thing done in case you choose to work and live for some period of time abroad.
When you are home so you have the chance to influence he law and practices or you may select to totally ignore them and become an anarchist.
You do not have such option when in foreign country. Actually you still can choose to become anarchist but it will usually end p with deportation - quite rightfully.
Once you decide to come to certain country so one of the key thing each mature adult shall be aware of is to follow the country rules.
If you decide to rebel so get off before they will punish you.
EU is now full of refugees - if there is any refugee who does not follow my home country rule to the last point (irrespective how the local people treat and understand the law - it's none of his/her business!) so I hope we will deport them without any delay (our prisons are probably better than life in their home countries and therefore I am against putting them into EU prisons).
Same goes for foreigners in China. Why shall you care what the others are doing? They are home here. You are not. They can vote, rebel, revolt - you cannot.
It's shocking how many people went abroad without being aware of such a simple principle.
These guys can be happy they did not come into any big trouble so far.
Otherwise I to certain extent agree with Scots. I also think there a bit too many law and simplifying the legal system would be to all parties advantage.
But one thing is my personal point of view and totally different is the fact that when visiting, even though long term, another country so I simply must behave myself.
mArtiAn:
What if I consider that other county my home? My home is here, it's paid for by me, I have legal rights here, I may have certain privileges of citizenship in England that I lack here, but is that the definition of home? Is one more morally bound to follow the law in a foreign country? I have two sons who also have British citizenship who have never been outside China. Is this not their home?
Janosik:
Yes, it can be your home but it is not your country. You can give up your British citizenship and get the Chinede one. Then it will become your country. I agree that you will be usually still treated differently as I do not really see a chance to get integrated if you are not Asian but at least "ethical rights" will be on your side. Otherwise you still have backdoors the other Chinese do not have (including your children) - your British passport offers you variety of solutions once the things get tough for you.
Shining_brow:
Shenma??? That doesn't make sense!
You're saying it's ok to be an anarchist - but only in your own country.... Surely anarchy as part of its very definition wouldn't care where they were - after all, the concept of 'country' is determined by 'rules'.
Janosik:
I never said it's OK to be anarchist. I just said that abroad the consequences will be quite severe. What concerns of me the anarchy has no space in any society. Part of living in any society you also have to agree to their rules. There can be one exception and that is the society you did not select - your home country. You were born there without a chance to influence that. If you do not like it so either leave and join the society you like (including the rules) or rebel and face the consequences.
Another thing to add to this thread.
As I commented on scans post just now, many laws are designed to protect the innocent, or vulnerable from the actions of idiots or the unscrupulous.
The "no cycling on the pavement" laws in the UK for example.
Some laws are designed to protect us from ourselves. Seatbelt laws are a good example I think.
But at what point do laws designed to protect ourselves from ourselves cross the line and become "Nanny State" rules?
I went to HK over CNY for the first time in a few years, and I honestly felt uncomfortable with the sheer number of regulations, especially with smoking. Or even in the bars, where last orders are called because they have to close by a set time.
I would go so far as to say I felt my personal freedoms were being eroded by the state
The above is probably a bad example. So what about H&S laws in western countries? I am all for H@S laws. But many people cry "Nanny State"
ScotsAlan:
Health and safety laws Shining-brow. In the UK, lots of people say they are "nanny state" laws that restricts small business etc.
Laws are important, but I think from a daily quality of life perspective respected social rules are probably a bigger factor than laws.
I'll give the example of the elevators in my office building. No matter where people are going, they tend to hit both the up and down arrows because they want to guarantee that they will get on the elevator.
Better to go up 20 floors for no reason than risk having the elevator be too full on the way down. But once enough people start doing this, it guarantees that everyone has to do it. And with all the extra stops the overall system throughput craters, the lines get longer the cars more crowded.
If everyone could be counted on to not play games with the elevator, the elevator would be more functional for everyone.
From a game theory perspective locals tend to play the strategy of guaranteeing that they aren't the chump who got left behind because they naively followed the rules. But then if everyone does that, more people end up getting left behind because it screws up the ability of the system itself to serve people's needs.
That's what needs to be fixed, the tendency to "play it safe" to maximize your chance of not getting screwed for being naive. Therein lies the weakness of mainland China culture.
RiriRiri:
And I think that's why many laws go a few step further than actually required.
By the way same applies on floor level: I always end up getting an empty elevator after everyone else packed themselves into the first one. Then they're all sincerely surprised my computer is all booted by the time they arrive.
I often wonder if we're working on the same bulding...
expatlife26:
yeah, theres so many things about quality of life that can't really be laws in the traditional sense.
if you live in a quiet neighborhood and somebody moves in who is dead set on blasting music all night. It's really tough to have that be a law. You can call in noise complaints but there's nothing that can really stop someone from being obnoxious who wants to be.
The most important thing that makes neighborhoods nice is that the people who live there can have an understanding that after certain times it's not OK to be loud or that if we all keep our yards looking good the property value goes up for everybody.
That's why I sympathize with the HKers when they get pissed off. You can't legislate something like people not spitting everywhere...that's just a value that probably needs to be taught from little kid stage.
Shining_brow:
"You can't legislate something like people not spitting everywhere"
Hangzhou has. For the G20. Whether it gets enforced or not...
As for the harmony aspect, I'd suggest that the broader definition of 'disrupting social harmony' would count against those tossers who let off fireworks at 5am would count.
The problem is - there's probably very little that won't offend someone somewhere, sometime... (hence, why with some laws, there's the 'reasonable person' clause)
expatlife26:
yeah you can try to legislate it but I think in practice it'll be really hard to enforce. So long as people want to be rude there's no way to stop them. Agree with the fireworks those are super obnoxious.
It's interesting the way "offended" is used these days and it's important to separate issues of offensive opinion with issues that are actually disruptive.
I can say "I'm offended by my neighbors' insensitive jokes about other cultures!" but that doesn't mean anything. I can go about my business just fine if I don't sit around indulging in self-righteous anger.
But if my neighbor is blasting the stereo or setting off fireworks at 3 AM on a work night that in genuinely disruptive to my life.
To me that's the reasonable person line. The difference between disagreement and disruption.
RiriRiri:
Which is why every place with a majority of Chinese that aim at being semi-functional like Singapore or Hong Kong all need to have super stringent laws about trivial stuff coupled with harsh punishments.
Just the same way other people from other places bag their females and when dropped into places where females are not dressed like postal bags problems happen.
Hey shining explain me that one.
expatlife26:
yeah singapore probably is the best example of successfully legislating manners.
RiriRiri:
You're kidding right?
I mean just forget for one second it's Singapore and I'm telling you "hey here's a country where there's a law forbidding to take a piss in the elevator, where you can get caned for minor offenses or where you can get fined if you forget to close the curtains before you take a shower".
What do you think? "Oh these people must be severely retarded to need laws like that" is the most likely answer I think. You tell me?
expatlife26:
No, I agree with you on singapore. That they need those laws because they are surrounded by people with different values.
Singapore really likes that it's not a shithole in an area where historically everything has been a shithole. So they enfore that very strictly because it's not practical to get everybody on the same page culturally but they still want to have their nice, polite city.
