Talk:National People's Congress

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: China: That National People's Congress, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

The complex shown in the picture on the top of the page looks more like the Historical Museum across the Tian'anmen Square from the Great Hall of the People. I propose that the picture be removed or replaced by a correct one. -- Tim 14:56 22 May 2006

No, this was not a picture of the great hall. I fixed it and used the image from the article of the great hall. --Authentic 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to have "of China" in the title? The Chinese version has no mention of China. I propose to move this to simply National People's Congress. The Knesset is a precendent. --Jiang 11:13 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I found it distractingly unnecessary when I first came across it too, since I was pretty sure only China has such a thing called the NPC. I still think so, after Googling for a while just now.

I think the intro does a very clear job pointing out this institution is of the PRC anyway. --Menchi 21:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just deleted the National People's Congress redirect, history:

11:34 4 Jan 2003 . . User:Olivier (redirect)

• content was: '#REDIRECT National People's Congress of China'

If somebody disagree strongly, s/he can easily re-make that redirect later. If nobody disagree, anybody can move National People's Congress of China there now. --Menchi 21:57 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done. How about State Council of China? Are there any other state councils in other countries? --Jiang 23:57 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about state councils as national organizations, but there are subnational state councils in the USA, probably one for each US state. --Menchi 00:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

List of the Chinese Communist Parti's Congress (fr:Liste des Congrès du Parti Communiste Chinois)

1. 1921, 30 june, Shanghai Fondation and 1st Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
2. 2th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
3. 1923, may, Canton, 3th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
4. 4th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
5. 5th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
6. 1928, july, in Moscow, 6th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
7. 1945, 7th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
8. 1956, 8th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
9. 1969, 9th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
10. 1973, 10th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
11. 11th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
12. 12th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
13. 1987, 13th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
14. 14th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
15. 1997, 15th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
16. 16th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress
17. 17th Chinese Communist Parti's Congress

National People's Congress fr:Liste des Congrès national du peuple de la République de Chine

1. 1954, 28 september, 1st National People's Congress
2. 2th National People's Congress
3. 3th National People's Congress
4. ...
5. 2005, march,

Central comity

1. 1927, 7 August, Hankou.
2. 1962, 8th Central comity

However, some proposals will be put to the vote even if there is opposition, if the Politburo deems it necessary.

This isn't true. Legislative practice in recent years has been to withdraw or postpone bills if they can't get a near unanimous vote. Roadrunner 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Your hardly a verifiable, reliable source. This article needs citations, not more unfounded claims. (I count 3 citations in the article at the moment…) Int21h (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Overseas Chinese Delegation to the NPC selected? Do Overseas Chinese have the ability to vote for these delegates by ballot at the embassy? mdkarazim (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are Returned Overseas Chinese /归国华侨. Voting must be conducted personaly, can not be mail or at embassy. --刻意(Kèyì) 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only about 70% of NPC delegates are Party members (see e.g. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34722&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=3f571ce395). The graphic in the box should be amended to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.6.90 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no official/non-official PRC release on this? Wouldn't one of the major PRC, HK, Taiwanese or international media networks have mentioned the membership before? Besides the The Jamestown Foundation? I mean, the Chinese legislature's membership is pretty important is't it? Int21h (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now figures for the party composition of the 12th Congress and even a graphic. These figures (2099 CCP members vs 888 "democratic parties and independents") are probably from the Chinese Wikipedia article on the NPC. I believe the ultimate source is actually the NPC website, which now has an online lookup for 12th congress delegate information. I will verify the numbers when I have time to click on their interface 2987 times. Rgr09 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph: "For the NPC to formally defeat a proposal put before it is a rare, but it has happened." That assertion needs verification -- most appropriately, an example. BartBee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this statement. This statement is a claim that a session of the NPC has at some point voted on a motion of some kind, any kind, and rejected it, meaning that a majority of the members voting against the motion. Apparently this has never happened. If it has happened, it should be easy to find an example in a reliable source. The burden of finding this example entirely on the editor who claims that this is the case. Without a source, the article cannot incorporate this statement. Rgr09 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legislative function of the NPC is presented in obscure, vague, and misleading terms throughout the article. The following quotes illustrate this:

The drafting process of NPC legislation is governed by the Organic Law of the NPC (1982) and the NPC Procedural Rules (1989).

The phrase "drafting legislation" does not appear in either of these laws.

It begins with a small group, often of outside experts, who begin a draft

What is the source for this statement? What rules govern the selection of the group? Are ANY of the members of this "small group" delegates to the NPC? If not, why attribute the drafting of legislation by this group to the NPC?

Over time, this draft is considered by larger and larger groups, with an attempt made to maintain consensus at each step of the process.

What is the source of this statement? As a description of legislative procedure, it is so vague as to be meaningless. Some such process may well take place within government departments which want to promulgate various laws and regulations, but what is its relation to the NPC? As presented, it has none.

By the time the full NPC or NPCSC meets to consider the legislation, the major substantive elements of the draft legislation have largely been agreed to.

Agreed to by whom? What is the function of the NPC in this process? What is the source for this claim?

However, minor wording changes to the draft are often made at this stage.

What stage? What does minor mean? Who makes these changes? What is the source for this claim?

The process ends with a formal vote by the Standing Committee of the NPC or by the NPC in a plenary session.

What determines whether the Standing Committee or a Plenary Session votes on a legislative bill? If there are no restrictions on the type of legislation subject to approval by the Standing Committee, what is the point in even convening a plenary session?

There is more discussion throughout the article which more or less contradicts this description of the legislative process and adds layers of vagueness and evasion:

[The NPC] functions as a forum in which legislative proposals are drafted and debated with input from different parts of the government and outside technical experts

"Legislative proposals are drafted and debated" could not be phrased in a more vague and evasive manner. Drafted and debated by who, when, where, how? Input in what form? Input to who? What parts of the government? What outside experts?

"Functions as a forum" is also vague to the point of vapidity. A forum is not a legislature. I also question the use of the word forum to describe the NPC. The NPC has no hearings, no debates, no caucuses; not even speeches, except by invitation of the Presidium. It cannot do these things, there are almost 3000 members and they meet at most two weeks every year.

In practice, although the final votes on laws of the NPC often return a high affirmative vote, a great deal of legislative activity occurs in determining the content of the legislation to be voted on.

What is the source of this statement? What is meant by "often receive a high affirmative vote"? Has the NPC ever rejected a motion put before it? What is meant by "legislative activity"? With no hearings, debates, or speeches, except from a handful of people, usually not delegates, how is "legislative" business conducted?

With respect to proposals by the State Council of the People's Republic of China, the NPC has rejected a bill on maritime safety

Unsourced, the three references at the end of this sentence do not mention a word about a maritime safety bill, and untrue if "rejected" is supposed to mean that a majority of the NPC voted against the bill when it was presented. This has never happened.

it is no longer uncommon for the State Council to amend or withdraw a bill on account of NPC opposition as with the case of the fuel tax and the draft food safety law which have been repeatedly blocked by the NPC.

How did the NPC block these bills? On the web-page cited for the fuel tax, it says "Opposition from certain government departments is another key reason China has not yet adopted a national fuel taxation mechanism." This has nothing to do with the NPC. When departments disagree with each other, it is not resolved at the NPC. What do you think, departments lobby NPC delegates to vote for their proposals? Show one reference for such an idea.

In general then, this article presents the false impression that the NPC writes laws. The NPC Organic Law only mentions what it does when it receives proposals or bills. When the Presidium decides to present proposals or bills to the NPC, the NPC votes on them, and in every vote since the NPC was established in 1954 it has approved them. Rgr09 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Hangzhou, Shao Zhanwei 邵占维, chair of the Zhejiang delegation to the 12th session of the NPC, died of a heart attack on March 6, 2013, on the second day of first meeting of the NPC. Since he has not yet been replaced, there are currently only 2986 delegates. Rgr09 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally stated that 70 percent of the delegates were CCP members. This figure is for the 11th Congress, based on the following official estimate: CCP members 2099, non-partisan and other parties 888. Since this information is now out of date, I have removed it. My own count for the 12th Congress, based on the NPC database, is CCP members, 2157, undeclared 452 (the database entry for party is blank), non-partisan (无党派) 4, and the other 8 parties, 374. From these figures it seems that 72 percent of the delegates are CCP members, while the other parties hold only 12.5 percent. However, there is as yet no official announcement of these figures. In addition, it seems that some of the undeclared delegates are CCP members (I've found 2 so far), and some delegates listed as from the other 8 parties include CCP members with dual party membership, or even CCP members who hold an official position in another party but are in fact not members of that party! Rgr09 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC) (Fixed percentages) Rgr09 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article originally included the following sentence:

However, for most of its existence, the NPC has acted as a nearly powerless rubber-stamp legislature, ratifying decisions that have already been made by the Communist Party of China and the country's executive organs. This has long been typical of legislatures in Communist countries.

This sentence has now been deleted by an editor who commented: "no evidence, no explanation, no reasoning even. NPOV violation" In fact, the NPC is the epitome of a rubber-stamp organ. In nearly 70 years of existence, it has not once rejected a single measure, motion, law, or candidate presented to it. This is what rubber-stamp means. The NPC closely reflects the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, which also in over 50 years of operation never once rejected a measure, motion, or candidate. The comparison of the NPC to political organs such as the SSSU is thus very apt. The original sentence was in no way NPOV, just a simple statement of fact. However, the sentence that immediately followed it, and was not deleted, reads:

Since the 1990s, the NPC has become a forum for mediating policy differences between different parts of the Party, the government, and groups of society.

This vague statement on "forums" and "mediating" has no evidence, no explanation, no reasoning even. More important, it has no source. I suggest therefore that the original sentence be reinstated and the one following it be deleted. Hoping for comments, otherwise I'll just go ahead and edit it. Rgr09 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between abstaining and not voting? 68.145.210.83 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference for the relative size of the PLA delegation in the NPC. As noted, the PLA has 268 out of 2987 (8.97%) delegates in the 12th NPC. The next biggest delegation is Shandong's 175 delegates (5.86%) In case you don't understand the meaning of this, there are approximately 2.8 million PLA soldiers and officers. The total population of Shandong in 2014 was 97,330,000. If there is a problem with these numbers or with the way they are integrated into the article, please comment here before changing. Do not just delete and write "bullshit" in your edit summary. Rgr09 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National People's Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714024016/http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/3073_npcandthesecuritieslaw.pdf to http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/3073_npcandthesecuritieslaw.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811124144/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18214265.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18214265.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Food Law and Fuel Tax Law were obstructed by the NPC are not supported in the articles cited. I have deleted these claims. The article's description of legislative procedures in China remains completely unsourced. Rgr09 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the third or forth time, criticisms of the NPC as a rubber-stamp legislature have been removed. This is not how WP:NPOV is achieved. If you believe there is a better place for the criticisms or better descriptions of the criticisms, please take a shot at it, but deleting all mention of these criticisms is not a reasonable solution. Rgr09 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally contained the following paragraph:

The NPC has not always endorsed legislation placed before it. In 1993, the NPC refused to consider constitutional amendments proposed by the Chinese Communist Party on the grounds that non-governmental organizations such as the CCP do not have authority to propose legislation. Also in 1994, the Eighth National People's Congress Standing Committee included "Income and Property Law," in the official legislative plan, but was not able to bring it to a vote due to opposition. Also efforts to impose a national gasoline tax to finance construction of the tollways met with opposition and it has been difficult for both the Communist Party of China and the State Council to pass such a tax through the National People's Congress.

The 1993 claim is unsourced, and nonsensical to me. When did the NPC say that the CCP does not have authority to propose legislation? The idea is bizarre. The 1994 claim is backed up with an incomprehensible machine translation of a Chinese article. As far as I can tell, the gasoline tax story is not a problem with the NPC, the problem was that the various State Council departments could not agree on a proposal. If someone has a real article on this, please cite it! In summary, the claim that the NPC rejected a bill that was presented to it seems to have no reliable basis. Rgr09 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NPC is a unicameral body; it is not divided into two parts, unlike the British Parliament or the U.S. Congress. The fact that the full NPC meets only once a year, while its Standing Committee meets monthly does not make it a bicameral assembly. Nor does it make sense to describe the full NPC as a 'temporary' body and the Standing Committee as a 'permanent' body. Infobox edited accordingly. Rgr09 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this.

The NPC mainly exists to give legal sanction to decisions already made at the highest levels of the government.

The Politburo, State Council (i.e. the government), and the NPC are separate, and the State Council and NPC have often had conflicting relationships.

In the opening section there is the sentence

'Western media sources commonly describe the NPC as a de facto rubber stamping body while some academic sources have asserted that the NPC has recently emerged as an independent and influential force in Chinese politics.'

Both academic sources cited are from over twenty years ago, is it possible to either find updated sources making the claim or remove references to these claims being 'recent'?

I am deleting the middle paragraph in the middle because it is copy-pasted from the "Powers and Duties" section. Elishop (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The opinion should be trimmed, but there should be no problem with redundancy in MOS:LEAD with regard to content that is WP:DUE. Normchou ^💬 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Elishop (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I feel some of the ^{[non-primary source needed]} tags are therefore unnecessary. For instance, the leading paragraph:

The National People's Congress (NPC) is the national legislature of the People's Republic of China. With 2,980 members in 2023, it is the largest legislative body in the world. The NPC is elected for a term of five years. It holds annual sessions every spring, usually lasting from 10 to 14 days, in the Great Hall of the People on the west side of Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

By simply Googling "China NPC how many members", "China NPC term length", "China NPC when are sessions held", and "China NPC where are sessions held", all claims made in this paragraph can be verified (Al Jazeera and NPC Observer pop up the most for me).

Or, take the final paragraph of the summary:

Under China's Constitution, the NPC is structured as a unicameral legislature, with the power to amend the Constitution, legislate and oversee the operations of the government, and elect the major officers of the National Commission of Supervision, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Central Military Commission, and the state.

Again, Googling "China NPC Powers" turns up two results, one by the University of Michigan and another by Harvard University, confirming this. Besides, if the claim in question is about the powers permitted under the Consitution, and the source is the Constitution itself, it seems redundant and unnecessary to require a non-primary source. ARADPLAUG (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amigao! I noticed that you had recently reverted an edit I had made to this article. Can you please provide some details for the revert? Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it said it was established in 1954, the National Assembly which was the republic of china in mainland was replaced in 1949!, and if you look National Assembly (Republic of China) its succesor is i fact Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference from 1949 to 1954 Gooduserdude (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]