Hacker News Reader

Comment by temp8964 | Hacker News Reader

I am glad this website, unlike many other websites and news reports, does not call him "President". In fact, he is not a president in any sense. In Chinese, he is never called a "President". He is the General Secretary of the CCP, the National Chairman of the PRC. He is NOT a President.

By calling him a President, the western government and media is legitimizing a dictator.

Some point out that the CCP wants him to be called as President in English, but the simple fact is that President = 总统 in Chinese, and Chairman = 主席. There is zero ambiguity here. It's just a CCP word game. If the CCP really really really want to call him as a President, try call him as 总统 in Chinese first.

View on HN

Even if he were formally a President I don’t see how your last point would follow. Many dictators have had the title of President.

Those dictators are usually (not all) from countries where they have fake election, and they are called President in their country. China does not even have a fake election for a fake President.

The page does call him president in the photo description, "Chinese President Xi Jinping delivers his speech in Beijing on Thursday. "

> He is NOT a President.

The English of version gov.cn, names him as president rather than chairman. http://english1.english.gov.cn/2013-03/14/content_2353971.ht...

He is formally President of the People's Republic of China.

He is also Chairman of the Central Military Commission, though my understanding is that these go hand in hand.

He is also General Secretary of the Communist Party, so in the the context of the speech I suppose that this may be the most fitting title.

Edit: In response to temp8964 (reply to this comment):

What's the difference between Chairman and President in your translation of that title?

I understand that 主席 often (always?) refers to committees, etc, which may be translated as 'chairman' because of that. But really the difference between 'president' and 'chairman' is etymology and usage rather than strict definition, like is often the case in English: 2 words meaning the same thing with one of Latin/French origin and 'posher' and one of Anglo-Saxon origin.

A chairman presides. A president presides.

The usage seems to be that a chairman presides a committee and that a president presides a government.

Does he want to be be called president? Or was it decided that this was a better contextual translation?

This is arguing over nothing, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People's_Repu...

No. He wants to be called as the President of the People's Republic of China, but in fact he is the Chairman (国家主席) of China.

Add: another thing you forgot, historically, the PRC head is always called chairman. Have you heard of Chairman Mao? Changing chairman to president is CCP's intentional effort in the word game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Re...

You know you're entering political realm when you're arguing over semantics.

What difference does it make? Turns out those who cry out against propaganda are just peddling their own version of propaganda.

I hope there can be an completely objective outlet that simply does not allow any opinion. Just the facts, no more and no less, but by the looks of it that's going to get much subscription if at all. If anything Facebook sort of showed us what this new age of news are going to be, and it's not in the direction of objectivity.

It's sadly an impossibility. Simply choosing which facts to present in which order will always be an ideological decision.

The best that can be done is a clear and well defined ideological and interest bias and good knowledge of these ideologies combined with variety of sources.

Also head of the important Central Military Commission which controls the PLA.

Western govts are making peace with the Taliban. And deals with lunatic Ayatollahs. No idea what cred Westerns govts have anymore and more importantly cant see what they can even do to restore some cred.

He is the president towards other nations.

Since his power does not go beyond what a nation's president does towards other nations.

Of course he is far more domestic power than some countries' president (and far less than even more).

But is he a dictator? At least not based on any common sense. I mean, Joe Biden called Puttin a killer. If Xi is a dictator, I bet Joe Biden would at least mention that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com