绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败 - CAS 调查报告

ffgg123

原创]揭开CAS的面纱
刘女士的一个求助贴和安省总审计长的一份审计报告，使得安省儿童援助协会(CHILDREN‘S AID SOCIETY OF ONTARIO，简称CAS)在近期内成了一个热门话题。讨论热闹非凡，各种各样的意见很多，有的还带有很强烈的情绪。这是不常见的，显示出大家对这个机构的关注远远超过其他机构。这也不奇怪。牵涉到孩子的问题，谁不关心？尤其是为人父母者。可是，CAS究竟是一个怎样的机构？它的存在及其所拥有的巨大权力的法理依据何在？它是怎样组织和运作的？什么样的行为构成虐待？家长有哪些责任？这些至为重要的问题，却似乎尚不为人所广泛了解。不了解这些问题，讨论就不会有意义。而家长们更需要这方面的知识，不但是为了避免触犯法律，避免与这个机构产生不必要的麻烦，也是为了自行或利用这个机构增进孩子和家庭的福利。为此，我专门作了一些研究，对以上问题有了一些初浅的了解，拿出来与大家分享，希望能有所助益。需要特别指出的是，这些只是我个人的理解，切勿当作专业意见。热切希望专家们，特别是PEELBOY网友指正。此外，这些都只是资料汇集，不带任何主观评价和结论。

以下是对这个机构的一个简介：
一、简史

1874年以前，对需要社会帮助的儿童只有两条服务渠道。对大部分儿童来说，只有被判罪才能得到服务。这一刑事系统是由政府出资的。其他对穷人或被忽略儿童的服务则仰赖于私人捐款和义务人员的协助。弃儿和孤儿则可以充当学徒来交换童工。按照今天的标准，这些渠道都是不足够的。

1874年，慈善机构经立法被允许作出干预来防止儿童学徒工受虐待。费用由这些组织与政府分摊。1888年省议会通过<<被忽略儿童保护及教养法>>，允许法院指定有关机构及慈善组织对儿童进行监护，费用由政府承担。该法案亦鼓励监护家庭作为监护机构的替代选择。

在这一立法的基础上，著名改革家J. J. Kelso 于1891年帮助组建了CAS of Toronto，并且推动通过了一项新的立法(1893年)：<<加强保护儿童及防止残酷对待儿童法>>。根据这项法案，CAS成为半官方机构，有法定权力把儿童从家中带走，在市立”避难所”监督和管理这些孩子，并向市政府收取监护费用。从此CAS取得了法定监护人的法律地位和特权。

从1891至1912，安省涌现了60家CAS。它们于1912年走到一起成立了安省儿童援助协会。该协会的主要目的是提升儿童福利并协调各分会工作。该协会请求有机会在所有有关儿童福利的议案提交立法前对它们进行审视，并得到了这个机会。历经数年，数项新的儿童福利法案获通过—-分别于1921，1954，及1965，最新的是于1984年通过的<<儿童与家庭服务法>>。这些立法方面的进展，导致了数项趋势：由义务机构转向专业服务体制；省政府承担了提供儿童服务的直接责任，并通过公共财援、代理机构汇报和省府监督来完成这一职责；由机构和保护导向转向非机构和预防导
向。

二、CAS的组织形式和运作程序

省府具体负责儿童服务的部门是青少年服务部(the Ministry of Children and Youth Services)。该部与现有的53家CAS订立合约，提供法定的儿童服务。合同要求CAS做到：

1，调查16岁以下青少年可能需要保护的指控或证据；

2，必要时通过在居民或非居民处所提供所需协助，看护和监管，保护16岁以下青少年(服务一直持续到18岁，除非当事人自己要求中断)；

3，当儿童遭受虐待或忽略，或有其他风险时，配合家庭提供指引，咨询及其他服务；
4，安排儿童接受领养。

这些服务必须及时、到位，不存在等候清单(WAITING LIST)。

根据总审计长的审计报告，CAS的资金完全来自省府。但实际上，一些民间非盈利组，如儿童援助基金，也向CAS提供资金。

各CAS由一独立的董事会管制。董事由各CAS所在社区选出。他们应对儿童福利特别有兴趣，并具所需技能。他们应反映社区意见，指导并协助日常运作。所有董事均义务服务。

CAS的日常运作由董事会和青少年服务部共同聘用的管理人员负责。完成日常职责的主要工作人员是受过专门训练的，合格的社工。

CAS的服务，始于接听并回应求助电话。该机构主要处理三种来电：

1，专业人士或其他任何人士报告疑为虐待或忽略的事件；

2，家庭因管束孩子有困难而来电求助；

3，儿童在家里遇到问题时来电求助。

法律要求以下两种情况必须向CAS报告：

任何人有合理的理由怀疑发生了虐待行为时及儿童工作人员怀疑孩子为受害者时。不报者会被罚款。

CAS接到来电后，即根据安省”儿童保护风险评估模式”及”儿童福利合格标准系列”对所指控的虐待或忽略进行调查。风险评估主要考虑以下因素：

个案是否符合儿童保护服务的标准；

孩子现在是否安全；

对孩子安全的顾虑是否已经验证；

孩子是否需要保护；

是否存在孩子将来受到虐待或忽略的风险。

然后CAS会提供支持咨询，尽可能将孩子留在家中。

如果有充分证据支持所提的指控，CAS会告知调查结果。

如果一个家庭不能看护自己的孩子，CAS将接管孩子的抚养，或经家长同意，或通过法院命令。

CAS可寻求亲戚或其他合格人士向孩子提供短期看护。

CAS将继续向该家庭提供协助，鼓励家人探访并最终达到家人团聚。唯一的例外是孩子被收归政府监护。CAS会尽一切努力最终达到家人团聚。

CAS对孩子的看护，主要由”监护家庭(FOSTER HOMES)”或”集体家庭(GROUP HOMES)”承担。这些家庭都在孩子家庭所在社区附近，经挑选能够在家庭危机时期提供看护。这样的安排通常是短期的，均有通过一段时期的定期咨询和访问后将孩子归还自然家庭的计划。如果家庭情况不能恢复到正常状态，作为一个万不得已的最终方案，法庭可判孩子归政府收养。在这种情况下，会制定一个关于孩子的永久性计划。

根据法律要求，每个CAS必须建立一套投诉机制。任何人或家庭若对CAS的服务不满意，可循程序进行投诉。要了解这些程序，既可询问个案负责社工，也可向所属地区CAS索取。

除儿童保护外，CAS还提供孕妇协助和领养服务。

三、虐待的认定

虐待分四大类：身体虐待，性虐待，精神虐待和忽略。

1，身体虐待

指由于看护人的行为或不行为引起对孩子的肉体造成伤害。主要身体标志为：

青肿；鞭痕；割伤；断裂；烫伤及内伤。

主要行为标志：

不能回忆伤痛是如何发生的或作出的解释不一致；对成人有恐惧感；受到意外触碰时表现出畏缩或退缩；极端的好斗或孤僻。

2，性虐待

指较儿童年长的人任何利用儿童来达到自己性目的的行为。刑法指出了多种此类行为，主要有：

性干预；邀请性接触；对儿童的性利用；家长或监护人与孩子进行性活动；家主允许性活动；向儿童暴露生殖器。

主要行为特征：

玩与年龄不符的玩具；自我或向他人展示露骨的性行动；对性作出与年龄不符的，露骨的描画或表述；离奇的，成熟的或异乎寻常的性知识；卖淫；引诱行为。

主要身体特征：

生殖器部位痒得异乎寻常；破碎，带污迹或血迹的内裤；怀孕；生殖器部位的伤痕；性病。

3，精神虐待

指导致儿童缺乏良好精神成长环境的所有行为或不行为。这种持续以带负面影响的方式对待孩子的行为使孩子的”自我”概念受到重创。这些行为主要包括：

持续的高声呵斥；蓄意贬低的评论；排斥、忽略或孤立孩子；或恐吓孩子。

精神虐待是最难加以证实的。

主要行为特征：

严重的压抑；极端的孤僻或好斗；过度的服从，有礼，整洁，干净；过度寻求关注；极端的自我抑制。

主要身体特征：

非病理性尿床；常发的精神性身体不适，头晕，恶心；发育不正常。

4，忽略

指看护者未能满足基本需求，如适量的食物，睡眠，安全，监管，衣着及就医。大多数看护者不会故意忽略孩子的需要，一般都是因为忽视了适当的看护或没有能力计划在先。

主要行为特征：

苍白，注意力不集中，蓬头垢面；经常逃学；肮脏或不适时的衣着；从事违法活动，酗酒，吸毒；常忘吃午餐。

主要身体特征：

不卫生；身体问题和医药需求未得到处理，如牙病，眼镜等；长期得不到监管。

需要特别注意的是，以上所列只是主要特征或行为，而非全部。同时，单独一个特征不一定构成虐待。

四，孩子可以被单独留在家中的法定年龄

<<儿童及家庭服务法>>并未规定孩子可以被单独留在家中的年龄，亦未规定一个青少年可监管或照看其他儿童的年龄。因为单独年龄一个因素不足以构成监管儿童的安全保障。

因此，该法只是笼统地规定，对十六岁以下青少年负有看护责任的，只有在作出当时情形下合理的保障措施后才能离开。否则便构成省级违法，最多可判罚一千块或坐监一年。

此外，刑法规定了弃儿罪。若任何人非法弃置十岁以下儿童或置其于危险境地，使其面临或很可能面临生命危险，或其健康很可能受到永久性伤害，可被判不超过两年的监禁。

参考网站：

http://www.oacas.org/resources/whatisacas.htm

http://www.oacas.org/resources/CAS%...20Ap02Mar03.pdf

http://www.casmt.on.ca/

西西里岛

"12岁以下小孩不能单独放在家中" 是没有根据的?

LuckyTree

In the following investigative piece, we learn that:

1) Child protective administrators put pressure on CAS workers to remove children for flimsy or non-existent reasons;

2) That 50% of children in foster care should not have been removed from their homes;

3) That the child welfare system is driven exclusively by money and that children are removed from their homes because
of funding incentives.

4) That the money trail explains why the system descriminates against poor families and families of color

5) Some parents suing for wrongful removal of children who were later abused in foster care.

6) The foster care system makes Charles Dickens' descriptions look flattering."

7) The experts determined more than 50% of the children in
foster care should not have been removed from their homes.

8) That a child protective worker says 50% of the calls investigated by the agency are completely bogus -- the results of disgrunted neighbors and family members calling the hotline with a grudge against the parents.

9) That major, sweeping reform is needed.

It won't be long, now.

弄舟的文章只不过是CAS自我宣传的翻译，就象那些贪官污吏的自我宣传一样。独立审计局及很多主流媒体已揭露CAS实际所作所为并非他们所言。到目前为止安省并没有一个有效的监察机构可以监督他们。他们自己的投诉系统是蒙目之说。
安省儿童部已宣布下月将设立一办公室监管CAS，让我们拭目以待。
关于CAS是否真是按他们所自我表白的那样做，看我转贴的TORONTO STAR的文章即可略知一二。可惜的是我没有时间将文章翻译成中文。
In the last year, Ontario's children's aid societies have provided services to 317,000 children and completed over 82,000 investigations into allegations of abuse or neglect. Nearly 30,000 children were taken into foster or group home care。
以上数据摘录于STAR报12月9日文章。
请大家用脑筋想一想，真是一年就有那么多儿童受到严重虐待吗？如果真是那安省居民真成了出类拔萃的高虐儿居民群了。

箱根

最初由[ffgg123]发布
中国人为什么那么固执和不接受教训

peelboy用了那么多时间只是想告诉所有的新移民儿童保护结构是一个怎样的机构，最重要的不要对这个机构有误会，千万不要误会是以骗取儿童来问政府要钱！万一有保护机构的人员出现在你家当时候，要正确对待，不要误会他们是来找你麻烦，不要冲动，控制自己的情绪，不要用中国式的方法对待任何政府工作人员，
否则你会给自己带来很多麻烦。
每一个机构都不可能是完美的，peelboy只是想告诉我们什么是儿童保护机构，难道我们不能理解他的苦心，谢谢你peelboy，希望可以再看见你！

对不起，您给大家的感觉太做，虽然肯定不是peelboy的马甲，但是她肯定也不喜欢你这般的“崇拜”。请be yourself.

何从何去

最初由[LuckyTree]发布
In the following investigative piece, we learn that:

1) Child protective administrators put pressure on CAS workers to remove children for flimsy or non-existent reasons;

2) That 50% of children in foster care should not have been removed from their homes;

3) That the child welfare system is driven exclusively by money and that children are removed from their homes because
of funding incentives.

4) That the money trail explains why the system descriminates against poor families and families of color

5) Some parents suing for wrongful removal of children who were later abused in foster care.

6) The foster care system makes Charles Dickens' descriptions look flattering."

7) The experts determined more than 50% of the children in
foster care should not have been removed from their homes.

8) That a child protective worker says 50% of the calls investigated by the agency are completely bogus -- the results of disgrunted neighbors and family members calling the hotline with a grudge against the parents.

9) That major, sweeping reform is needed.

It won't be long, now.

弄舟的文章只不过是CAS自我宣传的翻译，就象那些贪官污吏的自我宣传一样。独立审计局及很多主流媒体已揭露CAS实际所作所为并非他们所言。到目前为止安省并没有一个有效的监察机构可以监督他们。他们自己的投诉系统是蒙目之说。
安省儿童部已宣布下月将设立一办公室监管CAS，让我们拭目以待。
关于CAS是否真是按他们所自我表白的那样做，看我转贴的TORONTO STAR的文章即可略知一二。可惜的是我没有时间将文章翻译成中文。
In the last year, Ontario's children's aid societies have provided services to 317,000 children and completed over 82,000 investigations into allegations of abuse or neglect. Nearly 30,000 children were taken into foster or group home care。
以上数据摘录于STAR报12月9日文章。
请大家用脑筋想一想，真是一年就有那么多儿童受到严重虐待吗？如果真是那安省居民真成了出类拔萃的高虐儿居民群了。

CAS罪行累累，应该解散，由政府管理的幼儿园代替。

PeelBoy

最初由[箱根]发布
回复：中国人为什么那么固执和不接受教训



对不起，您给大家的感觉太做，虽然肯定不是peelboy的马甲，但是她肯定也不喜欢你这般的“崇拜”。请be yourself.



Could somebody tell me what 马甲 is, please and thanks?

2 years ago, I went to Beijing to visit a friend.  (For my vacation.  I never had any "free trip").  Air Canada played a Hong Kong movie.  Guess what!  I had difficulties understanding the language, including the accent, the tone and the "fashionable" terms, and the values and behaviour.  It was like watching a foreign movie.

I bet time has changed, and so have I.

PeelBoy

最初由[蔡教练]发布


CAS罪行累累，应该解散，由政府管理的幼儿园代替。


Child welfare is a social institution, or part of the social infrastructure, like police, school and health care.  When we hear a school teacher sexually abuses his students, are we going to dismantle the education system?

I don't know about you, but I know for sure CAS will live longer than me.  

Without CAS, Ontario will become the first society in an English speaking country including UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand without a child protection system.

Every now and then, we hear Chinese clash with the local child protection agency.  There were 2 in the past 3 months: one in California and the other in New York.  Go to Backchina to check out the details.

The question is why.

PeelBoy

最初由[LuckyTree]发布
In the following investigative piece, we learn that:

1) Child protective administrators put pressure on CAS workers to remove children for flimsy or non-existent reasons;

2) That 50% of children in foster care should not have been removed from their homes;

3) That the child welfare system is driven exclusively by money and that children are removed from their homes because
of funding incentives.

4) That the money trail explains why the system descriminates against poor families and families of color

5) Some parents suing for wrongful removal of children who were later abused in foster care.

6) The foster care system makes Charles Dickens' descriptions look flattering."

7) The experts determined more than 50% of the children in
foster care should not have been removed from their homes.

8) That a child protective worker says 50% of the calls investigated by the agency are completely bogus -- the results of disgrunted neighbors and family members calling the hotline with a grudge against the parents.

9) That major, sweeping reform is needed.

It won't be long, now.

弄舟的文章只不过是CAS自我宣传的翻译，就象那些贪官污吏的自我宣传一样。独立审计局及很多主流媒体已揭露CAS实际所作所为并非他们所言。到目前为止安省并没有一个有效的监察机构可以监督他们。他们自己的投诉系统是蒙目之说。
安省儿童部已宣布下月将设立一办公室监管CAS，让我们拭目以待。
关于CAS是否真是按他们所自我表白的那样做，看我转贴的TORONTO STAR的文章即可略知一二。可惜的是我没有时间将文章翻译成中文。
In the last year, Ontario's children's aid societies have provided services to 317,000 children and completed over 82,000 investigations into allegations of abuse or neglect. Nearly 30,000 children were taken into foster or group home care。
以上数据摘录于STAR报12月9日文章。
请大家用脑筋想一想，真是一年就有那么多儿童受到严重虐待吗？如果真是那安省居民真成了出类拔萃的高虐儿居民群了。


For an intellectual debate, we use facts, numbers and logical reasoning to support our argument.  Let's do that.

1) Child protective administrators put pressure on CAS workers to remove children for flimsy or non-existent reasons;   

As an administrator, I don't know what you mean and where your source of information is from.  To remove a child, CAS must take the case to court.  The judge, the child's lawyer, the parents' lawyer and the child's advocacy office are all watching.  Do you mean all these people are corrupted?  Regardless the number of children coming into care, I will receive a fixed salary, without any bonus whatsoever.

2) That 50% of children in foster care should not have been removed from their homes;   

Where did you get the statistics, if it is a statistics?  I am aware there was any research done lately on this issue. If there is, the measurement tool needs to be reliable and valid. The issue of so many children coming into our care is the introduction of Ontario Risk Assessment Model and the amended Child and Family Services Act.  Under the old act, CAS will have to proof substantial and imminent risk, but under the new act, to proof imminent risk.  Queens Park made the law; CAS does operation.  Please blame your MPP you voted into power. The ORAM is a deficit based model, with focus on forensic investigation and parental deficit.  Risk assessment is very popular in New York, California, British Columbia and Alberta.  After the few years, all the side effects are showing, which is why states and provinces in North America are trying to switch to a strength based model (the Differential Response in Ontario).

3) That the child welfare system is driven exclusively by money and that children are removed from their homes because
of funding incentives.   

The answer is no.  If you have read my posts, you should have tossed in arguments, not an accusation.  Before 1998, CAS was funded by the Ontario government (about 70%), the city government and donation.  Some regions, like those in 905 areas including York and Peel, were severely under-funded that their service was jeopardized.  The Ontario government started funding 100% in 1998, and of course the amount will increase from like 70 cents to a dollar.  Nobody mentioned how much the city government saved.  The other reason is violence against women.  Before 1998, VAW was not considered as a reason for child protection intervention.  The ORAM required CAS intervention to protect the children suffering from domestic violence, and VAW now has become the top reason for opening.  This is new service.  To cut down CAS funding, simply tell CAS to stop intervening when a woman is abused by her husband, while their children are present.  The third reason is children with special needs.  The government under-funds children with chronic health problem, e.g. autistic children and asks CAS to place them in care.  The per diem for these children is like $400 per day.  3 years ago, there was a lawsuit against the Ontario government, because the parents will have to abandon the child to get help the child needs, but there is the only law in Ontario to accommodate their needs.

I have said it many times a child in care means a financial loss.  I argued in the previous post that funding from investigation is used to subsidize children in care.  The first page of Chapter 3 of the Auditor General's report says more than half of the budget ($317.7 million + $334 million in 2005-5) went to per diem to care for children in care.  These numbers do not include other costs, e.g. clothing and medication and staff salary.

Figure 9 to 12 of the same chapter talk about the per diem and funding relationship.  For a child placed in a group home, CAS receives on average $175 per day from the Ministry but has to pay from $217 to $238 per day to the group home operator (a non CAS organization with arm's length approved by the Ministry).  A child in a group home for a day translates into a net loss of $42 to $63.  For a child placed in foster home, CAS on average receives $39.71 but has to pay from $30.65 to $71.04.  That is from a gain of $9.05 to a loss of $71.33.

In a nutshell, for CAS to make a "profit", the best way is to discharge all children from care.  How to cut down on group care days is the hottest topic in CAS?  Any genius who can resolve the issue will become the most senior executive will an SUV for sure.

Such a problem also exists in all child protection jurisdictions in North America.

PeelBoy

4) That the money trail explains why the system descriminates against poor families and families of color   

I do and I don't agree with you.  Though there is a small number of middle class clients, majority of CAS clients are from poor families and immigrant communities.  However, go to a welfare office, a mental health clinic and a subsidized housing, you will find unreasonably high numbers of poor new immigrants.  In Sociology, they call it the culture of poverty and multi-generations will stay there while education cannot do much.  From a macro statistical perspective, education is linear dependent on family background for social mobility, so the richer will become the richer.  Don't tell me Bill Gates has done something different.  Please compare the number of Bill Gates and the number of those living in poverty.  CAS clientile, like those in social service, represents those struggling with living, and unfortunately, abusing their children becomes part of their "coping" strategies.

5) Some parents suing for wrongful removal of children who were later abused in foster care.

It is a fact that in CAS history, some children were abused in foster homes.  Every societal system, including foster care, represents the society.  When a society is sick, the foster care system is not exempted.  Every year, CAS investigates a number of foster parents, school teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses, and even CAS staff (by peer agency to avoid conflict of interest).  These professionals may lose their licence of practice once abuse is verified.  However, does it mean we don't send our kids to school, don't go to a hospital when we are sick and don't report a crime to a police officer.  Logically, that does not make sense.

6) The foster care system makes Charles Dickens' descriptions look flattering."   

I am not educated, so don't know who Charles Dickens is.  Why don't you go talk to him at Yorkshire, England?

7) The experts determined more than 50% of the children in
foster care should not have been removed from their homes.   

Repeated in #2.  Who is the expert?  Why don't you invite him/her over to overhaul Ontario child protection?


8) That a child protective worker says 50% of the calls investigated by the agency are completely bogus -- the results of disgrunted neighbors and family members calling the hotline with a grudge against the parents.   

For the first time, I agree with you, except that I would like to change the number from 50% to 80%.  Sorry, I am too lazy to search for the exact statistics, but would like to argue based on my memory.  Out of 100 investigation, CAS usually verifies about 20% of the abuse and admits about 2 to 3% of children who are in need of protection.

This is like "cry wolf".  Everyday, we receive phone calls from parents who have separated and are in the process of a custody dispute that their children are being abused by the other parents.  We know it is a "cry wolf", but so what, we have to investigate.  If you don't trust me, call 911 and report a fire at home.  I promise you the fire truck will come every time you call.  There are neighbour who don't like you may report to us you hit your son, and we have to rush out.  "Cry wolf" is being tolerated in every law enforcement because we can't afford the risk.

9) That major, sweeping reform is needed.   

The question is how.  Go to www.jobs.un.org, because the United Nations is hiring child protection workers and a lot of them are from Ontario, Canada because of our reputation.  If you know how to fix Ontario child welfare, you will get an executive job with United nations, with a package over US$250,000.

请大家用脑筋想一想，真是一年就有那么多儿童受到严重虐待吗？如果真是那安省居民真成了出类拔萃的高虐儿居民群了。

I also would like to urge everyone to think about it.  Child abuse happens everywhere in the world.  Canada, USA, Australia, UK and New Zealand apparently have the highest rates because they all document child abuse cases and intervene appropriately.  The incidence rates in China and India are much lower.  Who cares about child abuse in these countries?

I have said that above incidence and admission depend on ORAM and CFSA.  Change the law so the number of children in CAS care will go down.  Just like if you don't like police intervention when you hit your wife, change the law so that you can legally abuse them and the incidence rate of violence against women will drop for sure.

Every Mother's Day, we are showered with congratulations and blessing, but we never reflect if we are good moms or not.

palwang2000

据一个对比例子。共产党宣言以及中国共产党相关章程读起来要比资本主义的制度好的多多了。那为什么实现不了呢？中国国民党做的最有意义的一件事是什么，引进多党竞争。还是让我们拭目以待CAS的监管机构吧。当然我不希望出现，象共产党体制下的纪检委。   所谓固执让我想起了加拿大最大的固执应该是保守党，同性恋都法律化了，他们还要提起重新审核，可见那些说中国人固执的人才是真固执。

PeelBoy

最初由[palwang2000]发布
据一个对比例子。共产党宣言以及中国共产党相关章程读起来要比资本主义的制度好的多多了。那为什么实现不了呢？中国国民党做的最有意义的一件事是什么，引进多党竞争。还是让我们拭目以待CAS的监管机构吧。当然我不希望出现，象共产党体制下的纪检委。   所谓固执让我想起了加拿大最大的固执应该是保守党，同性恋都法律化了，他们还要提起重新审核，可见那些说中国人固执的人才是真固执。


Could somebody speak Chinese to interpret the above for me please?  CAS hired me years ago because they thought I speak the language and know the culture to help the Chinese community.  Probably they are wrong, one of the many "mistakes" they have made.

Probably, I have to re-study Logic 101 to understand what the above means.

May be we can break it down to 5:

1. Comparing communism and capitalism with China as an application;

2. Politics in Taiwan: KMT and diversity;

3. CAS and check and balance;

4. PC and positive space;

5. Chinese quality and culture.

Everyone of these will make a good PhD topic, but I am just not intelligent enough to link them together.

WTTO

最初由[palwang2000]发布
据一个对比例子。共产党宣言以及中国共产党相关章程读起来要比资本主义的制度好的多多了。那为什么实现不了呢？中国国民党做的最有意义的一件事是什么，引进多党竞争。还是让我们拭目以待CAS的监管机构吧。当然我不希望出现，象共产党体制下的纪检委。   所谓固执让我想起了加拿大最大的固执应该是保守党，同性恋都法律化了，他们还要提起重新审核，可见那些说中国人固执的人才是真固执。

固执是每个人的权利，只要你能面对和承担它带来的后果。
保守党就做到了，明知不能为而为之，也许它明年还要提这个议案，那就叫屡败屡战。
以后不提了，就叫愿赌服输。

palwang2000

really? kidding? what I say has the same meaning as the title(绝对的权利导致绝对的腐败). I think any country, any party and any orgnization must go wrong without monitoring.

无忧的闲人

世界上凡是有人的地方都一样。

ffgg123

1.ffgg白痴，你翻贴子回去看，我早跟你说不要跟我贴。我跟这里每个持积极态度的辩论者一样，跟医院有医死人一样存在一样，没有任何人说要取缔CAS的言论。那么用纳税人的钱的任何人和机构，不需要纳税人的评价和议论吗？再次给你警告你这白痴，不要跟我的贴。箱根
2.白色至上的G/L/B，你的“白--血和事业的高尚”让你智障都无法区分谴责和谩骂。回头复习你的贴子，你的complaint的领导的桌子上很快就会有这些东西。箱根

51 论坛的朋友，这是在加拿大的自由论坛上还是在中国文化大革命的年代，吓死我了，还好我没有说我们公司的坏话，否则可能在圣诞的时候失去工作，好害怕，朋友告诉你们这个秘密要小心"箱根"，记住"箱根"，不要胡说八道