China Digital Times

CHINA NEWS SECTION: Society

• Yu Jianrong (于建嵘): Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability (Part 8)

  

  Dr. Yu Jianrong (于建嵘), chairman of the Social Issues Research Center of the Rural Development Institute of the China Academy of Social Sciences, delivered a speech entitled “Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability” before the Beijing Lawyers Association on December 26, 2009. This is part 8 of the CDT translation, here are part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7:

  Not long ago something really interesting happened. In Guangxi, the director of an Office of Letters and Visits [in charge of handling petitions to higher levels of government] himself became a petitioner to a higher level of government. His home had been demolished. Who here with us today is willing to stand up and say that his or her rights have been completely protected? No one. That is because we don’t have these clearly defined rights. That is because someone can think up some way to turn your legally protected rights into rights with no legal protection.

  Actually there’s nothing terrible about disputes. All modern societies have lots of disputes. However the [key] to whether a society is or is not harmonious is whether there is an authoritative judicial system. It doesn’t matter if you are in the West or in Taiwan; what do they do if there is a dispute? They will tell you that they will go to court and bring a lawsuit. Do our people say this? They don’t say this. If you were to tell them to go to court and bring a lawsuit, ordinary people would say every time, “How would the judge believe me? (Laughter) There’s no way he would believe me!” (Applause) If you were to ask, “Would a lawyer believe you?” they would said, “Lawyers also wouldn’t believe me.” (Laughter) That is because we haven’t been able to make the law our baseline. We don’t have this kind of a system! So ordinary people think, “I don’t care what your courts decide, I’m petitioning the government!”

  When they petition higher levels of government, [does the government] believe them? Again, no. There is an American named Julie Harms*. She is a foreigner who came to Beijing to petition the government concerning her Chinese husband. She came by my house to visit me and ask for my advice. I asked her a question, “What would you do in America?” She said, I would definitely go to the court and bring a lawsuit.” So I asked, “Then why here in China are you petitioning the government?” She said, “Because Chinese courts don’t listen; they don’t listen to what the central government has to say. So, I’m going directly to the central government, hoping that the central government will make [the courts] listen.” I asked, “Was bringing a lawsuit effective?” She said, “No. Before I brought the lawsuit they still hadn’t taken him. Right when I brought the lawsuit they took him away. That’s because once the lawsuit was brought the local government said that this problem had become a mess and they needed to [make their handling of the case look] legitimate and [make it look] like a case borne out by ironclad evidence. So they convicted him.” That’s why I say we do not have an authoritative judicial system.

  What’s more, do we have a truly representative system [of government]? Again, no. Of the lawyers sitting here today, are there [even] a few of us who have actually gone and voted to choose our [representatives in the] National People’s Congress? None. We don’t know who our representatives are either. Even if we did know, it wouldn’t do any good. People say, “You’re not the representative I elected; I only know “Three Representatives**,” but these “Three Representatives” are nowhere to be found! (Laughter, applause) Why? Because our representative system of government is not whole.

  Finally, do we have an open media? No. Don’t think that the internet of today [was meant to] provide us with a space. The reason we have the internet is because they didn’t have a choice. If they did, they would hope that we couldn’t even have the internet. Now isn’t it the case in Xinjiang that you can’t get on the internet? A member of your same legal profession is a very well known person named He Weifang who is a good friend of mine. He is currently in Shihezi [in Xinjiang Autonomous Region]. He told me that the hardest thing is that he can’t keep in touch with us. He can’t get text messages, he can’t get on the web. What’s he to do? I said, “Who told you to get yourself sent to Shihezi.”***

  We often say that things are so much more open now. But this is for technical reasons. It is not because of the government itself; it is not because the government’s philosophy on ruling has changed. Faced with this situation, some local governments say, “Go ahead and criticize us.” Some officials say, “Go ahead and criticize me.” But do you really dare criticize them? You can mention some small things that are not particularly aggravating and they might even give lip-service and say they’ll do something about it. But if you really criticize them, then you immediately find yourself laid off from your job and under arrest in a different province! So, as I’ve pondered this over, [I’ve come to the conclusion that] a harmonious society must have clearly defined property rights, an authoritative judicial system, a truly representative system [of government], and it must have an open media.

  Because it is very hard for us to do these things today, I especially feel that law is important. (PowerPoint slide) This is a picture taken when I was giving a lecture in Suzhou on [December] 18th. A banner appeared in the street which read, “Down With Lawless Governments.” Why? [Because of] demolitions. This [term] lawless government is quite interesting—a government without laws. Ordinary people now don’t say “corrupt government”; they say that it is a “lawless government.” In my mind, law still might be the baseline of our society. So I have often asked: can our judiciary become the baseline of our society? I think our judiciary should become our baseline, but we have not been able to accomplish this!

  Our judiciary currently has many problems. One core problem is that the regionalization of the judiciary is becoming increasingly pronounced. The control of the judiciary by interest groups is becoming increasingly evident. “A political party simultaneously in charge of the judiciary”: this is the view of your Wei Rujia, Esq.. “The [Party] Secretary controls the hats people wear [i.e., what positions people hold], the mayor controls the cash flow, and the Communist Party Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases.” These are the words of an extremely famous member of your profession and were spoken during a presentation given to central government leaders. Not long after his presentation, China University of Political Science and Law invited me to give a lecture to the students there and talk about land issues. After my lecture I was about to leave when a student proposed an idea, “Professor Yu, can you provide any suggestions for us University of Political Science and Law students?” I said, I’m not famous and I’m not one of the nation’s leaders, what kind of hope or suggestions can I provide?” The student said, “Just offer whatever suggestions you might have.” I said, “Since you want me to offer [suggestions], let me tell you what I think. I feel that here in China, a country that does not have religious beliefs, a country whose government has lost a portion of its legal mandate, a country in which [the] political party’s ideology is already in the process of disintegration, in this country, we in the legal profession must defend the laws, this baseline of society. We must defend the baseline of society, defend the future of society, defend the future of our people, defend the future of our children, our grandchildren and our descendants. (Applause)

  After I said this, I grabbed my bag and was about to go when that person—he is currently an important leader at China University of Political Science and Law—got really excited. He grabbed the microphone and said this. He said, “Just now, Professor Yu said that we University of Political Science and Law students should defend the baseline. That’s right but, but can we actually succeed? I don’t think we can!” (Laughter) He said:

  Two days ago, our university wanted to hold a school celebration. The Deputy Chief Justice of the Hunan Provincial High People’s Court came to our school. He said, “Professor so and so, the situation now is this way: the [Party] secretary controls which hat people wear. Who is going to be the court’s chief justice? Who is going to be the head of the procuratorate? This all depends on the Party committee [led by the Secretary].” [He also said,] “The mayor controls the money. If your expenditure is in the city; for example if you want to construct a building and the mayor doesn’t agree to it, then there’s no way you can get the money.” [He also said that] the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases. So there’s nothing we can do. We have the good intentions but lack the means!

  After he spoke, I was thinking, “Forget it,” and grabbed my bag to go. That University of Political Science and Law student stood up again and said, “Professor Yu, can you comment on what the directors just said?” I said I could not comment. When someone invites you to give a lecture and even gives you money, how are you supposed to comment? (Laughter)

  The student insisted that I comment so I said, “If you really want me to comment, then I’ll give you my comments.” I said, “I wouldn’t have thought that someone who is called a famous legal scholar would be so unqualified to stand before and speak to students at the University of Political Science and Law. What is he talking about, saying ‘the [Party] Secretary controls the hats people wear, the mayor controls the cash flow, and the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee controls the cases.’ If [it seems] that nothing can be done, then all of us in the legal profession should dare to take off our black gauze caps in resistance****—then we’d be doing something about it.” What a mess [this created]. After I said this I just grabbed my bag and ran because I felt a bit awkward. The second day a post appeared on the internet saying that Yu Jianrong had an angry rant against so and so and that I gave him a thorough tongue lashing. After that, for several years this person ignored me. We usually had meetings together during which he would pretend he didn’t know me. But now our relationship is better. Not long ago there was a case involving land and he invited me to a meeting [to discuss the case.] He said, “Yu Jianrong, tell me what you really feel; was what I said at the time incorrect? You’re a bad influence, you want my students to all take off their black gauze caps, what am I supposed to do when they’re all laid off?”

  I replied, “What you said wasn’t incorrect. In China the reality truly is that the [Party] secretaries, the mayors, and the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee are controlling things. But how could you say this in front of the students and cause them to lose their faith! China needs a big group of people who have faith in the law and who defend the law. Our country having a future depends entirely on us holding true to our faith in the law! (Enthusiastic applause) As a teacher, how can you say that kind of thing to your students?” (Enthusiastic applause)

  If China is to reform how is to go about doing it? How should China’s political power be reformed? Recently I’ve proposed an idea that big changes are not going to happen. Let’s first not touch the central government, let’s not touch Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China, let’s not touch the Supreme People’s Court. Can we start from the ground level? Because ground level courts and intermediate courts are primarily what directly affect the peoples’ interests, is it okay if we start there? Let’s not call it “judicial independence;” how about we call it “judicial checks and balances?” Let’s not say that its checks and balances are directed towards the Communist Party. If I say that I’m going to check and balance you, then you in the Communist Party will be unhappy for sure. How about we say that the checks and balances are directed towards local governments? We support our leaders in the Communist Party, but we use a vertical judiciary to rein in local governments. That is because the local [level] is what directly affects the people’s interests.

  That is why I have recently held several forums at which I especially invited many people from the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to discuss whether we could do [reforms] in this way, but no one paid attention to me. I wrote reports and sent them up [to the government], but no paid attention to me [or] said that this was still not okay. However, I think that China’s problems have truly gotten to this point. That’s why I have repeatedly asked, with China now facing so many problems, what is to be done? I’ve pondered this [and think that the answer] is to rely on the law. Let’s strip ourselves of all ideologies. Let’s not go back again to the era of Mao Zedong, and let’s also not say this and that about the era of Deng Xiaoping. Let’s just defend our constitution. There’s no longer [anything else] in Chinese society left to defend. We’ve retreated further and further in defeat. Will we be able to defend our ultimate baseline? Will Chinese society experience upheaval? How serious will be the problems the future brings? That all depends on whether we are able to defend our ultimate baseline.

  There was once someone who asked me, burning with anxiety, “According to the look of China’s current situation, is institutional reform even a possibility? Is there still hope of China developing in a positive direction?” My response was that there was hope. This hope comes from the rational choice [that must be made] in the face of social pressure!

  When conflicts intensify, social pressure will become greater and greater. When everyone feels that there is no way out, all kinds of social forces will start searching for a baseline. If they were not to do this, there would be extreme social upheaval that would utterly destroy social order. In light of this situation, there are two most basic choices. The first is that anxiety about these [potential] catastrophic consequences will spur all interested groups into working towards a rational compromise; they will use reason to search for a baseline that everyone can agree upon. The second is that maybe because this compromise does not occur, [China] will experience fundamental, revolutionary upheaval. From the look of the current situation, the vast majority of Chinese people hope that social conflicts can be reined in, which is to say that the majority of people hope that China does not experience large-scale social upheaval. The question is how all levels of Chinese society, especially levels that have clashes of interests and clashes of political power, will make the necessary compromises to benefit society’s structural stability. This to a large extent is determined by whether members of society, especially parties to conflicts, can seek out a baseline that is acceptable to everyone.

  So, what currently is Chinese society’s baseline of stability? In my view, the whole society must reach a consensus on how to facilitate the actual implementation of the constitution. Society must form a consensus on how to make the constitution the cornerstone of China’s social stability.

  * For more on Julie Harms, see “American Woman Hunts Elusive Chinese Justice” at http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/julie-harms/.

  ** The “Three Represents” (which is the same in Chinese as “Three Representatives”) is a socio-political ideology developed by Jiang Zemin. The “three represents” are: 1) The Party must always represent the requirements of the development of China’s advanced productive forces. 2) The Party must always represent the orientation of the development of China’s advanced culture. 3) The Party must always represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people in China. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Represents.

  *** For the reasons He Weifang was sent to Shihezi see “Leading Dissident ‘Exiled’ to Chinese Northwest” at http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/he-weifang/.

  **** To take off one’s black gauze cap (乌纱帽) is a reference to what would occur anciently when a government official refused to follow an order out of principle. Removing one’s black gauze cap was a way of symbolically stepping down from one’s post so that they would not have to follow an order that contradicted one’s principles.

  [To be continued]

  » Read more
  • March 14, 2010 8:28 PM

• Life in Shantou

  

  A group of journalism students at Shantou University have put together a website of their stories profiling the daily lives of Shantou residents, from a hard laborer to an artist to a leprosy patient. From the latter story:

  Leaning on a wooden door, 72-year-old Lin Mushen had been sitting alone on a stool for the whole afternoon on a recent January day. The setting sunlight penetrated trees, then lay on his room. He grasped the door, and struggled with his disabled body to stand up. It’s time for him to make supper.

  “I do the same thing repeatedly every day. I know exactly what I would do at each moment of the day,” he said, staring at the mountain that was not far away, sheltering half of the setting sun.

  Lin caught leprosy in his early 30s. It was a disease that could not be cured at that time in China. As a result, he was sent to a remote village in a mountain of Jie Dong City, where he has lived for more than four decades.

  43 elderly men, who also had leprosy before, lived in two public buildings in the village. All of them were away from their families’ company, although they had recovered from the disease. Everyone had his own room, or shared a room with another man. Lin lived on the first floor of the first building.

  » Read more
  • March 14, 2010 8:11 PM

• Millions of Chinese Rural Migrants Denied Education for Their Children

  

  In the Guardian, Tania Branigan reports on the plight of the children of migrant workers, who are not entitled to an education:

  The contradictions of the hukou system, designed for a 1950s planned economy, become more painful with every year of China’s development. About 140 million rural migrants are now working in the cities, where average incomes are more than three times than those of the countryside. Migrants have fuelled the country’s spectacular growth but not reaped the benefits. And once they become parents, they face an unpalatable choice.

  Fifty-eight million children are left behind in the countryside by parents who hope that relatives will raise them lovingly. Another 19 million remain in the cities – where they are, in effect, second-class citizens. Both groups have poorer academic performance and more behavioural problems than their peers.

  At present, Hu’s eight-year-old twins, Xiaonan and Xiaobei, are studying in the family’s cramped one-room apartment, under the guidance of their mother, who left school at 16.

  “You need connections to get your kids in [to state school] if you are from other places, and making those connections costs too much money,” says Hu. “We can’t afford it.”

  Watch the video report here.

  » Read more
  • March 14, 2010 7:17 PM

• 210,000 Netizens Vote on Han Han’s Blog

  

  The New York Times just published a profile of China’s most popular blogger Han Han. What’s more important than Han Han’s outspoken writings themselves is the fact that his words resonate with a huge, mostly young, population, creating a “Han Han phenomenon.”

  For example, while Twitter is blocked in China, sinaweibo, a microblogging service hosted by China’s internet portal sina.cn has dominated the microblogging market in China. Han Han opened his account on sinaweibo on February 4, 2010, and, before he had even sent one message, he had gathered 30,000 followers. Three days later, he simply typed one Chinese word “Wei” (Hello). This single-character post immediately generated a frenzy on sinaweibo, with more than 6500 reposts, and over 13,900 “comments” from other sinaweibo users. In Han Han’s signature combination of humor and a sharp tongue, he then said: “I meant to type ‘Hey’ instead of ‘Wei,’ but I made a typo. I didn’t correct it for fear people would blame the ‘relevant agencies’ [ie censors].” [Han Han's blog posts are often targeted by censors, and each time, such censorship generates protest from his fans, and more netizens repost his censored text in other forums.]

  On March 4, Han Han wrote a post on his blog titled, “Han Feng is a good cadre.” The post commented on the online leak of the personal diary of Han Feng, the Tobacco Bureau chief in Guangxi, which became the hottest topic in Chinese cyberspace. In Han Feng’s diary, he recorded, in a matter-of-fact way, activities such as his sexual encounters with several of his female subordinates, bribes taken in his work, and some other personal hobbies or work-related matters. (Han Feng was subsequently arrest for bribery, which was announced in a brief statement in official media after his diary became public.) Han Han’s post says that according to what Han Feng’s diary reveals, Bureau chief Han should really be considered a “good official”, since the amount of bribes and number of sexual relationships he had was peanuts compared with so many other officials in China today. Han wrote, “If his diary is true, I dare to say he is a good cadre. In six months, he only accepted bribes of 60,000 RMB. This is the first time in recent years I have seen a five-digit number after the word “bribery.” Where can you find such a clean bureau chief?”

  The following are excerpts of Han Han’s new post, entitled: “Where can I find people as good as you are?”, translated by CDT:

  In the post before my last post, I set a voting function (The two options are: 1) Han Feng is a good official, I hope that he will stay in his position, 2) Han Feng is a bad official, I hope that he will be punished severely according to the law) Over 210,000 independent IPs have voted, and the results show that 96%, which is to say, 200,000 voters, felt that Han Feng is a good cadre and hope that he will stay in his position. Less than 10,000, 4% of voters, felt that Han Feng is a bad cadre and hope that he will be punished severely according to law.

  

  Of course, from now on I will set up the voting function more often, in order to compensate everyone’s dismay that no one has seen a ballot but somehow so many representatives in National People’s Congress have been elected.

  From today on, I made a unilateral decision that I will be the strategic collaborative partner of all the main government websites. When they start to vote on some event, I will do the same on my blog. I will not write any text about those events to avoid misleading or indicating voting results, and we will see how different the results will be.

  Among voters this time, some from the bottom of his or her heart felt that Han Feng is not a bad official, since he was not that greedy. Some others sincerely felt that Han Feng was actually relatively better stock among officials; some others are just being sarcastic, and then some are only following the crowd. Nevertheless, everyone feels quite powerless. In my grandfather’s time, when people knew things were difficult, if you went to the officials, they may have even more difficulties. Later on, everyone knows that there were good cadres and bad cadres in this country. The result of the vote on Han Feng tells us that we have officially entered the era in which there are almost no cadres who are not corrupt, and the only difference is between good corrupt cadres and bad corrupt cadres. Everyone obviously thinks that Han Feng belongs to the good corrupt cadre category.

  …. (Ordinary people in this country’s) expectations for cadres are not that they will serve the people, but that they don’t make trouble for people. You can have your fabulous house, drive your luxurious car, have your mistress, we will not bother you as long as you do not step over my son, evict me from my house, or take my girl; then you are a good cadre in the eyes of ordinary people. If netizens have a problem with this, just delete their posts; if writers have a problem with it, just harmonize them; if journalists have a problem with this, just one sentence instruction — “do not report negative news.”

  » Read more
  • March 13, 2010 11:03 PM

• Chinese Fishing Boat, 7 Crew Hijacked off Cameroon

  

  Reuters reports:

  A Chinese fishing vessel with seven fishermen aboard was hijacked off the coast of Cameroon in the latest attack in the waters of West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, the Chinese embassy in Cameroon said on Saturday.

  “We are working together with the Cameroon authorities on ways and means of seeking their release,” an embassy official said of Friday’s hijack in international waters off the Bakassi peninsula.

  The official said responsibility for the kidnapping had been claimed by the “Africa Marine Commando”, a group not known to have been involved any recent attacks on local shipping.

  » Read more
  • March 13, 2010 9:45 PM

• China Leaves Underage Gymnast in the Cold

  

  Dong Fangxiao, the Olympic gymnast who has been found to have been underage when she competed in Sydney in 2000, has gotten little support from Chinese authorities, AP reports:

  Despite China’s official denials, accumulating evidence that Dong was just 14 when she competed on the team that won Olympic bronze now includes her personal resume, which says she was born Jan. 23, 1986.

  …At an FIG hearing in December, Dong said she was born in 1983 but produced a passport that gave her birthdate in 1986, federation officials say.

  Yet while Dong has seemingly sought to keep up appearances, she is now being left out in the cold in China, where the top gymnastics administrator is trying to wriggle out of FIG and IOC sanctions by shifting blame onto Dong.

  The state-run newspaper China Youth Daily quoted Luo Chaoyi as saying that Dong was eligible in Sydney but then shaved three years off her age after retirement in 2001, and that “this must have been an act by her and her family.”

  Such an explanation is barely credible – unless, of course, Dong is a master forger of official documents, which is even less believable. In China, as elsewhere, passports are government-issued. Coaches – and not just in China – have also long falsified ages for girls whose small and supple bodies give them a competitive advantage over larger and older young women. The reverse scenario – that a retired gymnast would pass herself off as a kid – makes no sense.

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 9:33 PM

• Heartthrob’s Barbed Blog Challenges China’s Leaders

  

  The New York Times has a lengthy profile of race car driver, author, and rock star blogger Han Han:

  Since he began blogging in 2006, Mr. Han has been delivering increasingly caustic attacks on China’s leadership and the policies he contends are creating misery for those unlucky enough to lack a powerful government post. With more than 300 million hits to his blog, he may be the most popular living writer in the world.

  In a recent interview at his office in Shanghai, he described party officials as “useless” and prone to spouting nonsense, although he used more delicate language to dismiss their relevance. “Their lives are nothing like ours,” he said. “The only thing they have in common with young people is that like us, they too have girlfriends in their 20s, although theirs are on the side.”

  Mr. Han has enjoyed widespread fame since he published his first novel at 19, but his popularity has ballooned in recent months through blog posts that seem to capture the zeitgeist of his peers, the so-called post-80s generation born after the economic reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping.

  Theirs is a generation of only children, the result of China’s one-child policy, and one that has known only uninterrupted growth. Whether true or not, it is also a demographic with a reputation for being spoiled, impatient and less accepting of the storyline fed to them by government-run media.

  If Mr. Han’s tongue is sharp, he is careful to deliver his barbs through sarcasm and humorous anecdotes that obliquely take on corruption, censorship and everyday injustice.

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 9:22 PM

• Yu Jianrong (于建嵘): Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability (Part 7)

  

  Dr. Yu Jianrong (于建嵘), chairman of the Social Issues Research Center of the Rural Development Institute of the China Academy of Social Sciences, delivered a speech entitled “Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability” before the Beijing Lawyers Association on December 26, 2009. This is part 7 of the CDT translation, here are part 1. part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6:

  Based upon my work dividing mass incidents into categories and describing their characteristics, I have come to the following conclusion. Currently, Chinese society as a whole is stable. This can be seen by the fact that China’s politics and rulers are united and that there have not yet been actions directed towards opposing the central government. We political scientists researching politics first [look at] the ability of the central government powers to control local governments. Someone came up with the conclusion that currently China’s central government is weak, and this and that about China. Let me tell you another way to analyze the situation. As of now, there has not been a single local leader who has dared step forward and oppose the central government. If you look at all of China’s local leaders, all the central government has to do is hold one meeting. Then, even if [the local leader] could not be more opposed [to the decision made at the meeting], even if they could not be more upset [at the decision], they will still make a statement that they resolutely support the central government’s decision, that they are firmly united behind such and such a person. They don’t dare not make this statement. If they don’t make the statement then they lose their position. This is a necessity of our political community; now nobody dares to openly say that the central government is wrong.

  Furthermore, social controls are still effective. Don’t look at the fact that a lot of problems are happening today; the Communist Party still has the ability to keep society under control. [Consider] for example the cases of SARS and swine flu. [Also consider] the case where [the country] wants to hold a National Day celebration. We in Beijing understand this problem the most. [The government] can deploy all [its] powers to “defend public order.” With one word, those old ladies wearing red armbands are out there standing in the intersection [blocking streets off for events], [yelling], “Who do you think you are!” and then it all begins. You can’t say, what if all the people say they’re not going to take it. [There may] truly be that day, but now [the government] still has this ability [to organize society even when it causes annoyances]. We all know that during the National Day holiday, whoever dared walk forward one step would be immediately hauled off by those old men and old ladies. The Communist Party is still able to fight the people’s war. Therefore, I came up with this first conclusion. For now, Chinese society should still be stable.

  However, my second conclusion is that this type of stability is rigid. “Rigid stability” is a term I invented this year, borrowing from natural sciences and especially from engineering. I feel that it has three characteristics. First, true social stability is about long-term social stability; it’s about the long-term stability of the nation’s laws. However, our [stability] is not like this. All of our stability is centered around a single goal: maintaining a monopoly on political power. In other words, the ultimate goal of all the Communist Party’s goals is how it can hold a monopoly on political power. This is what is called “Adhering to the Leadership of the Party.” It is the “Four Adheres,”* nothing else is essential; what is essential is that one adhere to the leadership of the Party. Everything else can be changed; only this cannot be changed. Why? The key characteristic currently of our regime is its monopoly on power. Its monopoly on power and sealing off of its power, its refusal to allow others to gain access, its refusal to allow people to engage in any actions that challenge the government’s monopoly on power—this makes up the baseline of the Communist Party. This baseline shows why our stability is different than the stability of Western nations. Social stability in the West is about how to protect the long-term stability of the constitution, how to protect the long-term stability of the laws. The government can be changed, this person or that person can act as president, but you cannot change the nation’s basic system of constitutional governance. Here [in China], the situation is that no one cares what you do to the basic system as long as you do not change the power of our Communist Party. Therefore, the first characteristic of “rigid stability” is that there is this monopoly on power.

  The second characteristic [of “rigid stability”] is that things that would ordinarily be considered regular social activities can all be seen as “elements of instability.” For example, demonstrations, labor strikes, transportation strikes—these activities are all being seen as “unstable.” Now, even petitioning higher levels of government has been turned into an “element of instability.” A lot of local government documents all say that currently “elements of instability” primarily include the petitioning of higher levels of government. Those who petition higher levels of government are [a source of] instability, whatever method they use to petition is [a source of] instability. Actually, petitioning higher levels of government is your constitutional right; it is a right provided for by the Regulation on Complaint Letters and Visits. Why has it also been labeled as unstable? It is because [local governments] think that any assault on local power is a type of instability. It is not that just an assault on central government power [is considered a source of instability], it is that an assault on any power is [considered a source of] instability. So this is an extremely important problem.

  Third, to control society [and achieve] “rigid stability” does not primarily rely on the judiciary and primarily relies on the following: state violence, ideology, and controls on societal organizations. Therefore this type of stability is rigid. Supposing you were to measure indicators of social stability, China’s social stability would far and away be greater than the social stability of Western countries. Why? Because our stability is extremely rigid. However, “rigid stability” brings with it an enormous danger. Currently, [funds spent on maintaining] stability have become one the nation’s extremely significant expenditures; [maintaining stability] has become an enormous burden. For so-called stability, local officials are all running up to Beijing to catch people, running up to Beijing to set up offices. This type of stability has thrown the entire nation into disarray. Therefore when the issue of social stability is brought up we run into the biggest problem; once the local government says that something implicates “stability,” then forget whatever views you may have held. Social stability has now become the highest goal of the nation’s politics. All reforms, everything, is being overwhelmed and restricted by [this goal]. Therefore, in order to “avoid distress” we sacrifice reforms. Therefore, we sacrifice peoples’ rights endowed by law, because those rights offend so-called stability. And what is the only goal of this stability? It is not only those present here today that see what this [goal] is, the reality is that a lot of people see what [this goal] is. Why has a sort of pessimistic feeling become so common now? Does everybody all feel like this kind of stability can last? Let me tell you that it cannot. This kind of stability will certainly bring about massive social catastrophe.

  So then what should be done about it? Secretary-general Hu Jintao during the 17th National People’s Congress considered many, many measures. The Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Public Security, the Headquarters of the People’s Armed Police, the courts, and the State Bureau for Letters and Calls, all considered many measures. The core approach of these measures is to control in society all so-called actions challenging government power. Are these measures sufficient? I’ve mulled this over [and think that they] will not be sufficient. So what’s to be done? What is it that is needed before there will be stability?

  Recently I’ve been telling a story a lot, a story from when I was visiting with people in Taiwan. In 2004, Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council invited me to visit and give a lecture at Taiwan’s Chengchi University. They provided me fifteen days of room, board and entertainment. At that time I proposed to them, “How about this, after I give my lecture, you give me a map and a driver. Wherever I say to go, you have me driven there according to the map.” They said, “What do you want to do?” I said that I wanted to take a look and see what Taiwan’s ordinary people were doing and thinking. They said, “No problem, you can freely take a look at Taiwan, you can freely ask what ordinary people are thinking.” But I said there’s one more thing. “You have to send someone along to pay the tab because [this trip] has to include meals and lodging.” (Laughter) “No problem, we’ll send someone to pick up the bill.”

  After I gave my lecture, they drove a car; wherever I said to go they would take me there. I asked ordinary Taiwanese people the same question: if a local official without your approval demolished your house, what would you do about it? 99% of Taiwanese people answered, “Impossible, how would he dare demolish my house? Impossible!” I said, “But supposing that it was demolished what would you do?” Ordinary Taiwanese people would say, “I would go to court and sue him. The judge would severely punish this government official who tore down my house without gaining my approval. If I agreed to it he would have to pay me 100,000; if I didn’t agree to it he might have to pay 1,000,000.”

  I then asked: what if the judge did not accept your case or did not judge your case according to law? Ordinary Taiwanese people would again answer, “Impossible, how would he dare not accept my case? (Laughter) Because my problem is really simple; I have a certificate of ownership; he doesn’t have a contract [granting him the right] to demolish my house. He is wrong; he must make compensation. Impossible.”

  I said, “But supposing that this problem occurred, what would you do?” Ordinary Taiwanese people would tell me, “I would find my legislator and tell him. My legislator would come and investigate. After his investigation he would hold a news conference. At the conference he would say that this local official’s and this judge’s days were over. [They] couldn’t [keep on] working.

  I then asked, what if this legislator doesn’t care about your problem? What if he doesn’t come and perform an investigation? When I got to this question Taiwanese people all started to get annoyed at me saying, “You mainlander, how can you ask so many hypotheticals? How can any of these hypotheticals actually happen? (Laughter, applause). This is not something that I want to make the legislator do, this is something that the legislator himself wants to do. The legislator dreams and hopes every day that this kind of thing will happen (Laughter, applause). How could he not come? Impossible!”

  I said, “It’s possible.” They answered, “No that would be impossible.” Ordinary Taiwanese people have this telephone card with the contact information of their legislator. So [they say], “try it out, give him a call.” I said, “That’s impossible [that he would come].” They answered, “It’s possible.” [If one were to] call on the phone, and [if] that legislator were nearby, he would be extremely excited about receiving the call and rush right over. (Laughter) He would ask, “What’s the matter? What’s the matter?” He would be so excited! Because all the legislature has to do is investigate this matter and he would be promoted to a county-level legislator. He might even be promoted to the National Legislative Yuan. He might even be the next “A-Bian”**! (Laughter) But me, I was still not satisfied. So I continued asking, I said, “Supposing that he just doesn’t come, what then? People told me, “It’s quite simple. If he doesn’t come then the next time he is running for reelection, when he comes by my house asking for my vote, when he’s there asking for my vote, I’ll splash him with filthy water. Then do you think this legislator will still be able to be a legislator? No! Therefore, this is a very simple matter.”

  I got this [same] conclusion traveling from Taipei to Tainan. Today I told the story of when I was in Taiwan. Actually, I’ve asked this question to people in many countries, including: Japan, Germany, France, and America. I’ve been to many countries and asked many of their people. Basically, their answers are all about the same. The basic logic and conclusion are all the same. Why did I speak about Taiwan? Because we share a common culture with Taiwan. People often say that Western institutions are not suited to us in China. No matter, don’t you also say that Taiwan is a part of China? Since Taiwan is also China, why was that group of people able to answer “impossible” [to the questions of whether the government could demolish their house without their approval, whether a judge would not accept their case, and whether a legislator would refuse to make an investigation]? We should not [just] look at China Central Television saying today that the Taiwanese are fighting, or saying tomorrow that Taiwan is cursing Ma Yingjiu. It doesn’t matter. Taiwan’s society, on the ground level, is extremely harmonious and stable.

  I went to the Taichung area and stayed at a rural farmer’s house, an old farmer who grew flowers. He was really excited at the time because he had never met anyone from the mainland. He said, “Today I’ll treat you to dinner. How about we don’t eat at home; let’s go into town and eat at a restaurant.” I said, “Sounds great; of course I’m happy to eat at a restaurant as long as I don’t have to pick up the tab.” He said, “How could I let you pay; of course I wouldn’t let you pay.” He drove with me in his car. The car had flowers in the back and places to sit in the front. So we started driving and had driven about 200 meters when I said, “Stop, there’s a problem.” He said, “What problem?” I said that when we left, “I was the last to leave and forgot to shut the door. The main entrance door and the side door both aren’t shut.” He said, “What’s the problem with not shutting the door?” I replied, “Aren’t there things in the home?” He said, “Don’t worry about it; our house has installed an electronic video camera. If someone comes in I just have to consult the video camera and I’ll know what he took. Then after I come back he’ll return it to me and it’ll be all right.” I was thinking to myself, “Where I’m from, by the time you got back, even your electronic video camera would be gone.” (Laughter, applause)

  So I’ve been thinking a lot about this question: Taiwan has the same kind of culture as we do; why do they have so many “impossibles”? I’ve mulled this over and wondered what is it about a society that makes it harmonious? First, [the society’s] property rights are clearly defined. If this thing is mine, then it is mine. If it’s not mine then it’s yours. Does China have clearly defined property rights? No. Today let’s ask; suppose a local official demolishes your house; what are you going to do about it? China’s ordinary people certainly wouldn’t think to say that it would be impossible for this to happen. You go out to buy some steamed buns, you come back and your house is gone. Hasn’t this all happened before? Which rural farmer would say, “This is my land, [the government official] wouldn’t dare sell my land?” Who is going to say this? No one is going to say this. If only [the government official] can think of a way, your plot of land is gone, and you’re not going to beat him if you sue. If they want to demolish your house and you don’t agree, then they’ll think of a way. They’ll say your house was constructed in an illegal manner. We don’t have clearly defined property rights. It is very difficult to say that this property right belongs to me.

  * The “Four Adheres” are adherence to Marxism and Leninism, socialism, leadership of the Communist Party, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
  ** A-Bian is the nickname for Taiwan’s former president Chen Shui-bian.

  [To be continued]

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 8:06 PM

• Censored Discussions: Illness of Neutrality

  

  The following post has been repeatedly deleted and reposted on various online forums, including the student social networking site Renren. The author is using deliberately vague and metaphorical language to express an opinion apparently about June 4th and the documentary Gate of Heavenly Peace by Carma Hinton. Despite the fact that university online forums are among the most heavily-censored, the repeated reposting of this comment shows that some students are still actively finding ways to discuss political topics. Translated by CDT:

  Illness of Neutrality

  In the past, an incident occurred. It was too sensitive to allow people to talk about it.

  An American, who grew up in China, falls ill of neutralism. She thought: I should make a film about it. So she directed a film. She believes Duan Qirui* is wrong, yet Liu Hezhen** may not be good. All in all, she should stay neutral. People in Mainland China manage to download the film despite all difficulties. So they watched it. Duan Qirui was very evil, and so was Liu Hezhen.

  He thinks, since the film was made by an American, it must be in favor of Liu Hezhen, so I should stay neutral between the film and Duan Qirui.

  Therefore he’s more in favor of Duan Qirui, and often blames Liu Hezhen for inciting the students.

  Some smart guy read his blog, thinking, he has watched the film made by an American, then he’s certainly in favor of Liu Hezhen. No. I should stay neutral between him and Duan Qirui. He even suspects that Liu Hezhen conspired.

  Afterward many smart people learned about this sensitive incident. The version they all agree upon is: kind-hearted Duan Qirui was deceived by Liu Hezhen, and Liu Hezhen ended up being killed, going out for wool and coming home shorn.

  However, people in Hong Kong don’t think so.

  So people throughout China deride those in Hong Kong as idiots.

  * Duan Qirui was a warlord and the Premier of China under the Nationalists in the 1920s. On March 18, 1926, Duan dispatched troops against student protesters, killing 47. This incident is known as the March 18 massacre.

  ** Liu Hezhen was one of the students killed in the March 18 massacre, and the subject of an essay by Lu Xun.

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 12:04 PM

• Chinese Zoo Blamed for Death of 11 Siberian Tigers

  

  From AP:

  Eleven rare Siberian tigers have died at a wildlife park in a startling case that activists say hints at unsavory practices among some zoos and animal farms in China: They are overbreeding endangered animals in the hopes of making illicit profit on their carcasses.

  The deaths of the tigers occurred in the past three months at the zoo in China’s frigid northeast, officials and state media said Friday. Reports said the tigers starved to death, having been fed nothing but chicken bones, while a zoo manager said unspecified diseases killed the animals.

  Either way, the animals had been ill-kept and ill-fed. The Shenyang Forest Wild Animal Zoo has struggled financially, even withholding pay from staff, said a woman in charge of corporate planning for the zoo who would only give her surname, Wang. The zoo had been up for auction for some time without any bidders, she said… The deaths underscore conflicting signals in China’s attempts to save its dwindling number of tigers. While extensive conservation efforts are under way, animal protection groups say zoos and wildlife parks may be deliberately breeding more animals than they can afford, hoping to sell off the carcasses onto a black market where tiger parts fetch a high price for use in traditional medicines and liquor.

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 10:41 AM

• The Cold Steel Behind China’s Soft Power

  

  From the Australian:

  The row that has emerged over Australian Writers Week in China underlines the danger and the value of such bold attempts to deepen the relationship beyond its mine-ship-steelmill axis… The latest fracas started with Frank Moorhouse pulling out of the writers’ tour, citing the jailing of Liu Xiaobo, China’s most famous dissident. Liu was jailed for 11 years, for inciting subversion, and he has since been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

  …(Australian ambassador to China, Geoff Raby) told Naher: “We are concerned by the nature of the charges and the very harsh sentence meted out to Dr Liu, who was seeking to exercise his right of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by Chinese law and by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China has signed.”… He said that the sending of writers overseas “is considered to be a type of soft diplomacy by governments, the idea being that even when you go to countries where there is some degree of oppression or authoritarian interference with freedom of expression, somehow your presence there and the work you read, and informal contact, can somehow help to affirm freedom of expression.”

  … It was interesting that Robert Dessaix agreed to replace Moorhouse on the tour. But he was never going to get a visa… Chinese government spokesman Qin Gang said on Thursday that “if he’s HIV positive, according to the current regulations in China he is not allowed to enter the country. The regulations are clear.”

  Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee and Booker Prize winner Tom Keneally have joined about 90 writers in seeking the impossible: a public apology from Beijing.  They wrote: “This was an act of discrimination that appears to be founded in fear or ignorance and is behaviour unworthy of any nation that desires to be seen as enlightened and civilised.”

  » Read more
  • March 12, 2010 10:28 AM

• Journalists, Twitterers, and the Media Demand Apology from Hubei Governor Li Hongzhong

  

  At this week’s NPC meeting, Hubei governor Li Hongzhong became a hot topic in the Chinese twittersphere (see here for all tweets on the topic) after he reprimanded a journalist and forcibly grabbed away her voice recorder when she asked him about the case of Deng Yujiao, a waitress who killed a local official for sexually assaulting her. Global Voices translates a blogger’s post about the incident:

  Then the workers began trying to clear a path for the governor to leave. One reporter from Beijing Times hurriedly asked: Governor, what are your thoughts on Deng Yujiao? Li Hongzhong became enraged, and his face went cloudy in 0.1 seconds flat as he scowled at this reporter. He looked at the pen recorder and the hands holding it and, moving subtly but firmly, grabbed hold of them. He then stormed out into the hall. At the main door, Li stopped and asked furiously of this reporter, “which media are you from?” “I’m from People’s Daily” (note: Beijing Times is a commercial paper affiliate of People’s Daily). “And you’re a Party paper! This isn’t how a Party paper handles opinion guidance! I’m going to your publisher!!” And then without looking back, Li Hongzhong went to the elevator and back to his room. The reporters standing around looked on, dumbfounded. Reportedly, at this time, this female reporter began to tear up, feeling hurt.

  Listen to an audio recording of the exchange here. Now, several Chinese media have publicly called on Li to apologize to the reporter, identified as Liu Jie of the Beijing Times, an offshoot of the People’s Daily.

  Li Hongzhong’s story was the perfect storm for netizens. “Hongzhong Grabbing the Recorder” became a new hot online expression. Here are some samples of sarcastic comments from Chinese Twitterers, at the tag #lihongzhong:

  * Sony Advertisement: the recorder even Chinese governors want to grab. (Jie Liu’s pen was a Sony.)

  * Grabbing a recorder should be his staff’s job. This governor did it himself, so down to earth. Good official!.

  * Let my three-year-old daughter explain this to you: “If one take something after the owner agrees, that is called borrowing; if the owner did not agree and one takes it in front of the owner, it’s called grabbing; if one takes it behind the back of owner without agreement, it’s called stealing.”

  “Watch out, the governor will come… No recording allowed!”:

  T-shirt for women reporters at the “two sessions”: “Please don’t grab my recorder; you can talk to my boss”:

  

  From Cartoonist Guaiguai’s BlogTD website: “This ‘Two Sessions’ recorder is stealing-, grabbing- and governor-proof, perfect for you female reporters…”

  

  The following cartoon is from Sohu Community:

  

  Caijing’s website published at least three articles on this topic, one titled: “Li Hongzhong Grabs Female Reporter’s Recorder,” and an editorial titled, “Governor Li, Please Publicly Apologize.” Southern Metropolis Daily, Times Weekly (时代周报), New Daily (新快报), Youth Times (青年时报), and Yancheng Evening News (羊城晚报) all published editorials as well. Two former high government officials, Zhou Ruijin (周瑞金), the former deputy editor-in-chief of People’s Daily under Jiang Zemin, and Zhong Peizhang, in his 80s, former director of the News Bureau of Central Propaganda Department, wrote commentaries on the issue for Caijing. Those former senior officials have strong ties with Chinese media, and some of them have become very outspoken on various topics after they left their official positions.

  The Global Times reports that Li refuses to apologize:

  “We thought she might not be a reporter, so we took away her recorder to check,” he said.

  In response, Li allegedly snapped her tape recorder and one of his followers grabbed the identification card around her neck and inspected it.

  …In response to the Internet comments, Li said the reporter is now free to talk to him if she is unhappy about the incident. He said there is no need to raise the incident all over the Internet.

  As of Thursday, more than 1,200 comments about Li’s explanation appeared on a sohu.com forum.

  See also ESWN’s translation of an interview with Li.

  Then today, an official who oversees Chinese media emphasized that Chinese journalists should undergo training in Marxist theory. From the Guardian:

  Li Dongdong, deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publication, told the South China Morning Post that some mainland reporters were giving Chinese journalism a bad name because they were not properly trained.

  Under communist theories of journalism, media should support the leadership rather than operate as a watchdog.

  The initiative seems to be aimed at mainland journalists only.

  Chinese officials already routinely censor journalists, but Chinese media has become less restricted in recent years as they have gained more revenue from independent sources via advertising.

  » Read more
  • March 11, 2010 10:10 PM

• Yu Jianrong (于建嵘): Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability (Part 6)

  

  Dr. Yu Jianrong (于建嵘), chairman of the Social Issues Research Center of the Rural Development Institute of the China Academy of Social Sciences, delivered a speech entitled “Maintaining a Baseline of Social Stability” before the Beijing Lawyers Association on December 26, 2009. This is part 6 of the CDT translation, here are part 1. part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.

  The third characteristic of venting incidents is that there is no source of authoritative information. Ever since the internet and text messages, modern China no longer has a source of authoritative information. (PowerPoint Slide) This is Ruian City in Zhejiang Province in August 2006. Ruian is a city under the administration of Wenzhou, not large, but very prosperous. This person jumped off a building. Who is she? She was a college student studying English. She married the son of the boss of a mold making factory. Cinderella married the knight in shining armor; she should have lived happily ever after, but instead she jumped off a building. Right after she jumped off a building, her husband reported it to the police. The Public Security Bureau took a look and said that it was just a suicide. However, her family did not agree and the students of [a family member] especially did not agree. The students posted this picture to the web. On the web they asked a simple question to the people of the nation, to the people of Zhejiang, to the people of Wenzhou, and to the people of Ruian. They asked, “Would this beautiful woman kill herself?” (Laughter) The whole country’s netizens responded immediately, “No.” (Laughter) “Why would she kill herself, look at how pretty she is, so full of sunlight. Her eyes are looking forward as if towards a beautiful life. Why would she kill herself!” So a lot of people on the internet were analyzing this, “She must have been killed by him. But then how was she killed? This is how she must have been killed; he killed her then threw her down [off the building] like this.” The students once they saw this reasoning—that the whole nation’s people all said it was not suicide—thought, “What should we do about it? We have to seek justice for this teacher.” How did they seek justice? (PowerPoint Slide) You can see they took to the streets and smashed up [the husband’s] family factory and attacked the government.

  That is why I said modern technology has already changed China’s political situation. It’s really quite simple. You’re wearing a really nice watch. Everyone’s cell phones nowadays can take pictures, so they take a picture of you and post it on the web saying that you are one of the nation’s civil servants and are named Leader XXX. They ask, how then can this person, on the basis of their salary, afford to wear a several hundred thousand RMB watch? They start to search online and are able to search out your ancestors going back eighteen generations. They find out what your wife is doing, what your son is doing; finally they come up with this conclusion—you are a corrupt official. This conclusion creates a huge mess. Originally when there was no internet, if one were to report an official as being corrupt on the basis of his wristwatch, the municipal Party committee secretary would take one look [at the complaint] and probably say that it was sheer nonsense. Now, if people are able to form the view on the internet that you are a corrupt official, then you have serious problems. Don’t think that if your municipal Party committee secretary doesn’t investigate you that the people will let you off. No way. The people will start to say, this person is a corrupt official; why doesn’t the municipal Party committee secretary investigate him. Then they start searching on the internet for this municipal Party committee secretary; what is this Party secretary up to? They search once, they search twice, then they discover that these two guys [the Party secretary and the official with the nice watch] originally worked together. The municipal Party committee secretary sees what is going on [and says], “Don’t search about me, search about him; investigate him.” (Laughter) So then the municipal Party committee secretary will immediately decide to hold an investigation so that the people will stop investigating him. Once investigated, sure enough—[the official with the wristwatch] is a corrupt official. Nowadays they don’t even hold an investigation. (Laughter, applause)

  After the introduction of the internet, if you want to hurt someone, it is very easy. When we have our meeting you buy a pack of really nice cigarettes to give to him. The cigarettes cost 200 RMB a pack. When he enters the conference room and sits down over there, you hand him the pack of cigarettes, then have a picture taken. You then post this picture to the web. [Netizens exclaim], “How can he, one of the nation’s civil servants, afford to smoke these expensive cigarettes?” Upon investigation, the same story occurs and again, the conclusion: the person is a corrupt official. Not long ago, the head of a procuratorate was driving a nice car; he had troubles when [a picture of this was posted to] the net and [netizens] investigated, the conclusion: he had the taint of a corrupt official. So with the internet, “minor details” can be turned into public events.

  There are times when we truly need to use the power of the internet to turn instances of corruption into public events, and then to turn those public events into legal events. I often think that modern society’s technology has already changed much of the political ecology. Today we have with us a rural farmer named Zhang Juzheng who is petitioning the government. Once when I was at the University of Political Science and Law giving a talk he brought a bag with him and took out something that looked like a voice recording pen. I asked him what it was. I had thought that it was a voice recording pen, which is really common. But it wasn’t. It also had a pinhole video camera! When I looked at it, I was very surprised so I asked, “So what are you, some kind of special agent?” (Laughter) He said, “I’m no special agent; I bought it. I went to Zhongguancun* and bought it for a little over 200 RMB. I didn’t believe him, but he told me that he really had bought it. I gave him some money and asked him to buy me one. Two days later he sent me one and told me they had them as small as buttons. How much did they cost? A little over 200 RMB. At the time I was really surprised, so I went to Zhongguancun and it turns out he was right. They had this kind of product everywhere, in the form of watches, buttons, everything. So now when I talk with people I first check to see if they’re carrying a pen, (laughter) and do those buttons they’re wearing look quite right? Why do I do this? I have no choice. Originally this was all high tech; only the most advanced special agents had these kinds of things. Now ordinary people all have these kinds of things. You don’t know when they’ll be used [on you].

  I once spoke about how since the introduction of the copy machine, the relationship between rural farmers and the government has changed. You might know that rural farmers who find you to [help them] initiate a lawsuit bring lots of copies of central government documents with them in their pockets. You should not underestimate copy machines. Without them, the relationship between rural farmers and the government would not be the same. I’ve run into this kind of thing. When I was in Hunan doing research, these rural farmers walked into the government [building]. They slapped these documents down on the table and said, “You’re opposing the central government. We are just trying to execute the central government’s policies.” The government there was really surprised saying, “Since when have we opposed the central government?” The rural farmers said, “Take a look, this central government document says that you cannot collect taxes on a per capita basis. So why are you collecting taxes on a per capita basis?” The government official takes a look and sees that it really says this and gets really nervous. What a mess. [He asks], “When did you get this document? Why have I not yet seen it.” He probably [didn’t see it because he] was out playing mahjong, (laughter) and these ordinary people who are suing, they have been dwelling on this issue day after day. A lot of times these ordinary people have copied more documents than us lawyers. If there were no copy machine, would rural farmers dare say this? They wouldn’t. If you were to place a [hand-copied] document on whatever leader’s desk, that leader would slap the table [and say], “You’re forging central government documents!” [Because] no matter how well you copied the document, you will always copy at least one character wrong.

  When I was in Hunan I met this rural farmer. In my book I wrote that he was a rural farmer publicity expert. What kind of a rural farmer was he? Before I met him, I had imagined that he would have great speaking abilities and have a commanding appearance. After meeting him I discovered he could not have been a more plainspoken farmer. What was it that he did? At the time the [agricultural] taxes and fees were being collected he was working in Guangdong and was not in his hometown. The local government came and carried his coffin off.** After returning and hearing that his coffin had been carried off he stopped working altogether. He bought a loudspeaker and a tape recorder. He had someone read central government documents about easing the burdens of rural farmers and recorded these. From then on, every day he would shoulder his load over to the entrance of the government building and play his tape. Wherever [the government] went to collect taxes, there he would also be with his loudspeaker playing recordings of the central government about easing the burdens of rural farmers. He really got those local officials to hate him, but there was nothing they could do to him; he was simply publicizing the central government’s policies! (Laughter)

  When I asked this rural farmer, “Why did you use a tape recorder to record [these documents]?” He said, “First of all, I’m old and have difficulty seeing. I don’t speak smoothly. Every time I read it’s a big pain. The second reason is key, after I had this teacher do the recording, I told the local government, “I have lots and lots of tape recordings of these documents and have placed them in lots of different places. You shouldn’t think about doing anything to me because I have not said a single sentence incorrectly. Everything comes from this central government policy or from that central government document.” [He told me], “Even if someday they arrest me and put me in prison I wouldn’t be afraid; I have evidence that I was not speaking recklessly. I never spoke a single sentence; it was the central government that was doing the speaking.” (Laughter) Don’t underestimate these things. When I wrote the book I had a lot of conversations with him. I became acquainted on a deep level with rural farmers’ wisdom and rural farmers’ bravery in using the nation’s laws to counter illegal government [acts]. Supposing there were no copy machines would he dare say this? If there were no recording devices, if there were no audio tapes, would he dare publicize [the central government’s policies]? He would not. That is because the local governments could completely say that he was forging central government documents, that he was engaging in reactionary propaganda. So some of us lawyers in this regard are still not at the level of this rural farmer. I have continually recommended that everyone should use modern technology more. This is not necessarily so that you can use it as evidence; it’s so that at least you can protect yourselves. What I say on any day I have audio and video recorded.

  The fourth characteristic [of venting incidents] is that there is no “baseline of rules.” Earlier, when I talked about rights defense activities I repeatedly mentioned that [the activists] were all about the rules. In contrast, venting incidents have no “baseline of rules.” Beating, smashing, looting, burning, these kinds of actions often occur and necessarily will occur [in this type of event]. If it did not occur then it would not be a venting incident. This year [2009] has also seen several large venting incidents. There was the Hainan East Side Incident, the Sichuan Nanchong Incident, etc., etc.

  I have spoken about rights defense activities and venting incidents. Now I will speak about rabble-rousing. What is the difference between rabble-rousing and venting incidents? Everyone take a look at this. (PowerPoint slide) This is a rabble-rousing incident in Hunan in September, 2008. You can see they smashed the sign of the people’s government. This kind of incident occurs frequently; the key is to look over here. This is a supermarket. The people looted this supermarket. [I] later discovered that this supermarket had absolutely nothing to do with the [precipitating] event. This is the key difference between rights defense activities, venting incidents and rabble-rousing. Rabble-rousers will attack people who are unrelated [to the precipitating event]. Rights defense activities are primarily directed towards those who inflicted the harm and towards the government. Venting incidents are primarily directed towards the government and those who inflicted the harm. However, rabble-rousing activities are directed towards unrelated people. Look again; doesn’t this look like carnival? People looting supermarkets, looting stores, people giddy with joy. In October 2008 during the National Day holiday, the stores there were all basically closed and didn’t dare open. Finally they had to actually deploy field army troops to go in there before order was restored. I call this kind of action rabble-rousing. There is possibly one type of rabble-rousing activity that is sparked by ideology. The March 2008 problems in Lhasa, I also classify as rabble-rousing. The key question is whether [the incident] is directed towards unrelated people. The problems that occurred this year in Xinjiang, some people say were terrorist activities. I don’t think they were; I think they were rabble-rousing.

  This is my simple generalization about mass incidents currently. The main characteristic of rights defense activities is that there is a relatively clear material request. Venting incidents do not have a clear material request, they are mainly [people] venting their feelings of resentment and anger. The key difference between rabble-rousing and venting is that rabble-rousing is directed towards unrelated people, innocent bystanders. Once you discover that the incident is directed towards innocent bystanders then you can classify the problem as rabble-rousing.

  * Zhongguancun is a high-tech area in Haidain District, Beijing.

  ** It is common in rural China for people to purchase coffins before they die. This is for a number of reasons. First, the quality of the coffin as the long-term resting place for the body is held to be extremely important. Also, some think that an expensive coffin will help one be reincarnated as a wealthy person. Second, coffins are expensive and can cost much more than a person’s yearly salary. Therefore to ensure a proper burial, Chinese people in rural areas often buy coffins long before they die.

  In rural areas, if people did not pay taxes, local government officials would sometimes go to the person’s house and take away possessions (including coffins). These would then be then be sold to pay the tax debt.

  [To be continued]

  » Read more
  • March 11, 2010 8:34 PM

• Zhang Boshu (张博树): An Insider’s Account of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Part II)

  

  China Geeks has translated a second article by Zhang Boshu, a political philosopher and constitutional scholar, about his experiences inside the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Part I is here:

  Zhang joined the CASS in 1991 as an Assistant Researcher after getting a PhD. By 1993, if not for political reasons, he should have been promoted to the next rank. He explains how the system works:

  The position at CASS (research grade) is comprised of four ranks: Researcher, Deputy Researcher, Assistant Researcher and Research Intern, respectively corresponding to senior, deputy senior, middle and junior ranks. According to regulations at CASS, fresh PhD graduates can join as Assistant Researcher. Two years later, they can apply for promotion to Deputy Researcher. At the end of 1993, I can apply for a Deputy Researcher position. Although I haven’t published any articles in China after 1989, I have already published one major work, one translated work and over ten articles before the ‘June Fourth Incident. In 1993, my English work was also due to be published. According to the norms at CASS, one book or just one to two influential articles would be sufficient to get you to a Deputy Researcher position. Despite my plenty of research, I was not promoted because of my insistence on political principles.

  He applied for a promotion in 1994, but was rejected again. This had financial implications, and between 1995 and 2000, he ventured into businesses, which included opening two schools and one private enterprise. But throughout this period, he was still officially affiliated with the CASS, and his plan to start a private university in 2000 made his relationship with the CASS closer. It is under this background that he applied for a promotion again in 2000, only to fail once more.

  Between October 2001 and January 2002, he went to a university in Michigan as a visiting scholar. Upon returning to China, he started working on the sensitive book From May Fourth to June Fourth. In 2004, 2005 and 2006, he made applications for promotion, which were all unsuccessful. As a result, he had been an Assistant Researcher for a total of 19 years, from 1991 to 2009.

  » Read more
  • March 11, 2010 12:25 PM

• China Increases Security in Tibet to Prevent Protests

  

  From the New York Times:

  For a second straight year, the Chinese government has increased security across parts of the vast Tibetan plateau to dissuade any Tibetans from holding protests this week to mark the anniversaries of ethnic uprisings. Witnesses who have spent time recently in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, and other Tibetan areas of western China say there are more police and paramilitary forces on the streets, some of them bearing automatic weapons.

  On Tuesday, Ma Jun, the deputy chief of the Lhasa police force, said at a news conference that the police had begun a “crackdown storm” on March 2. He said 2,800 security officers had been deployed around the city and had examined thousands of people and nearly 150 businesses for signs of criminal activity, according to Xinhua, the state news agency.

  A year ago, the Chinese government also blanketed the Tibetan region with security forces for fear that Tibetans would take to the streets as they did in March 2008. That widespread rebellion, which resulted in the deaths of ethnic Han civilians and others, began as a protest to mark the anniversary of a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959.

  » Read more
  • March 11, 2010 3:15 AM

CDT BOOKSHELF

China Digital Times is run by the Berkeley China Internet Project | Copyright © China Digital Times | Powered by WordPress.