“I’m still very hesitant about it,” Ai told Reuters in an interview. “Last night, I said: ‘Come on, I’m not going to pay anything.’”

“Even if I got all the money and support from the public, police told me just yesterday: ‘Well, it’s good, you still have the intention to pay. If you pay, that means you admit the crime,’” Ai said. “It will justify the way they’ve arrested me. By myself, in my heart, I won’t pay a penny ….”

Ai said he has enough on hand to pay the first 8 million yuan in back taxes and late payment penalties that is required by next Tuesday to get an administrative review, in which a panel re-examines the merits of an official decision ….

“The logic is, if we pay, then we have a chance to appeal. But you know, the court and the whole legal system has also become a subdivision of the police,” he said.

Human Rights in China translated a message from Ai’s mother, Gao Ying, who wrote that she would be willing to give up her home if necessary to raise funds (although the Reuters article, written two days later, explains that this would take too long to help in any case):

They demand that the 15,220,000 has to be paid in 15 days. An additional 200,000 yuan will be added for every day late. And if he can’t pay it, then he’ll be taken in. This amount is astronomical for an artist. At the same time, the deadline for payment is so tight that not even robbing banks could help. … Well, since Ai Weiwei is not able to pay, as his mother, I have to step in to help. My monthly retirement payment isn’t much, just a few thousand yuan; this bit of money can’t save my daughter-in-law and their friends who are implicated.

The only thing that I can use is my home; I am willing to first mortgage it, then auction it. I want to resolve this debt. …

I am a Chinese person. I want to live with dignity. If a country is not well run, the Chinese people are dishonored. I hope that in our country there is freedom, justice, rule of law, guarantee of personal safety, and people can live with a sense of security. As a mother, these are what I ask for, but I’m afraid I will not get them.

Whether Ai decides to pay or not may be incidental to many of the donors, whose contributions seemed to be intended more as symbolic gestures than as financial assistance. Some chose to underscore their political intent by lending sums alluding to sensitive dates. The Los Angeles Times explains:

Among the donors was Zhao Lianhai, who became an activist for food safety after his child was sickened by baby formula tainted with the additive melamine in 2008. Another was a father who wanted to recognize Ai’s efforts to publicize the plight of children killed by collapsing schools in the devastating Sichuan province earthquake. The man sent in 512 yuan, about $80, marking the date of the earthquake: May 12, 2008.

Even more provocative was the tribute from Jason Ng, a well-known technology blogger. He sent in 89.64 yuan, or about $14. Anybody in China would recognize the significance: June 4, 1989 was the date of the brutal crackdown on student demonstrators at Tiananmen Square.

“It’s not about the money,” wrote Ng on a microblog. “I just don’t like the Communist Party! That’s it.”

Another 512 yuan contribution came, purportedly, from activist Tan Zuoren, who is currently serving a five year sentence for inciting subversion of state power. Some expressed wonder that he had been allowed to send a postal remittance from prison, while others suggested that the money was more probably not from Tan at all. The donations have been polarising, as reactions on Twitter illustrate:

@melissakchan (Al Jazeera English): Ai is a well-off artist with no shortage of money. That’s not the point. The point is that people are protesting, says the artist.

@Bequelin (Human Rights Watch): Donation campaign for Ai Weiwei a landmark dvt for State-society relations in China. 1st dissident not to turn into an outcast. #aiww

@jordanpouille (La Vie etc.): showing support by giving money to a well-off artist sounds very 1% for me.

@AdamMinter (Bloomberg etc.): Finally, it comes to me: Tom Wolfe explained Ai Weiwei donations in 1970. http://t.co/My4La3FJ #radicalchic

On Sina Weibo, Global Times editor Hu Xijin dismissed Ai and his supporters as a mere statistical inevitability given China’s size and diversity, suggesting that they were hopelessly alienated from the country’s mainstream. This echoed the argument put forward in a Monday editorial which also wafted vague accusations of illegal fundraising, a crime punishable by death, in Ai’s direction.

A Washington Post editorial, on the other hand, fell on the more positive end of the spectrum, suggesting that the support for Ai should stand as a warning to the authorities to avoid acting rashly:

By late Monday, Mr. Ai told the Agence France-Press news organization, he had collected 5.29 million yuan, or $830,000, more than a third of what he owes. It’s not clear that he needs the money; the artist has sold many works abroad. But Mr. Ai rightly is choosing to accept the payments as loans — and as a remarkable demonstration of solidarity. “This shows that a group of people who want to express their views are using their money to cast their votes,” he told the Associated Press. “It shows that in the Internet age, society will have its own judgment and its own values.”

That is just what Chinese authorities are worried about. Panicked by the popular uprisings for democracy in the Arab world this year, they have been trying to silence anyone who might inspire a “jasmine revolution” in China, starting with Mr. Ai. After arresting him in April, they held him incommunicado for nearly three months and subjected him to what he called “mental” tortures — such as being forced to stand for hours with guards inches away from him. When he was released in June, Mr. Ai was warned to stop speaking out in public ….

Communist authorities would be wise, however, to take a lesson from the popular reaction to Mr. Ai’s persecution. Perhaps the time isn’t yet ripe for the pro-democracy revolution the regime fears so much. But if the party would like to tempt fate, putting Mr. Ai back in jail would be an excellent way to do it.

Update: See also Evan Osnos’ take on Ai’s predicament.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Ai Weiwei, Ai Weiwei detention 2011, Global Times, human rights in china, human rights watch, jasmine revolution, Jason Ng, June 4th, Sichuan earthquake, Tan Zuoren, tax evasion, Zhao Lianhai
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Songshinan (Chat host): You were just named by 《Southern Wind》 magazine as the 2009 Man of Public Interest. You deserve it.

In 2009, you and your team found at least 5000 names of children who died during the Sichaun earthquake. Your action warmed thousands of families, moved inumerous conscientious Chinese and made them feel angry and inspired, and also cornered the stupid Sichuan government.

In your own unique way, you have challenged the authoritarian windmill, used courage to press the cowardice of the authorities, used playfulness to highlight the authorities’ stupidity, used persistence to reveal the authorities’ crudeness, used your action to prove authorities’ falseness.

In my heart, you are more than the man of 2009; you are the largest Grass-Mud Horse in China this year.

Questions from forum members:

fatherofmissingfish: Hi Old Ai. 2009 was a hard year.  There was Huang Qi, then Tan Zuoren [inprisoned]. The government repression of rights defenders has been extremely harsh. What do you think about the future of the human rights movement?

Ai Weiwei: The government is protecting their power; citizens are defending their rights. No matter how hard defending rights is, this is the only way.

ririxishou：Hi teacher Ai. [In Chinese, "teacher" is a term of respect] I want to ask one question.  Which dimension of change do you think is most important for today’s China: Is it immediate demands for freedom? Or raising citizen consciousness first, then talking about freedom?

Ai Weiwei: For the question of freedom, there is no bargain, no strategy. You are either free or not free.

Kaidijianeng: Teacher Ai, please share your thoughts on “freedom” and “citizenship” in today’s society. What are your expectations for government and for citizens?

Ai Weiwei: Today the government’s wisdom is to play dead; citizen’s wisdom is to kick [the government's] ass, regardless if it’s playing dead or really dead.

vahine: Grandpa Ai [In Chinese, "grandpa" is an informal term of high respect], is there any space to compromise between us and authorities? Is there still a possibility of constructive interaction?

Ai Weiwei: I think we have a 100% bastard government, but only less then 5% of citizens demand democracy, equality and justice. So there is a lot of space.

jencoxu: Do you still have any hope for China? Do you think the next round of reforms will be top down or bottom up?

Ai Weiwei: I never had any hope for China. I am only resisting the hopelessness China is imposing on me.

Zhangyang: Dearest Grandpa Ai, my question is: What factors in Chinese culture are preventing the establishment of civil society? How can we address that?

Ai Weiwei: We always talk about Chinese culture this and Chinese culture that.  As a matter of fact, Chinese culture has no damn business here. Forget about Chinese culture; this is the shortcut to civil society.

wtdd: How big is the possibility of organizing an opposition party, for example through Twitter?

Ai Weiwei: The order should be, organizing people on Twitter first, then organizing a party.

zyl1989：Are you ready for prison? Or put it this way, the government has not yet put you into a prison cell. Is it because they do not think you are threatening enough?

Ai Weiwei: I don’t think so. It is because the prison cell is not big enough.

pigselbow: In an intervew about the 1980s generation,  Chen Danqing [an artist] commented that you are a lefty artist. What do you think about his comment?

Ai Weiwei: Left or right, that’s a scholar’s business. As a citizen, there is only one position: Grass-Mud Horse.

louy0427: Master Ai, I salute you and pay my respect here.  I want to ask what kind of strength sustains you on the current road? After all, your fame and influence can open any country’s door for you. Please tell us, when more and more elites emigrate to foreign countries because they are disappointed in the ruling powerful of this land, why have you chosen a road full of danger and unknowns? After all, you are facing a ruthless government which has a powerful propaganda apparatus and violent force! Thank you!

Ai Weiwei: If I give up the country I am in, then I have lost my reason to choose any other country. If I denied my current road, there is no other road in front of me.

li198558: Please Mr. Ai tell us why you investigate the names of students who died in the earthquake? Tell us the truth!

Ai Weiwei: I don’t believe the parents of these kids did not name them.

Ricebowl: Facing such a bastard society, is Teacher Ai ever depressed? How can you keep full of energy?

Ai Weiwei: Mixing bastardness with depression you will for sure be full of energy, this is a secret recipe from our ancestors.

runnakedisanotherkindofbeauty: Teacher Ai, if you had 10,000 soldiers, would you rebel?

Ai Weiwei: I would command all of them to run naked.

Openthemouth: Please let us know your thoughts. In the current situation, the government’s political propaganda and influence has reached every cell of society, and [the government] purposely weakens citizen education. How can we effectively raise the consciousness of citizens? Facing the powerful propaganda machine, how can we maximize the voices of dissent?

Ai Weiwei: In the lengthy life time, you just need to express yourself simultaneously with others one time, and the world will be changed.

maoxihua: For the group who demands democracy, equality and justice but makes up less then 5% of the population, what should these people do?

Ai Weiwei: Reach 6% ASAP.

(...)
Read the rest of Ai Weiwei (艾未未) on Citizenship and Freedom (265 words)

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 1984bbs, Ai Weiwei, grass-mud horse, huang qi, Tan Zuoren
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

As I watched coverage of the NPC on Chinese television, and as I heard Premier Wen speaking in determined tones about the importance of supervision by public opinion, or yulun jiandu (舆论监督) – a term that encompasses the notion of power monitoring by the press and the public – I thought first of Tan Zuoren in his jail cell.

…Delegates to the NPC and CPPCC, if you have read the draft of Tan Zuoren’s research report, and if you have seen the documentaries made by Professor Ai Xiaoming (艾晓明) and others, then you will see beyond any shadow of a doubt that the problem of shoddy construction in the earthquake zone was very real.

You will also no doubt recall that on May 16, just days after the quake, People’s Daily Online invited officials from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Housing to speak with Internet users, and these officials said that “if indeed shoddy construction was a factor in school collapses, this will be strictly investigated and handled with zero tolerance.”

More than one year later, the official in charge of Sichuan’s provincial housing authority maintains that “there were no cases of collapse in the earthquake attributable to construction quality issues.”

Over the issue of school collapses in the Sichuan quake, the people have been denied the right to monitor the government, to criticize the government. The parents of the students who were lost are left with nothing but there own grief. And an intellectual who plead for the most basic justice for the people has been locked away.

What are Tan Zuoren’s crimes? He loves his nation. He loves his home. He cares for the facts. He speaks with principle. It is just as Professor Cui Weiping has said: “This kind of person is the backbone of our people . . . the foundation stone for the rebuilding of our moral fiber and conscience, and the starting point for the rebuilding of our spirit. To hold such a man prisoner is to imprison the conscience of our people!”

Read more about Tan Zuoren via CDT.

Also related, artist/activist Ai Weiwei and others sent open letters to all the delegates to this year’s NPC meetings calling for transparency in the handling of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Global Times reports:

This letter says that last year the so-called “citizen investigators” had sent 113 letters to government departments at all levels, requesting the disclosure of information. But “none of the departments directly answered a single question raised by us,” the new letter said.

Eighty-four departments responded to last year’s “citizens’ investigation.” But all of them said the group should look for the information online, refusing to offer any other details, saying it concerns state or business secrets. Tuesday’s letter said the other 27 departments did not respond to last year’s letters, violating the regulations on the disclosure of government information, which require them to reply within seven business days.

…Ai and some volunteers also posted the letter on a popular social micro-blog run by Sina.com Wednesday morning. But the accounts containing extracts of the letter were suspended, and more than 70 accounts containing the char-acters Ai or Wei were “killed” by the webmaster Wednesday, Ai told the Global Times.

A customer service employee at Sina.com said the reason for the suspension is the posts in those accounts contain sensitive material.

Read more about the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and the collapse of schools, via CDT.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2008 Sichuan earthquake, NPC 2010, School Collapse, Tan Zuoren, transparency
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Attorney Pu Zhiqiang said activist Tan Zuoren was convicted of the charge Tuesday by the Chengdu Intermediate Court. Tan’s trial in August had concluded with no ruling, while police detained and threatened the man’s supporters.

Tan’s supporters say they believe the authorities were trying to silence him for his investigation into the collapse of schools in the 7.9-magnitude earthquake that struck in Sichuan province in May 2008, leaving almost 90,000 dead or missing. Tan estimated at least 5,600 students were among the dead.

The charge of inciting subversion of state power is believed linked to his quake investigation as well as essays he wrote about the 1989 student-led demonstrations in Tiananmen Square that ended in a deadly military crackdown. Beijing routinely uses such broad and vaguely defined accusations to imprison dissidents, sometimes for years.

Pu said Tan would appeal the court’s decision.

See also a Reuters report. ChinaGeeks has translated selected tweets about the verdict.

Update: The BBC has posted a profile of Tan.

Please click here to read the Chinese text of “1989: Testifying to the Final Beauty,” written by Tan Zuoren. This text was used as criminal evidence against him by Chinese government.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2010. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2008 Sichuan earthquake, pu zhiqiang, School Collapse, Tan Zuoren
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

In late August 2008, following the 100th day of the Sichuan Earthquake, rescue teams began to withdraw and the media ceased to report on the disasters at the schools. Chengdu environmentalist Tan Zuoren and local volunteers were still rushing from one collapsed school to the next, trying to find out why they had collapsed. Autumn went and winter came, Tan Zuoren and Xie Yihui had visited ten counties and cities and over eighty towns and townships in the main disaster region, covering a distance of about 3,000km. They managed to release an investigate report on the internet before the 1st anniversary of the May 12 Earthquake. This is the first investigative report conducted by independent citizens on the collapsed schools.

An Investigation by Citizens from SC King on Vimeo.

More information about the video is here.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Ai Xiaoming, School Collapse, Tan Zuoren
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

The US House of Representatives on Saturday threw its support behind two Chinese activists put on trial after investigating whether shoddy construction led to children’s deaths in last year’s Sichuan earthquake.

In a nearly unanimous vote, the House approved a resolution saying it “expresses its support” for activists Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren and calling on China to guarantee their rights to free speech and fair trials.

Huang and Tan went on separate trials in August on respective charges of possessing state secrets and subversion, although human rights groups believe they were targeted due to their activism after the Sichuan earthquake.

Huang, the founder of a human rights website, posted parents’ demands for an investigation and spent nearly 14 months in detention before going on trial. Tan, a writer, led calls for an independent probe into school construction.

The resolution H.RES.877 is sponsored by Congressman Wu, David [OR-1] and cosponsored by 176 bipartisan members of Congress, including nine House committee chairmen. Title: Expressing support for Chinese human rights activists Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren for engaging in peaceful expression as they seek answers and justice for the parents whose children were killed in the Sichuan earthquake of May 12, 2008. One can find the full text of the resolution on the Library of Congress’s Thomas website.

Here is the full text of Congressman Wu’s statement on the House floor follows:

“Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy when any child is killed. It is an abomination when the act of asking questions about one’s child’s death leads to harassment or persecution by one’s own government.

“We all remember when a major earthquake struck Sichuan province, China, on May 12, 2008. It was the most devastating natural disaster to hit China in more than three decades.

“That day, I was the first personally to present condolences to the Chinese people for their loss.

“Particularly heartbreaking were the stories of the children who were killed as their school buildings collapsed around them, and the images of parents overwhelmed with grief. In the aftermath of the earthquake, these parents started questioning why school buildings collapsed at a much higher rate than other types of buildings. They allege that poor construction and corruption among local officials and builders contributed to the school building collapses.

“These allegations have been stonewalled, or worse, resulted in the harassment of the complainants. Chinese courts have refused to hear lawsuits brought by the parents. Local officials have even kept some complaining parents in arbitrary detention.

“As a parent myself, I find it a tragic failure of justice to have these grievances go unaddressed—especially if a society chooses to enforce a one child policy.

“Two human rights activists from Sichuan’s capital city of Chengdu attempted to stand up for these grieving parents and give voice to their concerns.

“Soon after the earthquake struck, Mr. Huang Qi posted articles on his website, the Tianwang Human Rights Center, about the parents’ demands for an investigation into the school building collapses.

“Separately, in February of this year, Mr. Tan Zuoren issued a proposal on the Internet calling for volunteers to travel to Sichuan to compile lists of students killed in the quake, to document the parents’ treatment, and to conduct an investigation of the quality of school building construction. Mr. Tan’s report criticized officials for failing to follow through on commitments to fully investigate the role that inferior construction played in the school building collapses and for failure to deal with the parents’ demands.

“For these actions, the local Chengdu municipal government charged both Mr. Huang and Mr. Tan with endangering national security. Mr. Huang was charged with illegally possessing state secrets and Mr. Tan was charged with inciting subversion of state power.

“After months of being held in prison—Mr. Huang for over a year—both of these men were put on trial in August of this year. There are allegations that both trials were fraught with numerous substantive and procedural violations.

“In the case of Mr. Tan, the parents of the earthquake victims said they were detained to prevent them from attending his trial. The court reportedly rejected requests from Mr. Tan’s lawyers to call three witnesses, including the noted architectural designer Ai Weiwei, who helped design the Beijing Olympics’ Bird’s Nest Stadium and who was also investigating student deaths in the Sichuan earthquake. According to Mr. Ai, police came to his hotel and used force to prevent him and 10 others from leaving the premises until after the trial ended.

“Mr. Huang’s trial was allegedly fraught with similar violations, including the detention of a volunteer from the Tianwang Human Rights Center to prevent him from testifying on Mr. Huang’s behalf.

“To date, judgments have not issued in either Mr. Huang’s or Mr. Tan’s trial. The trials have been suspended or held open. Both men continue to be held in prison.

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass House Resolution 877 to express their support for Mr. Huang and Mr. Tan’s peaceful request for answers and justice on behalf of the parents whose children were killed in the Sichuan earthquake.

“This bipartisan resolution, with 176 cosponsors, calls on the Chinese government to adhere to its own constitutional guarantees, its own criminal procedure laws, and its own recently issued National Human Rights Action Plan to ensure that Mr. Huang, Mr. Tan, and all Chinese citizens are accorded the right to free speech and the right to criticize and make suggestions to the government, as guaranteed by their own constitution.

“Mr. Speaker, no one who suffers the loss of a child deserves abandonment by or punishment from his or her own government.

“Let us pass this resolution today for the thousands of parents in Sichuan who remain without answers about the death of their son or daughter, and for the two men who have courageously spoken out on their behalf.”

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: David Wu, huang qi, political prisoners, Tan Zuoren, U.S. Congress
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

I spent the month of August 2009 travelling around China and looking at the state of democracy (in the sense of “village elections”), the rule of law, and civil society. It was a sobering experience full of disturbing revelations.

There was an auspicious moment on the very day of my arrival, when Xu Zhiyong – who heads Gongmeng (Open Constitution Initiative), a small legal-aid NGO – was detained for “non-payment of taxes” (the grey zone in which independent NGOs exist in China means that this charge is often a convenient pretext for official persecution). Xu Zhiyong was released on 23 August, but may still face prosecution. The pattern of harassment is consistent: on 12 August a court case involving the environmental activist Tan Zuoren in the southwestern city of Chengdu was conducted so badly that his lawyer burst into tears.

Ai Weiwei – the designer of Beijing’s Olympic stadium (the “Bird’s Nest”) and one of China’s most prominent intellectuals – had travelled to Chengdu hoping to testify on Tan Zuoren’s behalf, but to no avail. There was a chilling sequel: Ai was rewarded for his efforts by having his hotel door hammered on in the middle of the night, then – when he opened it to see what was going on – being punched senseless.

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Ai Weiwei, Hu Jintao, Tan Zuoren, Xu Zhiyong
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Last Friday (Sep 4), three Hong Kong journalists were beaten up and detained by Xinjiang armed polices when they were covering the protest in Urumqi. Yesterday, the authorities in Xinjiang claimed that the three journalists were under the suspicion of inciting public disorder by making hand gestures. The director of the Xinjiang Autonomous Regional Information Office, Hou Hanmin, claimed that two of the journalists had not been authorized to report in the city and described the brutal act of the polices as an “unfortunate incident”.

This is not an isolated incident. Back in August, two reporters from Now TV were accused of possessing drug in their hotel rooms when they were reporting the trial of citizen rights activist Tan Zouren in Sichuan. On Sep 6, again 5 Hong Kong reporters were detained in Urumqi. All these incidents are threats to journalists’ personal security and the freedom of speech and press in Hong Kong. The Xinjiang government’s statement, accusing journalists of inciting public disorder, has further outraged the public and many expressed their anger in blogs and online media.

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Hong Kong journalists, Tan Zuoren, Xinjiang
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Defense Plea in the Tan Zuoren Case

From Xiao Xuehui’s blog [Xiao Xuehui is a public intellectual based in Chengdu]

August 17, 2009

[At the request of Ms. Wang Qinghua, [the wife of Tan Zuoren] the first instance plea of lawyers Xia Lin and Pu Zhiqiang has been released. The two lawyers faced many obstacles and put up with humiliation in order to carry out their important work with rare perseverance to complete their plea, stopping and starting because they were interrupted many times. The first instance plea should have been published as an exact copy of the original document. This is not possible, however, because of web filtering, and so in order to defeat the control of the web, we made technical changes in some of the keywords. This is a very precious legal document. Everyone concerned with the case of Tan Zuoren should read it.

— Xiao Xuehui made this explanation and requests that this document be reposted on other websites.]

The case of Tan Zuoren Accused of Incitement to Overthrow State Power
Defense Plea

To the Panel of Judges of the Tan Zuoren case:

The Beijing Huayi Law Office, which was commissioned according to law by the defendant Tan Zuoren, designated the lawyers Xia Lin and Pu Zhiqiang to make the first instance plea. After receiving this commission, we reviewed the case files, interviewed the defendant, and conducted many interviews and conducted many investigations. We believe that after being reviewed by the court, the accusations brought by the prosecution against Tan Zuoren cannot be proven. Based on the indictment and evidentiary materials exchanged with the prosecution before the trial, we make the following defense:

I. With regard to the nature of the article “1989: The Last Beauty I Witnessed — the Tiananmen Diary of an Eyewitness” written by the defendant Tan Zuoren:

The prosecution states that “The accused Tan Zuoren is dissatisfied with the way the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party handled the”June X Incident” and the conclusions it drew about that incident. For many years, he has been carrying out in many ways “June X” commemorative activities. On May 27, 2007, Tan Zuoren concocted an article entitled “1989: The Last Beauty I Witnessed — the Tiananmen Diary of an Eyewitness” and distributed it through the Internet to a website outside of mainland China’s borders, “The Torch of Liberty,” as well as to other websites. The main points of this article provide a distorted account of the “June X Incident” and libel the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee’s handling of it.”

The definition of “libel” in the dictionary is “making something out of nothing, saying bad things about a person, damaging a person’s reputation, slandering someone” (See Modern Chinese Language Dictionary, Second Edition, P. 315, published January 1983). The prosecution’s charge that the defendant Tan Zuoren “made a distorted account and committed libel” is a matter to evaluate according to the facts and as to whether the contents of Tan Zuoren’s article are true.

The court investigation has already determined that “1989: The Last Beauty I Witnessed — the Tiananmen Diary of an Eyewitness” was written on May 27, 2007 and is his personal response to statements about the “June X Incident” by Ma Li, Chairman of the Hong Kong Popular Alliance. The purpose of the article was to make the facts clear (see interrogation record).

However, after Ma Li made that statement, the Vice Chairman of the Hong Kong Popular Alliance, Liu Jianghua said that Ma Li’s statement did not represent the views of the Popular Alliance and wanted to apologize on his behalf. Tan Zuoren wrote this article based upon his memories as an eyewitness of the period leading up to and following the “June X Incident”. The prosecution in its accusation states that Tan Zuoren “made a distorted and libelous account” but has not presented evidence to support that accusation. Nor has it in court “made an accurate account”, so how can Tan Zuoren be accused to writing falsehoods?

According to the indictment, Tan Zuoren has “for many years in many ways conducted activities commemorating ‘June X’” but has presented no evidence to support this charge. Moreover, according to Tan Zuoren’s own account during interrogation in court, before the 2007 statement of Ma Li, he had not conducted any commemoration of “June X”. So what is the basis of “for many years” and what is the basis of “in many ways”?

The defense believes that this prosecution charge against the defendant Tan Zuoren is vague, untrue and not supported by the evidence.

The charge cannot be proved according to law and so should clearly be rejected.

II. With regard to the prosecution’s accusation that Tan Zuoren communicated with the “enemy element outside China’s borders” Wang Dan and suggested that voluntary blood donation drives be conducted.

According to the prosecution’s accusation, “Shortly after the article was published, the enemy element outside China’s borders Wang Dan contacted him by e-mail and on several occasions sent him propaganda materials about the ‘June X’ incident.

On June X, 2008, the accused Tan Zuoren together with others in Chengdu’s Tianfu Square conducted a voluntary blood donation drive to commemorate ‘June X’ by donating blood. Shortly thereafter, he was interviewed by telephone by the media outside mainland China’s borders, ‘Voice of Hope’. Since November 2008, Wang Dan on several occasions sent him materials on activities to commemorate the so-called twentieth anniversary of the ‘June X’ incident. On February 10, 2009, the accused Tan Zuoren sent Wang Dan an email ‘Suggestions on the Twentieth Anniversary of June X’ suggesting that during this year’s ‘June X’ period conducting so-called ‘June X Worldwide Chinese Voluntary Blood Drives’ in order to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of ‘June X’.”

With respect to this charge, the defense believes:

1. Criminal methods of incitement to overthrow state power involve the open encouragement of a group of two or more people. The facts presented in this accusation involve a private email between Wang Dan and Tan Zuoren. This is not in accord with the open nature of this crime and that the incitement be directed at a group of two or more people.

2. The designation of Wang Dan as an “enemy element outside of China’s borders” has not been officially announced by the state and the defendant is not aware of this. Moreover, a search of PRC criminal law did not turn up a crime of “communicating with enemy elements outside of China’s borders”. The prosecution has already determined that Wang Dan is “an enemy element outside of China’s borders” and according to the accusation statement, Wang Dan took the initiative to send to a mailing list materials on “June X”. Considering the political attitudes and behavior of the two people involved in the communication, it could be claimed that Wang Dan was inciting Tan Zuoren but surely it would be nonsense to suppose that the accused Tan Zuoren sought to incite Wang Dan. This is clearly absurd nonsense. This accusation by the prosecution is obviously mistaken.

III. With respect to the prosecution charge that Tan Zuoren made statements about the May 12th Earthquake

The court investigation states that after the May 12 earthquake, the accused Tan Zuoren was interviewed several times by media from both inside and outside China’s borders and on many occasions acted as a guide to assist them in their interviews and investigations. These media included Xinhua, Liaowang Oriental Weekly, First Financial Daily, Humanity and the Biosphere, etc. as well as Hong Kong broadcasters under the Hong Kong government. No matter whether he was interviewed by media from inside or outside China’s borders, he said the same thing.

However, the prosecution accusation stresses only that “Tan Zuoren on several occasions was interviewed by media from outside China’s borders, and made statements that severely damaged the image of our Party and government,” which clearly takes things out of context to make these activities look suspicious.

The defense response to these accusations:

1. The prosecution’s accusations are abstract and empty. The prosecution presented 22 articles with a total of tens of thousands of words as evidence. Looking over these articles, one finds some discussion of the work of the Party and government in earthquake relief. Tan Zuoren praises them where praise is due but not excessively. He does not pass over their shortcomings in silence but discusses them. Just which chapters and which words have anything to do with subversion? I really don’t know.

These 22 articles were collected by the prosecution from the private computer of Tan Zuoren and were edited by Tan Zuoren himself on his computer in the “My Documents” folder. None of them are transcripts of media interviews. This being such an “important case,” how could it have been handled so sloppily? How can these documents be taken as manuscripts that are used as evidence in a criminal case?

2. The court investigation determined that Tan Zuoren is the deputy secretary-general of the Green Rivers environmental NGO and has long been concerned about the construction of hydroelectric power plants in southwest China. His statement about the earthquake involved an analysis of the causes of the earthquake and how it could have been prevented was from the perspective of an expert. This analysis is based upon a considerable amount of scientific evidence. The defense has already provided these materials to the court. Moreover, two experts on the subject, Fan Xiao, an engineer from the Sichuan Province Mining Bureau Geological Survey Team and Prof. Ai Nanshan of the Sichuan University Construction and Environmental College are willing to testify as defense witnesses in court. They are now waiting outside the court because unfortunately the court arbitrarily refused to hear them. We regret this decision.

3. According to the court record of interrogation, after the May 12 earthquake Tan Zuoren made 23 trips to determine the number of students who were killed in the earthquake as well as the number of school and dormitory buildings that had collapsed. He spent over 50 days on these survey trips and collected much first-hand material. He made an objective description of the situation based on these trips.

His surveys showed that for many of the schools in the earthquake zone, poor construction quality led to their collapse. The problem of “bean curd construction” that Tan Zuoren describes certainly exists. Tan Zuoren urges now that the cause of the collapse of the schools and dormitories be thoroughly investigated, that the people responsible face criminal prosecution, and that a natural disaster should not be an excuse to hide a man-made calamity. What is wrong with saying this? And how can anyone be accused of committing a crime by saying this?

Provoked by the deaths of so many students, Tan Zuoren may have said some words in anger and criticized the Ministry of Education. But the defense wants to remind the prosecution: to criticize is not to incite to overthrow the state. The Ministry of Education has never represented state power. Therefore nothing could be as ridiculous as this accusation against Tan Zuoren for incitement to overthrow state power.

IV. The prosecution’s accusation on the legal nature of Tan Zuoren’s behavior.

The prosecution believes that: “The indicted Tan Zuoren, in order to achieve his goal of subverting state power and overthrowing the socialist system fabricated things out of whole cloth, distorted news, and spread speech that is injurious to state power and the socialist system in order to hurt the image of state power and the socialist system in the eyes of the people. This constitutes a crime under article 105 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China. The crime is clear, the evidence is certain and abundant. Tan Zuoren should be prosecuted and convicted of the crime of inciting subversion of state power.”

The defense again reminds the panel of judges that the accused Tan Zuoren, who has made an accurate description of many matters, is accused of “fabricating things out of whole cloth and distorting news”. However, the prosecution has not yet presented any evidence to contradict what Tan Zuoren has written nor any evidence supporting the accusation. If the prosecution is unable to present relevant evidence, then some of the matters it has presented as fact are not credible.

The defense presents three opinions on the legal validity of the accusations brought by the prosecution:

1. Tan Zuoren’s speech related to this case is a matter of a citizen exercising his right to make suggestions and criticisms. That speech does not constitute incitement to overthrow the state and does not fit the criteria for that crime.

This crime is found in the first chapter of the criminal code, “Crimes Against State Security”. Examining that section of the law, it is clear that the definition of this crime is limited to threatening state security.

How can speech threaten state security? We can find an explanation in “The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information” which are widely accepted by international society. Principle Five holds that “Subject to Principles 15 and 16, expression may be punished as a threat to national security only if a government can demonstrate that: (a) the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; (b) it is likely to incite such violence; and (c) there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.”

In China’s legal system no legal or administrative explanation accompanies the legislation on this crime. Therefore, widely accepted international principles can provide an important reference point for the judging of this case. The speech of Tan Zuoren relating to this case had no language inciting to overthrow of the state or to violence. On the contrary, Tan Zuoren’s political views favor gradual and peaceful social progress. The objective effect of his views does not harm but actually supports state security and so of course does not fall with the legal definition of this crime.

Article 41 of the PRC Constitution stipulates: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.” The defense believes that Tan Zuoren’s speech involved in this case was the normal exercise by a citizen of their right to criticize and make suggestions, and should therefore be protected by the PRC Constitution. How can it be construed as “incitement to overthrow the state”?

2. Tan Zuoren did not have any subjective intention to incite to overthrown the State.

This crime in its subjective aspect relates to intention; the person committing the act must have the motive of inciting two or more persons to act to overthrow state power and to overthrow the socialist system.

The defense believes that in order to determine the subjective motive of a personal act, one needs to do a historical study of its objective manifestations over a long period. The court investigation shows that the indicted freely confesses without reservation that he is passionate about the well-being of society and that he has for a long time been making outstanding contributions to political science and administration.

The principal facts are these:

* During 1996 – 1997, he served as the chief planner of the Chengdu City government’s Fenghuang Mountain development project and later led the planning work for the Sichuan International Rehabilitation Center and the Chengdu Rest Home and Assistance Center for the Elderly, the Chengdu City Temporary Residence project, and was asked by the Pi County government to design the Jinguancheng Recreation Area, the Shudu Rear Garden and other projects;
* In 1998, he was asked by the Sichuan Province Academy of Social Sciences to plan the “Great Turn of the Century Human Talent Project”;
* In 1999 he participated in the Yangtze River Environmental Memorial Construction Project;
* In 2000 he planned the Sichuan Exhibition Center transformation project;
* In 2001 he was chosen by the Chengdu Daily as an outstanding citizen of Chengdu;
* In 2002 he planned and implemented the “Century of Great Changes – Chengdu’s Big Transformation” a major photo exhibition; at the Sichuan Provincial People’s Congress consultative conference his proposal to enact a law to protect the Great Panda was adopted. He also participated in the planning for the construction of the “Deng Xiaoping Old Home Tourism District”;
* In 2004 he was invited by the Chengdu Jinniu District to devise a plan for the Jinsha Ruins Park. His proposal for the “Tianfu Gourmet Park” was adopted and became a key project for Chengdu. On behalf of the Sichuan Cultural Bureau he designed and organized a “Culture and the Creative Industries Forum”; revised and made new suggestions for the “Chengdu City Cultural Tourism Industry Plan”, participated in several important meetings organized by the Chengdu City Propaganda Department, participated in the survey and review of the “South to North Water Diversion Project”;
* In 2006, he was asked to design the “Chengdu City Eastern Suburbs Creative Industries Park” concept;
* In 2007 he led the “Chengdu Citizen Ethnic Culture Tourism Development Plan”. His Botiao River Research Project and the research on the “Small Scale Western Waters Diversion” won the approval of Premier Wen Jiabao;
* In 2008, he designed the Cultural Tourism Street project for the Xichang City government. He wrote and distributed an academic report on the issues of the Pengzhou City petrochemical plant project entitled “A Citizen’s Suggestion on the Pengzhou City Petrochemical Project” and sent it to the departments concerned;
* In 2009 he participated in the “May 12 Student Deaths Survey”.

The facts above demonstrate that Tan Zuoren has contributed for the past twenty years to the construction of Chengdu and of Sichuan Province, to scientific planning and to economic planning, all of which have greatly improved the image of the government. In his capacity as a Chinese citizen or as an outstanding expert, Tan Zuoren has also of course criticized some improper administrative actions of the government. How could these well-intentioned and honest criticisms can be maliciously understood as incitement to overthrow state power?

3. The behavior and speech of Tan Zuoren do not constitute this crime.

As everyone knows, the character of the PRC government is a “people’s democratic dictatorship”, that is to say the great majority of the people through democratic means hold state power. Overthrowing state power, then, means having the intention to use anti-democratic methods to destroy the system of people’s democracy. By looking through all of Tan Zuoren’s writings, one can see that he is a person who passionately loves the people, supports democracy, and is opposed to autocracy. Mr. Tan Zuoren is a pioneer of people’s democracy and its guardian, not one who would overturn it and destroy it. To convict him of incitement to overturn state power contradicts the basic character of PRC state political regime.

V. Summation

The matters described above are sufficient to prove that none of the accusations of the prosecution about the speech and actions of Tan Zuoren constitute the crime described in Article 151 in the PRC Criminal Code of “incitement to overthrow state power”. The accusation that Mr. Tan Zuoren committed this crime fails for lack of evidence.

Sichuan since ancient times has been a place where cultured people gather. Many heroes have arisen throughout the history of Chengdu. We are confident that Sichuan has sufficient political wisdom to handle the Tan Zuoren case. Let us quote here a couplet from the Wuhou Temple of Chengdu for the people involved in this case:

“Those able to win people’s hearts are able to eliminate their doubts and their worries; from ancient times people knowledgeable in military affairs have avoided fighting whenever possible; those who are not able to judge situations will make mistakes no matter whether they are strict or lenient. Those who govern Sichuan in the future should deeply reflect upon this.”

The defense earnestly requests that the panel of judges reflect deeply and according to Article 162 of the Law of Criminal Procedure of the PRC, and that they find and proclaim the defendant Tan Zuoren not guilty.

Defense attorneys: Xia Lin and Pu Zhiqiang

Beijing Municipality Huayi Law Firm

August 12, 2009

Read a translation of Tan Zuoren’s indictment and more about his trial via CDT.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: activists, political prisoners, pu zhiqiang, Tan Zuoren
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Tan Zuoren, Xu Zhiyong, Twitter and Green Dam.

Here are selected tweets on these topics, translated by CDT:

1. 我們都知道今天真正被審判的是誰。

We all know today who is really being tried. (Referring to Tan Zuoren’s case)

2. 阿甘说，生活就像明信片，你永远不知道下一张寄给谁。

Forest Gump once said: Life is like postcards. You never know who you’re going to send one to next. (Referring to the Twitterers’ campaign to send postcards to prisoners of conscience.)

3. 除了中國，有那些國家會在數年間有數十次的意圖推翻政府？為甚麼在共產黨宣稱的百年難見的盛世中，會有這許多人想赤手空拳地推翻一個政府？共產黨的確欠我們一個解釋。

Other than China, which other country has had several dozen attempts to overthrow the government within just few years? Why do so many people want to overthrow the government with their empty hands during a period that the Communist Party claims is the best in a hundred years? The Communist Party owes us an explanation.

4. 上联：必须有证件 下联：不许有政见 横批：和谐社会

[Written in the style of a Chinese couplet poem]

Gotta have identification

Gotta have no [political] opinion

Harmonious Society

5.  “wezhiyong.org” 变成关键词，新IP地址更换12小时后再次被封

“wezhiyong.org” (a blog site set up by netizens to advocate Xu Zhiyong’s release.) became a filtered keyword. It’s new IP address was blocked again twelve hours after it had changed.

6. 他们打算怎样？用坦克来碾压推特的服务器么？//解放军报雄文：网络颠覆，不容小觑的安全威胁。http://bit.ly/aDGIy

What are the PLA really planning to do? Roll tanks over Twitter’s servers? (Referring to this article on PLA Daily: Internet Subversion: A Security Threat which must not be underestimated.)

7. Twitter封得住，母猪会上树

If Twitter can be blocked, then pigs can climb trees.

8. 我已翻墙，感觉良好，请祖国和人民放心！

I am over the Great Firewall now. I feel fine. Motherland and people, please don’t worry!

(Chinese astronaut Qu Zhigang 翟志刚 said during a spacewalk: “I am out of the spaceship now. I feel fine. Motherland and people, please don’t worry! “)

9. 差点以为天安门被绿坝了

I almost thought that Tiananmen was “Green Dammed.” (Referring to this news: On August 14, a green fence was set up around Tiananmen Square in Beijing for renovations to greet the 60th anniversary of the PRC’s founding.)

10. 谭作人在狱中写给妻女的信中说：“你们，是我的眼泪”。

“You are my tears.” – from a letter prisoner of conscience Tan Zuoren wrote to his wife and two daughters.

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Fang Binxing, Great Firewall, Green Dam, Tan Zuoren, tweets, Twitter, Xu Zhiyong
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall