A Legal Reform Proposal in Light of Guangzhou Environmental Protest

Over at my law school blog - Dance to the Revolution - I argue for a legal reform in China's environmental law that is more stringent, and focuses on the protection of the procedural rights of the people affected by environmental pollution.

許志永︰我們依然相信未來

〔轉貼〕許志永︰我們依然相信未來——給鄭詠欣同學的回信

文︰許志永

《明報》．世紀，1009年9月21日

編按：中學生鄭詠欣數月前隨老師走訪內地維權律師組織「公盟」，所謂「兩個世界」好像頓然接通。公盟主席許志永被捕後，鄭給溫家寶寫了一封公開信：〈請用法理來說服我〉。

這封信於局外的邊城引起了迴響，在報章頭條香港人看見了維權運動，及艱難抗爭的公民聲音。但隨許氏八月下旬獲釋、譚作人被判刑，維權報道回復沉寂，代之以對十一慶典順利與否的焦慮。今天，已受萬般折騰的許志永給熱心的中學生回了信：他提出，我們都是現代文明中國的公民。一如以往，他開朗揮手，希望以其沉實身影，邀請港人加入推動中國公民社會發展的隊伍。
_______________________


詠欣：

你好！獲釋以後知道你為了公盟給溫總理寫了一封信，而我們曾經有緣在公盟辦公室見過面，一直想向你以及衆多關心公盟的朋友表示感謝。

公盟作為一個堅守法治、理性推動社會進步的非營利公益組織，突然因稅務問題遭此劫難，這是中國公民社會的困境與悲哀。在很多堅守良心和正義的公民站起來吶喊的時候，有一個清新的最有力量的聲音——「請用法理來說服我」，這個基於常識的、純粹的、良心的聲音給人鼓舞和力量。今年4月你們來公盟那天，我給大家講的內容可以歸結為一點——我們對中國的未來滿懷樂觀的希望，這個國家能夠通過溫和理性的漸進改革實現民主法治公平正義，在大陸像公盟這樣的公民政參政組織也能存在和發展，這本身就是社會進步的證明。我之所以那樣樂觀，一方面是基於我們執著的信念，另一方面，我也希望你們在了解大陸的現實問題之後對於國家依然懷有信心。可是沒想到，三個月後公盟遭遇劫難，我很抱歉，這件事給你們心靈帶來衝擊。還好，因為你，以及千千萬萬公民和我們堅定地站在一起，事情有了轉機。

為了公盟，很多香港公民站出來了。香港公民的自由與大陸公民的自由息息相關，但是在我看來，香港公民關心大陸公民的自由和權利不僅僅是為了捍衛自己的自由，更是為了整個中華民族的自由而擔當。中華民族完成政治文明轉型成為一個民主法治公平正義的偉大國家，這不僅是大陸人的責任，也是香港人、台灣人的責任。香港公民關心大陸政治有特殊的優勢，近代屈辱的歷史造成了今天中國激烈的民族主義情緒，別的國家關心中國人權法治有時會因為敵意和逆反心理起到反作用，而香港不一樣，香港是中國的一部分，香港公民對大陸人權法治的關心最有力量。感謝上蒼給我們民族一個自由的香港，一個通往現代文明的窗口，香港注定要為中華民族的現代文明負有特殊使命。感謝你！感謝你們！在公盟為社會進步承受代價時你們和我們共同承擔。你們的關心和支援讓我們更加堅信未來的道路。

從 19世紀開始，一個古老大國懷着現代文明的夢想，蹣跚前行了150多年，然而歷史文化的慣性如此強大，直到21世紀的今天，這塊土地上的人們仍然要為基本的人權和法治保障而奮鬥，這是我們這代人的使命。避免悲劇就應面對所有大陸改革開放30年，經濟獲得高速發展，我們為國家的進步感到驕傲。同時，我們懷有深深的憂慮，經濟發展的同時民主法治建設並沒有及時跟上，特權腐敗和由此帶來的社會不公已經如此嚴重，一年數萬起群體事件早已敲響了警鐘——這不是一個真正穩定和諧的社會，我們的社會潛伏着巨大危機。我們擔心，我們的國家會因為某個無法預見的微不足道的小事突然引發巨大的災難性社會動盪，避免悲劇的方法不是遏制不同的聲音和利益訴求，不是迴避問題，而是切實推動民主和法治建設，真正實現公平正義。

公盟最初起源於2003孫志剛案之後呼籲廢除不合理的收容遣送制度，在過去的6年中，我們曾為「《南方都市報》案」辯護，為黑磚窰受害者、毒奶粉受害孩子尋求公義……為了民主法治和公平正義，我們一直在努力。我們選擇了一條建設性道路，通過典型個案援助、具體法律制度研究和通過公共事件發出法律人理性聲音等方式，在具體維護當事人權利和尊嚴的同時漸進推動社會進步。這是一條新的道路，一條法治的道路，一條推動公民社會健康成長、通過健全制度約束權力的溫和理性的道路。公盟事件讓很多人深感憂慮，溫和理性的建設性道路還有沒有前途？難道這個民族在通往政治文明的道路上除了革命與動蕩之外就沒有新的選擇？

幸運的是我們看到了轉機。現在，法律上公盟的刑事責任應當終結，根據2009年修訂後的刑法，履行了行政處罰義務的不予追究刑事責任，公安機關應當儘快撤銷案件。至於公盟遭受的包括稅務部門在內的其他部門的處罰，我們會走法律程式維護合法權益。你和我現代文明中國公民無論經歷多少挫折和磨難，我們仍然堅守溫和理性建設性的立場，我們盡力捍衛法治和人權，我們對任何人沒有敵意和仇恨，我們願所有人一起促進這個國家的進步和自由。我們始終相信，包括一些體制內官員在內的很多中國公民，和我們一樣懷着對國家、對民族未來的責任心，我們一定可以建設一個民主、法治、文明、仁愛的中國。今天，在公盟遭遇了不公正對待之後，我們仍然相信這一點，我們有這樣的信心，就因為這個國家有衆多的你這樣的公民與我們在一起。我們正在見證一個文明的時代，見證一個古老民族的現代文明之路。我知道這些話題對於一個中學生來說還有些過於沉重，但是，我們的夢想和事業本來就是沉重的責任，懷着感恩的心，幫助那些幾乎對正義絕望的人們，在挫折和磨難中滿懷樂觀的期望。感謝你！感謝所有熱愛公平、公正和公義的人們！一個民主法治公平正義自由幸福的現代文明中國是我們的夢想，這夢想屬於所有中國人。

許志永
2009年9月

Public Notice Regarding Gongmeng’s Fulfillment of Taxation Administrative Penalty Judgment

Translation of the official documents released by Gongmeng (Open Constitution Initiative) on http://www.xuzhiyong.net/


公盟关于履行税务行政处罚决定情况的公告
Public Notice Regarding Gongmeng’s Fulfillment of Taxation Administrative Penalty Judgment


公盟缴税被拒绝
Gongmeng’s Application to Pay Tax Fine Rejected

8月3日，公盟发布《关于同意接受社会捐款用于履行税务行政处罚决定的公告》，积极筹备资金，准备缴纳两税罚款（捐款账户详情公盟将在近日公布）。
8月5日，公盟账户（开户名称：北京公盟咨询有限责任公司，开户银行：中国光大银行北京首体支行，帐号：35080188000016762）被北京市公安局冻结。
公盟已于8月10日上午向北京市公安局致送了请求解冻账户协助办理缴纳税款和罚款的书面文件。8月10日下午，分别到地税和国税申请缴纳罚款。但皆被拒绝。现公告近日公盟缴税过程详情如下：
August 3, Gongmeng released a public notice on “agreement to accept public donation to fulfill the taxation administrative penalty judgment”, actively collecting funding to pay for the two taxation fines (details of the donation will be released in a few days)
August 5, Gongmeng’s account froze by Beijing Police Bureau
August 10, in the morning, Gongmeng submitted documents to Beijing Police Bureau to appeal for the unfreeze of the account in order to pay for the tax and fine; in the afternoon, Gongmeng applied to pay the fine to both local and state tax bureaus, both rejected.
Following are the details of Gongmeng’s tax payment process:


地税局：无法人代表签字不能缴税
Local Tax Bureau: No Tax Payment without Signature from the Legal Representative

2009年8月6日下午，公盟代理律师黎雄兵来到位于朝阳区裕民路12号院的北京市地方税务局第二稽查局，找到第一稽查科的张旭科长，要求开出税收缴款书，履行此前由张旭、曹栋斌、刘朝晖、白俊等税务官对公盟作出的税务处理决定和处罚决定，缴纳税款和罚款。（1、2009年7月17日，北京市地方税务局第二稽查局二稽税稽处[2009]47号《税务处理决定书》，责令公盟补缴营业税、城建税、印花税合计60995.13元；2、2009年7月30日，北京市地方税务局第二稽查局二稽税稽罚[2009]56号《税务行政处罚决定书》，处罚公盟缴纳营业税、城建税、
印花税所偷税款五倍的罚款304975.65元。）
张旭税务官告知，执行的问题归执行科管，建议公盟拿着税务处理文书去执行科开税单，然后凭税单去银行缴款，并告知黎雄兵律师第二天即可以去执行科开具税单。
In the afternoon of August 6th, 2009, Li Xiongbing, Gongmeng’s attorney, went to The 2nd Inspection Bureau of Beijing Local Taxation Bureau to find Zhang Xu, section chief of the 1st division, asking for tax payment documents in order to fulfill the decision regarding Gongmeng’s tax and fine given by tax collectors including Zhang Xu himself, along with Cao Dongbin, Liu Chaohui, Bai Jun. The decision ordered Gongmeng to submit a fine of 304,975.65 RMB, five times of the charged tax invasion amount in sales tax, city planning tax and stamp tax.
Zhang Xu said the execution of the fine is under the management of the Division of Execution, suggesting Gongmeng taking the Taxation Processing Documents to that division for tax bill, with which payments could be made at the bank. He also informed Li Xiongbing that the tax bill could be made the next day at the Division of Execution.

2009年8月7日下午，黎雄兵律师再次来到北京市地方税务局第二稽查局执行科要求开具税单以便到银行缴税。一位自称姓安的副局长和姓郭的税务官接待了黎雄兵律师，他们告知黎雄兵要求有公盟的委托授权书，才能办理。黎雄兵律师说，7月24日参加处罚听证时，已经提交了委托授权书，听证主持人白俊的手中存有该授权委托书。安副局长和郭姓税务官说，该授权委托书是听证授权，不是缴纳税款的授权，因而黎律师不可以代办公司的缴税工作。
In the afternoon of August 7, 2009, lawyer Li Xiongbing came back to The 2nd Inspection Bureau of Beijing Local Taxation Bureau, asking the Division of Execution for tax bill. A Mr. An, Vice Bureau Chief and a Mr. Guo, tax collector received Li Xiongbing, telling him only with Gongmeng’s Power of Attorney letter can this be processed. Li replied saying at the penalty hearing on July 24th, he has already submitted the letter, which was now held by Bai Jun, the hearing director. Mr. An and Mr. Guo said that letter was only for the hearing, not for the tax payment, therefore Li can’t make the payment on the company’s behalf.

2009年8月10日下午2：30，黎雄兵律师与公盟研究员王功权先生带着盖有公盟公司印章的代为办理缴纳税款及罚款事宜的专项委托书，再次来到位于北京市地方税务局第二稽查局办公大楼417房间的执行科，请求开出二稽税稽处[2009]47号《税务处理决定书》和二稽税稽罚[2009]56号《税务行政处罚决定书》所对应的缴款税单，以便到银行办理缴款手续。
执行科的王元锋科长说要请示领导后才能办理，让黎雄兵律师与王功权研究员稍等。不久，王元锋科长回来，告知黎雄兵律师所持的授权委托书不符合要求，不能办理开具税票的事项。理由是，黎雄兵律师所持的盖有公盟公司印章的专项委托书上没有法人代表许志永的亲笔签字。
2:30 PM, August 10, 2009, Li Xiongbing and Mr. Wang Gongquan, research at Gongmeng, arrived at the Division of Execution again with a Special Power of Attorney regarding the tax and fine payment with Gongmeng’s official stamp, request the tax bills to be made so as to proceed to making payments at the bank.
Wang Yuanfeng, Section Chief of the Division of Execution said that he need to ask the superior for instructions and asked Li Xiongbing and Wang Gongquan to wait. Before long, Wang Yuanfeng returned to inform the two that the letter was not up to the standards, and therefore they could not proceed to make tax receipts, etc. The reason was that the Special Power of Attorney, which has Gongmeng’s official stamp, lacks the signature of the legal representative of Gongmeng – that of Xu Zhiyong’s.

黎雄兵律师对王元锋科长说，公盟的法人代表许志永现已被北京市公安局以涉税问题羁押于北京市第一看守所，律师未获批准会见，目前无法在授权委托书上签字，盖有公司印章的授权委托书是具有法律效力的，要求依法予以办理准许缴纳税款及罚款的手续，开具税单。
这时，同在王元锋科长办公室的执行科的夏女士、范女士两位税务官也参与进来强调说，要求授权委托书上有法人代表的亲笔签字这是税务部门的规定，“你们有异议的话，我们也没办法”。
Li Xiongbing explained to Wang Yunfeng, the section chief, that Gongmeng’s legal representative, Xu Zhiyong, had been detained by the Beijing Police Bureau at Beijing Detention House because of tax issues and requests of lawyer meeting were rejected, therefore unable to sign on the Power of Attorney; under such occasions, a company-stamped Power of Attorney has the same legal effect; and he requested permission to make the tax payment and make the fine payment procedures according to the law.
At this moment, two tax collectors, Ms. Xia and Ms. Fan, who were also in the section chief’s office, tried to mediate saying it was the regulation of the tax departments to have the signature of legal representative on a power of attorney, saying “if you have objections to that, there’s nothing we could do.”

于是，黎雄兵律师与王功权研究员来到位于三楼的安副局长办公室，请求协调执行科给予开出缴纳罚款的税单。安副局长告知，该事归陈姓副局长分管，或者是一把手郭局长管，建议黎、王二位去二楼办公室请求帮助联系陈副局长和郭局长，由陈副局长和郭局长处理。
黎雄兵、王功权下到二楼稽查局办公室，办公室主任苏雷和科员李楠楠接待了黎雄兵、王功权，说郭局长正在开会，陈副局长休假了，均不能联系到。他们只能答应帮助转告该事情。
黎雄兵律师问苏雷，什么时候可以给予答复，苏雷说，这个他也说不准，没法给出准确时间。黎雄兵律师和王功权研究员担心，如果不能及时联系上陈、郭二位局长，公盟将被迫按照《税务处理决定书》和《税务行政处罚决定书》所确定的每日百分之三的利率缴纳逾期履行的罚款，每天将额外支付一万多元的滞纳金。
苏雷回答说，“这样的话，我们也没有办法”。黎、王二位据理力争，最后稽查局的多名工作人员连同两名保安员强行将黎雄兵律师、王功权研究员赶出了朝阳区裕民路12号院北京市地方税务局第二稽查局的办公大楼。
Li Xiongbing and Wang Gongquan went to Mr. An, Vice Bureau Chief’s office, requesting assistance to issue the tax fine payment bills, but was told that another Vice Bureau Chief, Mr. Chen, or Mr. Guo, the Bureau Chief himself, were in charge of this matter. He suggested Li and Wang going to the Office on the second floor to request help in contacting Mr. Chen and Mr. Guo so that they would look into the matter.
When Li and Wang went to the Office, Su Lei, director of the Office and Li Nannan replied that the Bureau Chief was in a conference and the Vice Bureau Chief was on vacation, neither of them could be reached. They only said they could help leave a message.
Li Xiongbing asked Su Lei, director of the Office, when could he expect a reply from the officials. Su Lei said he couldn’t be sure. Li and Wang were worried that if they could not reach Mr. Chen or Mr. Guo in time, Gongmeng would be forced to pay the fine for overdue payment at an interest rate of 3% daily, that is, a late fee of over 10,000 RMB every day.
“If that’s the case, there’s nothing we could do about it”, said Su Lei. Li and Wang tried to explain the legal situation to them, but several staff and two security guards drove them out of the office building by force.


国税局：税务处理决定有误不宜执行
State Taxation Bureau: Decision of Taxation Handling Marred with Mistakes, Inappropriate to Execute

从朝阳区裕民路12号院地税局办公大楼被驱逐出来后，黎雄兵律师、王功权研究员又赶往西城区车公庄大街的北京市国家税务局稽查局，请求开具国税缴款税单，履行京国税稽处[2009]5号《税务处理决定书》。该决定书责令公盟补缴所得税187424.87元。
张允安税务官接待了黎雄兵和王功权，告知暂时不能补缴税款。理由是：原定五倍罚款的处罚决定还没有做出来，经过7月30日上午的听证他们认为公盟的申辩是有道理的，打算改变决定降低处罚额度；同时，国税稽处[2009]5号《税务处理决定书》所确定的补缴所得税187424.87元也需一同变更，原来送达给公盟的京国税稽处[2009]5号《税务处理决定书》暂不适宜执行。
黎雄兵律师和王功权研究员请求张允安税务官将上述答复出具书面文件给公盟，担心依据现有的京国税稽处[2009]5号《税务处理决定书》，公盟将承受额外的滞纳金。张允安税务官拒绝了黎、王二位的请求。
After being driven out of the Local Taxation Bureau office building, Li Xiongbing and Wang Gongquan sped to Beijing State Taxation Bureau’s Inspection Bureau, requesting the tax bill to be made, fulfilling [2009] No.5 Letter of Decision on Taxation Handling, which orders Gongmeng to pay 187,424.87 RMB in tax payment.
Zhang Yun’an, tax collector, received Li and Wang, informing them that the fine could not be paid. The reasons were: the decision of fine at 5-times the original tax had not been made final; after the hearing in the morning of July 30th, they thought Gongmeng’s defense was reasonable and intended to lower the amount of fine; also, the amount of tax to be paid, 187,424.87 RMB, on [2009] No.5 Letter of Decision on Taxation Handling also needed to be changed; therefore the Letter of Decision was inappropriate to execute yet.
Considering the extra late fees that would be resulted from the current Letter of Decision, Li Xiongbing and Wang Gongquan requested those replies of Zhang Yun’an in paper documents to Gongmeng, but the request was rejected.

Beijing Open Constitution Initiative

August 10, 2009

The Open Constitution Initiative Fined for over 1.42 Million Yuan

translated from Xu Zhiyong's blog announcement. Xu is a founder and lawyer of The Open Constitution Initiative.

see the official letter of penalty here.

The Open Constitution Initiative Fined for over 1.42 Million Yuan

Xu Zhiyong

July 15, 2009

July 14, 2009, The Open Constitution Initiative (OCI, aka Gongmeng) received Notification of Tax Fine from both Beijing State Tax Bureau and Local Tax Bureau simultaneously – pending an administrative penalty before July 24^th: Local Tax Bureau drafts a fine of more than 300,000 yuan; State Tax Bureau pursues a income tax payment of more than 180,000 yuan and a penalty of over 930,000 yuan; altogether totals over 1.42 million yuan.

Among these penalties, the Local Tax Bureau penalty is made against the four endowments given by Yale Law School since 2006 and a donation by Mr. Wang Gongquan, an OCI researcher, made in April 2009. As for the Yale Law School’s financial assistance, we have paid due tax by May this year; and Mr. Wang’s donation has just been accounted, and the penalty came before we even had a chance to submit our tax. Likewise, the State Tax Bureau’s penalty is also made against a cooperate project with Yale Law School. We have been trying to explain that the 2007-2008 year cooperation contract was confirmed and finalized in early 2009; and the 2008-2009 project has not been finished yet – the money we got so far was only advance payments. Moreover, all donations OCI received have been used in legal research and legal assistance for the less-privileged. Since we don’t have any remaining income, where does this 180,000 yuan income tax comes from? And how could there could be a penalty of more than 930,000?

The Open Constitution Initiative has always been a non-profit organization. It is only because of administrative reasons that we were registered as a company, but we never cease trying to register at the civil administration departments as a non-profit organization. We understand that there might be oversight in our management, and we are not experts on industrial or commercial tax, so even though we have put great importance on making sure no legal problems would emerge with our taxes, the professional accountants we hired have failed to help us in a timely matter. We have been compliant and cooperative in the investigation of our tax affairs, and voluntarily correct our mistakes, but our efforts were meaningless in front of pure ugliness and hostility. We have paid our sales tax, but we were nevertheless penalized; we have no profits whatsoever, but we got penalties for income tax; moreover, the legal boundary of penalties is a fine between 50% to 5 times, but on every charge, we got the heaviest possible penalties without any reason given by the tax departments.

A 1.42 million yuan fine may mean little to many companies, but to The Open Constitution, it is cruel and evil. It is not a penalty for OCI along, it is a penalty to the baby victims of the poisonous milk powders; a penalty to the young students at migrant workers’ children schools; a penalty to those home owners cheated and mistreated by the property management companies; it is a penalty to those petitioners who speak against injustice and corruption; it is a penalty to tens of thousands of the poor and powerless, those who needs the society’s help most. This penalty is heartless and defies the basic human conscience.

We have been careful in choosing our donors: we have rejected endowments from several foundations to quiet the ungrateful gossips; we chose Yale Law School because they have also given financial assistance to several government departments – I know them well, and they love China. OIC and Yale Law School has several cooperative projects, including: the research on the reform on Beijing’s Huji (identification) system, suggesting permission of Huji to be granted for new migrants; holding discussion meetings on the “nail homeowner” issue , owners who refused to be moved, and Xifeng County party advisor’s action of arresting a journalist in Beijing; advocacy for mistreated homeowners; fight against compulsory moving of schools for migrant workers’ children; legal assistance to extremely unjust cases such as for the innocent citizen in Hebei Chengdu who were sentences to death five times and Du Xuelei, who was beaten to death by the police, etc.; we also propose legal reform advice to NPC members during the National People's Congress and the Chinese Political Consultative Conference. Our endeavors have been rational and constructive; we push forward democracy and justice in our system with all our innocent goodwill at hearts.

The endowment for these cooperative projects has run out. OIC is a team composed of volunteers: our members work and act on their conscience and sense of justice, so aside from a few fulltime workers in our office, most of our members are not paid for their work. We commit every penny of our donation in the pursuit of justice and human conscience. We do not have any profit and do not plan to gain any; what we gain is inspiration and a touch of our heart. Now the tax departments demand OIC to pay such a staggering sum of fine, it will take all of our existing resources, even the donations from friends: 100 yuan, 200 yuan, or 5 yuan, 10 yuan.

This is not possible! As the legal representative of OIC, I would rather accept the criminal penalty of 7 years in jail than to hand in these 5 yuan and 10 yuan donations to those heartless bastards. If they say I, Xu Zhiyong, has committed tax invasion crime; it would be like the police in Linyi who accused me of theft – ridiculous!

Some people might be saying viciously behind our back that OIC has a political purpose; I pity this kind of rhetoric. Our political purpose is clear: it is for the democracy, rule of law, equality and justice in this nation, for the liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual; not just for the few individuals we lend our hands to, but to help build a healthy system of democracy and rule of law, making it possible for everyone, including those who still harbor hatred towards us, to obtain justice, liberty and dignity.

Some people say OIC is just a trouble-maker in this society. I can almost see those faces distorted by hatred and malevolence, smirking: finally you are caught, I only wish the penalty could come more severely, and those who slightly related to OIC would be penalized too, trouble-makers! I dare you to make troubles again!

We are not trouble makers. Tens of thousands of mass incidents occur each year – we didn’t instigate them. Yang Jia, the young man who murdered the police, was not our product. On the contrary, we try to direct these conflicts into legal channels. We advocate absolute non-violence and hope the countless hatred and conflicts in our society would be resolved by love. We are not just working for the victims of evil and injustice; we are also working for those at high positions – we have a deep obligation to this nation: never again should great upheaval occur in this country so as to cause those in power slaughtered, repeating the tragic history of the past.

Why? Why would such fate occur to us? Because we are just; because we advocate righteousness in politics; because our wish is so pure and beautiful; because we have never given us hope in this nation; and because no matter what happens, our heart still embraces the sunshine of hope.

I’m honored to be a thief again. The first time was in Linyi where I was accused of theft and taken to the police station. My friend, without the presence of a representative, was convicted of intentional property destruction and sentenced to four-year’s imprisonment. He is but a blind man, running around advocating for his villagers. Now in Beijing, I’m accused of evading tax. Ha ha ha… I am a poor man; I am so poor that my faith is the only thing left. Your highness, would you accept my offering of my beautiful faith? You need this faith; you need the ability to have the mercy as I have in my heart – the mercy to look upon the tortured souls of these heartless demons.

I am a poor man; we are a group of poor men; you cannot blackmail us, nor steal our faith away. We do not have anger; we do not have hate; we continue our way with heart filled with mercy. The Open Constitution Initiative will not parish; the hope for the conscience and justice in this nation will not parish.

CCTV Hotel Myth

Like James Fallows, I have also wondered why the torched Mandarin Oriental Beijing hotel is still there, not torn down, not being repaired, just standing there being ugly. Here is an email from a Chinese friend:

As for why the building still has not been repaired or reconstructed, I think some of it is because the investigation of the responsible parties in this incident and the corresponding punishment have not been carried out thoroughly as far
as the Chinese people are concerned, given the high human cost and financial loss of the tax payers in this tragedy, but mostly I think is because there is a struggle within CCTV, State Administration of Work Safety, Ministry of Security, Ministry of Supervision and CPC's Publicity Department on whether to repair the building or to tear it down and reconstruct.

Aside from the cost of reconstruction, the decision is made difficult because about 3 hours after the fire started, even before it was completely distinguished, CCTV announced that "the main structure of the building was unharmed". However, a few days after the fire, architects such as Hu Chaohui, who participated in the early stage of
the building's design, and Civil Engineering Professor Yan Peiyu from Tsinghua University, among others, questioned CCTV's statement and said the main structure would have been severely damaged.

I'm not an expert in architecture, and details of the investigation into the damage are, as always, strictly off-limits to the public, but I doubt CCTV would risk using the old structure - they've been under enough heat already (no pun intended); images of their own crumbling building is the last thing they wish to show. This is why in a number of occasions, officials have denied reparation is under way, leaving
room for the decision of a complete rebuilding, e.g. in March, some billboards shielded the building, many suspected that it was to cover the reparation work; but on April 22, Spokesman Huang Yi from State Administration of Work Safety denied this, and he shifted from CCTV's initial claim by saying whether the main structure could be used and how to repair depended on experts' further inspection.

So I reason that the CCTV Tower will be rebuild from scratch, (they might be secretly calling in designs right now), but the construction would have to wait until our government feel confident that we will be out of the current economic crisis. This is really the very topic priority of our government right now, and despite appearances and pandering talks, Zhongnanhai is deeply troubled, even horrified at the possibility of losing all legitimacy of their dictatorship if the crisis continues and they lose on the economic ground.

China’s Oil Interest in Africa

International Politics Quarterly Issue 4, 2006

China’s Oil Interest in Africa: A Subject of International Politics
Zha Daojiong
School of International Studies, Peking University

Summary:

Africa is an indispensable source of energy supply for China, providing about 30% of China’s oil imports in 2005; therefore, securing Africa’s oil while heeding the intricate international relations on issues such as Darfur has become a crucial subject of China’s international energy diplomacy.

In relations to the three petroleum trading patterns, energy diplomacy can make an effect in three ways: 1) equity oil trade: a government can encourage, allow or forbid the co-investment or co-development of oil companies from a certain country according to its strategic concern; on the other hand, the investing country can employ this exchange of interest to influence the political and economical environment of the resource country in which it invests; 2) long-term supply contract: though the value of oil is largely determined by global oil market, companies inevitably seek political safeguard from the government; a government may also lay out settlement conditions of a long-term oil supply contract; 3) crude oil trade on the international market: a government can exercise an embargo or anti-embargo, and make domestic policy adjustments under an embargo.

Africa’s oil supply to China has been on the rise since 1992 when this continent exported crude oil to China for the first time. In 2005, China imported oil from nine African countries, among which are its biggest suppliers - Angola, Sudan, the Republic of Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. China intends to establish a “Big Oil Industry” which will utilize both domestic and foreign resources and develop both markets. Based upon this objective, China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) was founded. Leading the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, a consortium that also includes other companies like India's ONGC, Malaysia's Petronas and Sudan's state-owned Sudapet, CNPC achieved its greatest success in Sudan. This is, so far, its only comprehensive project that engages both upstream and downstream, from engineering to production, operating according to the framework of international oil companies. This company retrieved more than 60% of the investment within two years of operation, which could be attributed to two factors: first, China’s diplomatic relations with Sudan leads to the investment opportunity; second, government’s financial support – considering the oil project as the top financial aid project to Sudan, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and The Export-Import Bank of China provided CNPC with a preferential loan.

On the Darfur Crisis, China embraces the U.N. framework of crisis solution and peacekeeping in Sudan by sending 135 engineering, medical and transportation personnel along with military observers and other officials in May 2006. However, China disagrees with the United States on posing economic sanctions on Sudan, abstained vote of such resolutions, because as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council, it had to consider whether CNPC’s continued investment in Sudan would be against U.N. resolution. In the meantime, China urges the Sudan government to improve the situations in Darfur through bilateral diplomacy.

China recognizes that the domestic instability interferes its oil exploration and production in Sudan, and the pressure from the international media has caused negative impact on its oil companies in the stock market. The energy need behind China’s booming economy means that China’s oil companies would have to expand into more oil-production countries. China would have to find a balancing point between the economic gains by opposing U.N. sanction against an African oil-production country and the certain loss in soft power by being at the receiving end of the United States’ accusations.


The original article in Chinese:
China's Oil Interest in Africa Zha Daojiong 2006

Help a James Fallows fan out!

I just learned that James Fallows will be in Bookworm (Beijing) to discuss his new book Postcards from Tomorrow’s Square as one of the events of the Literary Festival.

I really really want to go.

The thing is, I only just arrived in Beijing, when I get to Bookworm's website for the schedule, this particular Fallows event is already sold out.

So if anyone has an extra ticket, I'd be really grateful if you could sell it to me. Or, if any savvy Beijing expat out there have some tips on how to get there without a ticket, please enlighten me.

I wouldn't mind waiting outside of the bookstore for Mr. Fallows to come out, but I just want to make sure there is no backdoor.....

Thank you, any tips or advice is greatly appreciated!

China's Media did Obama a Favor by Censoring the Speech

[Oh, btw, President Obama, the communist country you just unintentionally equated to fascism is getting universal healthcare for its 1.3 billion people in 2 years. So how about you do something real for your people instead of making mistakes in your speeches for a change? (no pun intended)]

When China's Central TV broadcast Obama's inauguration with enthusiasm, they didn't expect this line in his speech: "Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions."

The camera instantly cut back to the Chinese studio, and later, BBC, MSN, New York Times, Huffington Post, etc. all jumped up at the fact that when Chinese media had the chance to rebroadcast, and translate the speech, they all cut out the references of "fascism and communism".

Whose wrong?

I think it is a stupid decision for Obama to link the two words with an "and".

First, I say it's a decision because this is a speech he composed, revised, had proof-read and revised probably a dozen times, a speech in which each word and sentence is measured and scaled to precision to express exactly what he wants to convey. So he made the decision, and unfortunately a bad one.

Second, though I understand the "communism" he was referring to was more the Soviet Union, than China, but even without getting into semiotic theories or linguistic theories of unconscious references, we know that when you use an "and", it reveals a tendency of treating the two words on each side of the "and" as equal. Now, you can have all the arguments in the world to say the contemporary Chinese society is actually not communistic, but very much capitalistic, China still holds on to its banner of "communism." So on hearing the word "communism", of course, the most direct and instinctive response for the Chinese is that "omg, Obama is equaling us to Hitler".

Moreover, this would be a speech that goes on into history and will be repeated hundreds of times, and whenever it's repeated, you are going to hear the words "fascism and communism" goes hand in hand together. With the number of repetitions, even if people previous do not necessarily link the two together, or view them with equal animosity, will now, consciously or unconsciously, see them as the same.

That, is dangerous. Especially when you have a country, as important in the world politics and economy as China, which pride itself on being a communist country. With the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, the domestic financial crisis, is it really a smart decision for the incoming president of the United States to antagonize China?

Being a debater, I always look at issues by measuring their "cost and benefits", now my real question is what has Obama achieved by using this particular phrase in his speech? Does it rhyme better? If he has nothing to gain through using that particular phrase, then why risk making 1.3 billion people mad at you? Why can't he just say "facism and Stalinism" or something like that. And don't forget Vietnam is a communist state, and that war is a total failure on the U.S. side.

Now back to the Chinese media. Why does it take out this sentence? Why does it censor the speech?

Of course the government is embarrassed by this and therefore, censored it. ("that's what Communists do! censorship!" -- the American and British media acclaims, thinking they've found another evidence of the crime of the government - limit the freedom of the press) But I can say, with the experience of having worked for both Chinese and American media, and the experience of working closely with human rights activitists in China, that Chinese media's move to cut out the part of speech is more to help Obama, and therefore America, than to save its own petty dignity.

Why?

First, if China's target is Obama, if China wants to really censor the speech, it could easily censor the entire speech. Make it like it never has happened.

Second, most Chinese who have watched the speech as it first broadcast and who saw the speech online are outraged by the comment and are now boycotting America. And please take a moment, try to remember what happened in 2002 and 2005, the two biggest anti-Japanese waves in China, and try to imagine what the reprecussions would be if the comment goes into bigger circulation and cause an "anti-U.S.A." movement. --- and believe me, it will. A comment like this- putting communism together with facism- made by a new president, I dare say, would cause even a bigger uproar.

So for those criticising the Chinese media of censoring this particular part of speech, be smart! For the first time that I know of, the Chinese media is actually doing Americans a favor.

Just let this go quietly.

Obama is new. He made a mistake. But he will learn.

A Hopeful Solution to the Poisonous Milk Case

A collective lawsuit is to be filed against Sanlu, but the better solution, according to Chinese lawyers volunteering to represent the victims of poisonous milk meeting yesterday, is a settlement.

The lawyers, lead by Dr. Xu Zhiyuan and Dr. Teng Biao, will send the letter to Sanlu on Friday morning and a press conference will be held in the afternoon.

In meeting yesterday, Guo Yushan, lawyer and President of Transition Institute, suggested a settlement case modeled after the German case in which babies of morbidity were born as a result of a certain ingredient in the maternal drugs. A foundation is to be established using the funds of the company, the government, and the public. Instead of dragging the company down, in which case still not enough compansation could be milked out from the sinking ship, the lawyers are hopeful of this settlement: to reestabilish the company's credibility and let its profit pay off the victims in the long run. The foundation will be estabilished as a branch or sub-foundation of a well-known and credible foundation.

The Communist Politics and Law Committee already has specific orders for local courts not to take the milk cases under several excuses: one, the victims cannot be counted because some report to villages, some to cities, some to provincial offices, some do all of the above; two, "it's a deep water" according to Guo recounting a conversation with a government official.

For the first excuse, the solution now is to ask Chinese citizens to request their local government to disclose the information.

For the second, "deep water" means the officials are aware of the scale of the issue - according to the door-to-door investigation by Shanghai government, 2.94% of all babies has kidney stones larger than 0.4 cm (the current bar of baby's kidney stone reporting in China); if we take that percentage to a national level (despite the fact that Shanghai has a much higher living standards so they probably use more foreign-produced milk; and despite the fact that the government figure tends to be conservative), the 2006 national census puts the number of babies under 3 to 700 million, by now, it is safe to estimate the number of babies under 4 at 770 million, which means the number of severely sick children would be 226.38 million.

The entire milk industry in China would not be able to compensate for all these babies. It is rasional, therefore, to push for the settlement solution.

"We are the System" Translation of a Banned Chinese Post

The resonance of the tragedy caused by poisonous baby's milk powder is still heard loud and clear, China's government issued a "students' long-distance running program" based on a ridiculous reason - the commonality of the two seemingly completely different matters is in their justification, one that we Chinese hear so often: "This is a problem with our (political) system".

Allow me first explain why I said the compulsory excising program is based on a ridiculous reason, after all, excising is supposed to be good. The government said: "The distance running program is the multiplies of 60 - to celebrate the 60-year anniversary of the founding of People's Republic of China. Pupils in elementary schools must run 120 kilometers every day, 180 kilometers for students in middle schools and 240 for high schoolers." Okay, apart from the fact that people should be free to choose whatever means of excise they want, the whole 60x thing is just stupid.

That's why I translated a recent article by Lian Yue, which was written on Sep. 20th, shortly after the poisonous milk powder story breakout and was muffled soon afterwards. Google the article title and the author, you can get 64,200 results (even now), though most of the links are dead and the contents are forcibly removed.

So much for the introduction, below are my translation and the original article in Chinese.

We Are The System

Ever since the poisonous baby formula was found in China's milk powder, the most frequently heard vindication has been: This is a problem of our system.

Tragedy after tragedy, the most frequently heard sentence has been: This is a problem of our system.

So is it? Most definitely, this is a problem of our political system.

From the outbreak of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) to the case of poisonous baby formula, our handling of such are the same: covering it at first; when that fails, making up some lies; when the lies were detected, admitting part of the problem; then sacking a few officials and publicizing it as a feat of the government.

But if the poisonous milk powder was an infectious disease, the whole world would suffer huge calamity - but who could make sure it won't be the case next time?

Yes, if we had freedom of speech, if we had the freedom to choose and impeach the government, if we had a strong and independent press, if we had the freedom to protest, if we had the freedom from fear... yes, only such system could protect us.

Do we have a system like that? No.

So it comes naturally: This is a problem of our system. Out goes Changjiang Li (former chief of quality inspection bureau) , and in comes Changjiang Zhang. (actually the new chief is Yong Wang). When the rice goes sour, have some vapid soup.

Therefore, forget it, whatever.

But wait, don't you forget, we are part of the system.

The existence of such system is based on OUR inaction.

We have to take action.

This is not to advocate violence, not to use violence against itself, which could only bring about a worse system.

This is not to let others to sacrifice, which is always a personal choice, as no one has the right to instigate the sacrifice of others.

This is something that calls for patience and long-time devotion.

Making Changjiang Li quit is a small step forward for our system; when his successor fails, let him quit too would be another step forward for the system. We have our eyes on whoever succeed the post - and that is a progress of the system.

They don't let us to speak up in the press, thus we make ourselves heard on the Internet; they don't let us post on the Internet, thus we tell others about it verbally. We keep discussing these issues and exposing their lies - and that is a progress in the system of free speech.

Regarding the enterprises that denies mistakes and responsibilities, we remember their brand and boycott their product for as long as it takes - and that is a progress in consumer culture.

We call for the fair and just trial of human-rights advocate Yang Jia; we call for the open and just trial of Wenhua Tian and Changjiang Li - and that is a progress in the justice system.

We don't need sacrifices; we don't need to be the leader of public opinion; and we don't need much power either. As long as you have the power to make a choice, you can make the system change for the better or for the worst.

We can improve the system; we can choose the system; we ARE the system.

When there is more of us then of them, the system would be changed.

"This is a problem of our system" - don't use such empty words to hammer your confidence as well as the confidence of other people.

When you say "forget it, whatever", you are casting a vote for the status-quo you hate.

We enjoy our lives. We stay with nice people. We maintain our skepticism. We criticize. We non-cooperate. We can change the system happily. We are the system.

If it would take a hundred years to change it, let's take a hundred years. If it would take a thousand years, let's take a thousand.

我们就是体制   连岳 @ 2008-9-20

毒奶粉事件发生到现在，听得最多的一句话就是：这是体制的问题。
在层出不穷的悲剧里，听得最多的一句话就是：这是体制的问题。
是不是体制的问题？是，这绝对是体制的问题。
从SARS到现在的毒奶，处理方法是一样的：先瞒、瞒不了骗、骗不了就承认一部分，然后撤几个官员了事，最后宣传包装成一件功劳。
如果这次毒奶粉是传染病毒，估计全球都得死伤惨重——可谁能保证下一次不是病毒呢？

是的，如果我们有言论自由，如果我们有选择及罢免政府的自由，如果我们有强大且独立的媒体，如果我们有游行示威的自由，如果我们有免于恐惧的自由……是的，这样的体制才能保护我们。
我们有没有这样体制？没有。
所以可以很自然地说出那句话：这是体制的问题。李长江下了，不过换个张长江。什锦八宝饭馊了，不过上碗平强汤。
所以，算了吧。

可是，且慢，你忘了，我们自己就是体制的一部分。
这体制的存在，有我们的不作为。
我们得有所作为。
这作为不是鼓吹暴力，不是以暴易暴。暴力只会带来一个更坏的体制。
这作为不是希望他人去牺牲，牺牲永远只是个人选项，一个人永远没有资格去鼓动他人牺牲。
这作为是忍耐地慢慢做一件事。
让李长江辞职，这是体制进了一小步；张长江还不行，让张长江辞职，这又是体制进了一小步。他换一个，我们盯一个，最后就是质检体制的进步。
他不让我们在媒体里说，我们网络上说；他不让我们在网络上说，我们在嘴上说；我们不停地议论，嘲讽他的谎言，最后就是言论体制的进步。
那些拒不认错的企业，那些强词夺理的企业，我们记住它们的名字，永不消费它们的产品，最后就是企业文化的进步。
我们呼吁杨佳应该得到公平、公正、公开的审判；接下来，我们呼吁田文华或者李长江应该得到公平、公正、公开的审判，最后就是法制的进步。
并不需要牺牲，并不需要成为意见领袖，并不需要多么大的权力，只要你有选择权，你就能让体制变坏，或者变好。

我们能改良体制，我们能选择体制，我们就是体制。
到了我们多过他们的那一天，体制就变了。
“这都是体制的问题”，不要用这么重的虚拟铁锤砸掉你的自信，砸掉他人的信心。
你说“算了，没用的”，就等于投了你憎恨的体制一票。

我们享受生活，我们和美好的人呆在一起，我们保持怀疑，我们批评，我们不合作，我们能快乐地改变这个体制，我们就是体制。

如果需要一百年，我们就花一百年。如果需要一千年，我们就花一千年。