Yang Jia: Criminal or hero?

In China, if you weren't talking about the Olympics this summer, you were probably talking about this case. Article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

On September 1, Yang Jia was sentenced to death by the No. 2 division of the Shanghai Municipal People's Court. His crime, killing six policemen and injuring a number of others in Shanghai's Zhabei District public security bureau, would not have attracted much sympathy by the judicial system nor the court of public opinion in any country. Yet in this year's summer of discontent in China, Yang Jia became somewhat of a people's hero. While it is unlikely that he will receive much sympathy from the China's supreme court when his case comes up for review, Chinese netizens have been surprisingly supportive of Mr. Yang. Immediately after the Weng'an incident, the overwhelming response to Yang's case demonstrated the large amount of dissatisfaction that people have with local lawmakers and law enforcement.

Supporters have questioned how a "nice guy" from Beijing who enjoys traveling and photography could end up as a cold-blooded killer. As more of the story came out, the public found out that Yang was held by the police last year on suspicion that he had stolen the bike he rented while on vacation in Shanghai. While a portion of the transcript reflecting acrimony on both sides was made public, police held him in custody for six hours even though he had proof that he had legally rented the bicycle. Allegations of abuse during his time in custody arose, as afterwards Yang Jia had unsuccessfully sued the police for 10,000 RMB for mental anguish suffered.

Furthermore, the conduct of the trial elicited questioning of its fairness. The trial was closed to the public; neither family members nor the media were allowed to witness the proceedings. Doubts about the appropriateness of Yang's lawyer, Xie Youming, arose, especially from the suspect's father who tried to have his own lawyer represent his son. Mr. Xie worked as a legal consultant for the Zhabei District government, so he would have had the same supervisor as the police officers who were killed, presenting what some argue is a conflict of interest. Additionally, Yang's lawyer dismissed the possibility of the insanity plea, as he himself found Yang in perfectly sound mental health and also asserted that he deserved the death penalty (note: all Chinese articles raising such doubts have been censored).

While some commentators sympathize with the slain policemen, arguing that Yang deserves his punishment, others have focused on the unfairness of the trial. Still, a large number seem to empathize with Yang Jia on a more emotional level, labeling him an "upholder of justice and righteousness"(义士). In a CCTV television report, investigative reporter Bai Yansong provided some possible explanations why the general public has been so sympathetic to Yang Jia. One such reason is that people see the police as a large, evil organization and thus see Mr. Yang's attacks as righteous and justified. Even if the individual police officers who died did not deserve such a fate, their lives can be ignored if Yang Jia's actions were in pursuit of a larger goal. Such an explanation begins to grasp the rampant distrust of local authority. As one commenter on our Chinese website wrote, "Yang Jia did what we all would like to but don't dare do, therefore, in a society where the rule of law is not evident, black and white are blurred, justice is not extended, there is no order, and violence is used indiscriminately, we have lost hope in the law. We hate the powers that be, naturally hope for a righteous hero, and sympathize with Yang Jia." Sympathetic reactions to Yang Jia's case not only seem to defy what many people in Western countries see as the obvious response to the killing of police officers but also suggest that more cases like Yang Jia's could appear in the future if law enforcement and the justice system do not reform for the better.

Other netizens have proffered that Yang Jia committed murder because he was born and raised in Beijing. More specifically, if the Shanghai police brought a migrant worker from the countryside into custody on suspicion of stealing a bike and treated him roughly, he would just be thankful to emerge alive. Accustomed to prejudice and bullying and convinced that there is no justice, someone from the countryside would not try to seek compensation through the justice system, seeing such actions as laughable because of their obvious inefficacy. Only someone brought up in Beijing, aware of his rights, would attempt to seek justice through the system and then turn violently against the system if it fails him.

Yet, we should hope that all citizens can reach the level of legal consciousness that Yang possessed and not maintain the expectation of injustice. It was not his understanding of his rights that led him to commit the crime but his sense that those rights had been violated and nothing had been done to correct for this wrong. While there are people who would act rashly under any system, a fairer and more just legal system could limit cases like Yang Jia's. As noted by his lawyer, his great understanding of the law is exactly the reason why the Shanghai justice system should have made the trial more transparent and open to the public. There is no doubt that Yang Jia committed the crime and most Chinese citizens would agree that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who murdered so many police officers. Therefore, it is not the verdict that is in question, it is the process. By holding a fair and transparent trial, the justice system could have said to both Yang Jia and his sympathizers: while the system failed you once, it has not failed you again. Instead, the questionable choice of a defense attorney and closed door proceedings only confirmed the inequity and injustice inherent in the system, which Yang already understood.

As the CCTV reporter Bai Yansong pointed out, people's lives are important; he asks how the people can expect the government to put the people first and fully respect human life if the people hold up Yang Jia (a killer) as an upholder of justice and righteousness. Police officers died, and their lives should be respected, but that does not mean that people cannot understand Yang Jia's motivations. The huge number of mass incidents in China that come about because of local injustices demonstrates that many Chinese have similar grievances. In fact, a true respect for human life would call on Yang Jia's sympathizers to work to reform the system so that it does run by the motto of putting the people and human lives first, thereby reducing incidents of injustice that can lead to violent consequences.

Reforming the state sport system – a first step

One idea for beginning to reform China's sports system, which I instincitvely am very much against, but I also realized it is the only way for a developing country to win gold. (Though it could certainly be a bit more forgiving of its athletes). Article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

No one doubts the great success that the Chinese team had at the Beijing Olympic games, winning 51 gold medals – significantly more than the second place American team – and 100 total medals. Such a performance has led to a debate about the state of sports in the country, which has generally seen itself as not competitive with developed countries in athletics, as well as the sports system. Ding Gang argues that the country's Olympic success as well as his observations of everyday athletic activities in China versus other countries demonstrates that China is a great country in sports.

However, one must ask by what standards a country's greatness in sports should be measured. One commentator on the Chinese China Elections and Governance website wrote in response to Ding's article, "the mark of a great country in sports is that its people decide on their own accord to make sports a part of their lives," calling into question the very state-run system that brought China its 51 gold medals. While there are obviously still many staunch defenders of the system, others have not used Olympic victory as an excuse for complacency and are calling for reform. The West has always leveled strong criticism at state-managed sports systems, and a Los Angeles Times article detailed some of the hardships endured by Chinese athletes en route to gold, but international Chinese sports stars such as Yao Ming have also critiqued its demanding nature. Yet, one of the most convincing reasons for reform may be the huge cost of gold medals, which could be as high as between 60 and 700 million RMB per medal. A Caijing editorial argues that the system's inefficiency and its inability to promote physical education for ordinary citizens indicate that it is time to change and move towards a market based system, even if it means sacrificing some gold medals along the way.

While the downsides for individuals caught in the system are difficult to argue with – children taken away from their parents at young ages for vigorous training and unsuccessful athletes doomed to difficult lives by their lack of other skills – there is likely no other way for a developing country to win gold medals in any significant quantities. Few Chinese families can afford the expensive training needed to perform well in sports such as gymnastics, diving, or equestrian. Additionally, most children focus almost exclusively on academics, leaving little time for athletic development as an extracurricular. The state system solves both of these problems by putting children with athletic potential into sports schools and paying their expenses. It is unlikely that this situation will change anytime soon and prompt drastic commercialization of athletics.

Still, there is a way forward that would both help to further foster widespread appreciation of the benefits of athletic activity and could eventually help to change the system towards a more market based one as Caijing suggests. China could use the American system as a model for reform for popular team sports such as basketball, soccer, and volleyball. There are many problems with the American sports system (one could argue that it takes commercialization too far), but it does provide a broad basis for developing athletes, especially in these spectator, team sports. In most areas of the US, there are sports leagues for soccer, basketball, baseball, or whatever sport happens to be popular in that region (this could include badminton and table tennis in China) for kids as young as five years old, in which anyone can participate. Children have practice once or twice per week and games against other teams on the weekend and are coached by parents or other volunteers. In middle school, teams representing their schools compete against each other and star players can go on to play on more specialized teams that have better coaches and require larger time commitments.

While certainly difficult to organize at a national level, China could begin in cities where it would be relatively easy to put together teams from different elementary schools or neighborhoods to compete against each other. Undoubtedly, Chinese students would relish a chance to practice and compete regularly in sports. Of course, schools would have to support this initiative and encourage students to spend time engaging in such extracurricular activities instead of focusing 100% of their energies on academic achievement. Furthermore, China could maintain high schools that focus on sports (but also teach academics) and use middle school leagues, once developed, as a feeder system.

Adopting this part of the American sports system would only begin to change athletics in China, and the state-run system would have to be maintained if the country wanted to continue to be a contender in the events it usually excels in (though it could make the system less physically and mentally demanding on its athletes). Still, this reform would certainly succeed in promoting broader engagement in athletic activities, and, you never know, it could develop China's first gold medal or World Cup winning soccer team from athletes that the rigid state system overlooked.

Olympic security: an evaluation

Written mostly on a bus. Seriously. For a further, broader evaluation of China's Olympic performance (which I mostly agree with), read this. My article also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

After what seemed like an eternity of anticipation, the 2008 Beijing Olympics finally began with an eye-catching opening ceremony that showcased China's large population and Zhang Yimou's cinematography skills. While issues such as pollution, censorship, and human rights had dominated the media leading up to the event, once the games began, much of the news coverage shifted focus to the athletes and the race to win the most gold medals.

However, one issue of heated controversy leading up to the games was the drastic security measures taken by Beijing in preparation for the Games. The Chinese government cited real threats as the rationale for such measures, while the Western media dismissed such assertions, labeling the measures as draconian and even said they resembled techniques used during the Mao era. Was the high level of security justified? Or did the Chinese authorities overreact? It is obvious that China has a much broader definition of "security threat" than Western countries, and regulations – such as not allowing banners into Olympic arenas – appear to explicitly target potential political protesters. Still, events both before and after the opening ceremony have demonstrated that risks of both real and imagined security threats exist and must be dealt with. Critics may not like China's strict regulations on protesting (one must have a permit to protest, even in specific protest zones), but despite many challenges, Beijing has proven rather adept at handling security challenges and making sure they do not disrupt the Games.

Olympic Protests

Chief among the imagined security threats was Joey Cheek, a gold-medal-winning-speed skater who also helped to start the group Team Darfur, which advocates on behalf of victims of genocide. China revoked his visa, leading not only to further criticism of the host country's human rights situation and its involvement in Sudan but also commentary on the absurdity of the measures taken by Beijing to ensure a protest-free Olympics. Similarly, local dissidents have been put under house arrest to guarantee that they do not disrupt the games.

While Beijing has not granted permits for protests in the designated zones, protesters have managed to get around stepped up security. Protests have included the hanging of "Free Tibet" banners on lampposts near the national stadium and one staged by Students for a Free Tibet members who managed to bypass the especially stringent measures in Tiananmen Square. The Chinese government is deporting foreign protesters, as they are in violation of domestic law but has generally shown restraint in dealing with incidents, even paying for dinner and flights home for some. Local protests have been kept under control by the monitoring of dissidents, though a small group of Qianmen homeowners did manage to march near Tiananmen. So far, Beijing has handled the small protests to its Olympics rather well, making sure that they do not disrupt the Games or incur excessive attention and criticism from the West.

Olympic Violence

Beijing has long claimed that the largest threat to security during the Games comes from Islamic separatist groups from Xinjiang, which have been responsible for bus bombings in the past and with whom the Chinese government has long been fighting. The West doesn't doubt the reality of the threat from such groups – the US even has the East Turkestan Islamic Movement on its list of terrorist organizations – but because of little transparency on the Chinese side, many suspect that fighting terrorism remains an excuse for abusing the human rights of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. The first proof of the possibility of terrorist attacks occurred on July 21 in Kunming, when two bus bombs killed two and injured many others. Although Beijing asserts that the attacks were not engineered by terrorist organizations, they certainly made clear that security, especially during the Olympics, remains a concern in China.

Since then, Islamic separatist groups have proven their intention to disrupt the Games, though they have so far launched their attacks only in Xinjiang, not in Beijing. The first particularly jarring attack occurred on August 4, when militants attacked and killed 16 border police in Kashgar, Xinjiang. This incident was followed up by a series of bomb attacks, also in Xinjiang, and a third attack killed 3 security officers near Kashgar. These attacks certainly represent an increase in violence in China's westernmost province or at least an increase in reporting of violent attacks.

Then on August 10, a man from Hangzhou stabbed American Todd Bachman to death, the father-in-law of the US men's volleyball coach, and also injured his wife and their Chinese tour guide while they were visiting the drum tower. The attacker then killed himself by jumping off the tower. Especially since violent attacks on foreigners are a rare occurrence, this one garnered much international media attention, but it appeared to be an isolated incident carried out by a man who "acted out of despair." Furthermore, American tourists in Beijing still view the city as safe, demonstrating the freak nature of the stabbing and that people have acknowledged it would have been nearly impossible to prevent.

Now that the Olympics have started, events have proven that Beijing was correct to worry about security, although it is impossible to tell whether Chinese measures were too paranoid or appropriate to deal with such threats. In terms of political protests, Beijing probably did not need to be so concerned. The city has dealt with such disturbances well, calling into question pre-Olympic moves such as curtailing visas and even revoking Joey Cheek's, which only served to attract more criticism from abroad. Still, attacks in Xinjiang and on American tourists have demonstrated that security risks are real, though they may come in forms not anticipated by the authorities. On the whole, Beijing has certainly demonstrated to the world that they have what it takes – both in security and otherwise – to host a successful Olympics.

China and Africa, China and the World

From a looong time ago. Also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

China's rise and the role it will play on the international stage have been topics of discussion for years, yet no one knows for sure how China will influence the international system. Events this past week in Africa provided a few clues about the complexities of China's relationship with the world.

Critical Vote

China demonstrated its growing power on the world's stage by, along with Russia, vetoing the UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe. The sanctions would have imposed an embargo on arms sales as well as freezing the assets of and imposing a travel ban on top officials. The US argument for sanctions derives from Zimbabwe's March elections, which were won by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai over long-ruling dictator Robert Mugabe. But because Tsvangirai only won a plurality, not a majority, of votes according to the official count, a run-off was scheduled, which the opposition leader eventually dropped out of due to Mugabe's brutal and violent tactics to suppress the opposition vote. The hope was that sanctions would drive Mugabe to further negotiations with the opposition and end his campaign of intimidation.

On the other side, China and Russia argued – along with South Africa and two other countries that voted against the resolution – that sanctions would hinder the mediation process that was already beginning to take place. Furthermore, Zimbabwe's situation still qualifies as a domestic problem – not a threat to international security – so it is not proper for the UN to step in. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is a major tenet of Chinese foreign policy. Yet, it is doubtful that China held the critical vote on this resolution, as both British and American diplomats asserted that Russia, who seemed to suddenly change position on the issue, was key. China, on the contrary, rarely uses its veto, usually only exercising it on resolutions that involve Taiwan or military force and is especially wary of being the lone veto.

China and Africa

Yet despite this rather understandable position by China, given the position of Russia and Zimbabwe's neighboring countries, China's influence in Zimbabwe remains a point of contention. Accused of being the financiers of Mugabe's corrupt regime, the PRC has a long history of cooperation with Robert Mugabe, as China provided financial support and military training to his Zanu rebels in the 1970s. And with Mugabe in power, the two countries have continued their cooperation to this day, as China has mineral and energy resource deals with Zimbabwe and also continues to be Mugabe's major supplier of weapons. The latter led to problems earlier this year when in April a Chinese ship carrying arms for Zimbabwe docked in Durban, South Africa, and the dock workers, backed by their union, refused to unload the cargo. The shipment came a few weeks after the election, and the arms were suspected to be used against those who voted for the opposition. Other African nations also refused to unload the ship, and it is unclear whether or not the arms ever made it to Zimbabwe. The backlash, especially from neighboring African countries, calls into question the Chinese policy of non-interference, as arming a government that violently oppresses a significant portion of its population is not clear nut non-interference. Furthermore, instability in Zimbabwe has the potential to greatly affect the neighboring countries that opposed the arms sale.

The arms shipment scandal is just one incident in a wider debate about China's influence in Africa. The Chinese government argues that its trade with and investment in Africa genuinely benefits the people, helping these countries build their infrastructure and develop. In their testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on African Affairs, two high ranking State Department officials – including renowned expert on Chinese foreign policy, Thomas Christensen – generally agreed, saying that Chinese involvement on the continent is a "potentially positive force for economic development." Chinese activities should not be seen as trying to lessen US influence, as there are many opportunities for cooperation, which is already beginning to occur.

Still, there are some concerns; many of China's African partners complain that the Chinese tend to not use local workers or raw materials, instead bringing their own. Investments in infrastructure and other forms of aid are seen as primarily fueled by a thirst for Africa's mineral and oil wealth. The West also opposes the PRC's policy of aid with "no strings attached," as it impedes Western efforts to use aid to encourage good governance and democracy. But as China argues, sovereignty is also an important international value. It remains to be seen how strictly Beijing will adhere to its policy of non-interference in the future and how it will affect the international system as well as Western efforts to encourage universal values.

In addition to Zimbabwe, China's dealings with Sudan have also been a cause for concern. The China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) is the primary player in Sudan, and Western NGOs and individuals have accused China of essentially underwriting the genocide in Darfur with its oil trade and arms sales to Sudan, calling for an Olympic boycott because of this issue. A recent BBC report accused Beijing of violating an arms embargo on Darfur, which the Chinese government denied. While China has not used its leverage over Khartoum to the extent that the West would like, it has, in the past two years, taken an active role in the Darfur crisis, led by its envoy Liu Guijin, helping to convince Sudan to accept an international peacekeeping force, contributing to the peacekeeping force, and providing humanitarian aid. At the same time, Beijing just expressed "great concern," over the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide. Still, the question is, how much can we blame China, especially when Western governments have clearly not made Darfur a priority?

China's dealings with Africa provide a snapshot of the complexities of China's evolving relationship with the world at large. Beijing's approach of quiet diplomacy – as evident in Darfur as well as in the North Korean nuclear crisis – and its investment and trade in Africa provide a definite benefit to both the recipient countries and the international system as a whole. Yet, as China begins to become a larger and larger player, it will be more and more difficult to strictly adhere to a policy of non-interference, especially as the line between domestic and international issues becomes increasingly blurred due to globalization. While the West certainly has little moral authority to question China's intentions on the continent, African concerns about Chinese projects and arms sales should resonate in Beijing. China will have to further contemplate how to advance its own interests while also fostering a positive image in the world. At the same time, if the G8 hopes to remain relevant, it will have to adapt, including China as a member and as a respected player in the international system.

Press freedom contradictions and the trend towards transparency

Writing this article and reading about the recent Weng'an incident (also here) have given me a very mixed impression about the future of press freedom in China. Though this article is more positive. also here.

By Jennifer Haskell

While globalization's effects on the international media are certainly not new, 2008 has so far seen a dramatic increase in interaction between the Chinese and Western media. The Chinese are paying closer attention to the Western press than ever before and realizing that lack of government control does not mean it is always fair and balanced. And the West has also begun to read and comment on the Chinese press, though usually sticking to the official media, which only reinforces long-held assumptions about the state of journalism in China. The controversy following the Lhasa riots and the international leg of the torch relay highlights both trends.

In reality, the media situation in China is much more complicated, and some of these nuances became clear to the West following the Sichuan earthquake. In the beginning, Western press had nothing but praise for the openness and transparency with which China administered relief efforts. The government first tried to administer its usual controls on access to disaster sites, but when many local news outlets ignored the ban, a more open approach was embraced, as Chinese and foreign journalists were permitted to report directly from the scene, interviewing victims and disseminating information about the quake. Later in May, however, the central government once again tried to tighten its grip on the press, which the Western media reacted to with regret, cynicism, and criticism.

To the Chinese press, such fluctuations in openness are nothing new, as the role of the media is in a constant and complicated state of flux, subject to restriction at any time. Still, compared to ten years ago, the trend is clearly toward openness and developing "supervision by public opinion" (yulun jiandu), which is often used to refer to investigative journalism or the watchdog role of the media, and such hard-hitting reporting is more prominent than most in the West realize. Liu Yu, a CCTV employee, recently outlined three stages in the development of the media's role as a watchdog in Media magazine. His first stage – from 2001 to 2002 – saw the prominence of investigative television shows such as "Interview Focus" and "Investigative News." The second stage, from 2003 to August 2004, included the promotion of all aspects of investigative journalism, forming a "small high tide". During this period Southern Metropolis Daily broke the story of Sun Zhigang, a migrant worker who was detained and beaten to death for not carrying his Guangzhou residency permit. His case led to the revoking of the law under which Sun was held. This period also saw the outbreak of SARS as well as other cases of journalism bringing scandals to light.

The third stage, beginning in August 2004, saw a rise in editorials as an important source of social commentary and media challenging the status quo. Chang Ping's editorial earlier this year calling for less restrictions on the media did just that and ignited a firestorm of criticism online. While 2006 saw tighter restrictions on investigative reporting that focuses on corrupt officials, Caijing continued to publish such reports on economic issues and mining accidents became a big focus of journalistic investigation.

Despite restrictions that are both self and government imposed, media that pushes the envelope and challenges the status quo continues to thrive, with Caijing and the Southern Media Group (which publishes the Southern Metropolis Daily and Southern Weekend as well as other publications) at the forefront. Caijing recently published an extensive investigative piece on the quality of school construction in Sichuan, despite official orders to drop the issue. Southern Media Group publications, in addition to being the home of controversial editor Chang Ping, broke the story earlier this year of the fraud of Nanjie village and has provided consistently good coverage of the earthquake. Both publications have strategies for evading government control and punishment, as described in a recent NPR report on journalism in China. Caijing often employs scientific or legal jargon to mask its hard-hitting reports, and its international reputation also helps protect it against government interference. The Southern Metropolis Daily has had a more tumultuous history, angering local officials with its story on Sun Zhigang, which led to the jailing of its editor, and has since learned to do its investigative reporting in other provinces. Still, the paper often has to preemptively fire its own editors to avoid trouble.

Chinese leadership is not quite certain how to deal with the changing nature of the domestic and international media environment. Lessons have been learned from the handling of the controversy following the Lhasa riots as well as the aftermath of the earthquake, but it is not clear that this will necessarily lead to more openness. In a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the People's Daily, Hu Jintao acknowledged the need for the Party's media to adapt to the times and effectively use new methods to propagate its message and compete with both the much more popular commercial media and the international media. He notes the media's success after the earthquake in inspiring the people's confidence and winning praise both domestically and internationally, but credits this success with the timeliness and thoroughness of reporting, not mentioning openness or transparency. Additionally, Hu only refers to "supervision of public opinion" once, among a long list of things that need to be done in the new media environment. Instead, he emphasizes the Party's media's role in the "guidance of public opinion" (yulun yindao), which he mentions 9 times. The rhetoric of President Hu's speech definitely indicates a recognition of the need to change but no suggestion that such change will lead to more media freedom and less control. (China Media Project has an in depth analysis of the speech).

Still, there is only so much the CCP can do to control the flow of information or public opinion. A large part of the change in the global media environment comes from the Internet, where Chinese citizens can easily access Western media like the New York Times or CNN; even if the site is blocked, proxy servers are commonplace. And that's exactly what Chinese netizens did following the Lhasa riots – went to Western sources for information as domestic media did not originally report on the incident, and the controversy that followed forced the Chinese press to at least address the issue. Posts on BBS forums and blogs also often precede reporting in the traditional press. The recent Weng'an riots are a perfect example of how online commentary and Western reporting on the incident forced Xinhua to give a much more detailed report than its original four sentence press release. Furthermore, online, anything and everything is talked about and all opinions are aired, even if having an unpopular viewpoint leads to harsh criticism by the majority. Even if controversial posts are often taken down, the discussion is still occurring, and online media are playing an increasingly important role in China, for better or for worse (for worse being the vociferousness of fervent nationalists). Hu certainly understands these trends; while at the People's Daily, he briefly chatted with netizens, discussing his own online habits. Yet, it remains to be seen how much free rein the CCP will continue to give both traditional and new media outlets.

In his speech, Hu also notes that the prevailing attitude on culture and media remains that the "West is strong, China is weak." An editorial in Southern Weekend by Xiao Shu agrees that the Chinese media needs to mature in order to both change this attitude and increase China's soft power. He argues that the reporting on the earthquake demonstrated that the Chinese press has the capability of rising to the occasion but in order to develop needs more freedom in which to operate as well as more market competition. Chang Ping had made a similar argument – that in order to avoid inaccurate reports and counteract bias, China needs a free and open reporting environment; only then can the truth come out.

However, Chinese leaders do see a role for "supervision by public opinion," specifically in fighting corruption. In addition to setting up a hotline for monitoring government officials, the CCP Central Committee's five year anti-corruption plan also calls on the media to play a larger role in supervising party members. A Beijing Youth Daily article called on officials to accept scrutiny and oversight by the press, as it can help them perform their jobs better; it also instructed the media to operate in a scientific, legal, and constructive manner. Liu Yu also calls on the press to be responsible in its investigations. Several media outlets are calling for an open account of what happened in Weng'an, where citizens believe the government is covering up a rape and murder; they are doing their job of "supervision by public opinion," and acting as a watchdog, but will the government respond positively? This remains to be seen.

Still, even if they have to deal with capricious crackdowns, both online and traditional media continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. When one goes beyond the media directly controlled by the CCP, it becomes obvious that while development and growth is needed and while there are clear boundaries, the press is beginning to step into its role of "supervision by public opinion," investigating, bringing scandals to light, and even questioning the government. It may not be occurring as rapidly as many in the West would like, but the trend is most definitely towards openness and freedom of the press.

Morality check: the “running teacher” and public values in China

I really like this article. And I don't usually say that about things I like. Really! here.

By Jennifer Haskell

The May 12 Wenchuan earthquake acted as a mirror in which China saw a reflection of itself. And for the most part, the Chinese people liked what they saw. Sure, corruption is rampant among local governments, as embodied by collapsed school buildings, but the central government seems to genuinely care about the common people, as represented by the tears of Premier Wen Jiabao. The Chinese people also saw in their fellow citizens a willingness to selflessly help others in times of distress, a quality that was not immediately evident before the disaster. In the weeks following the earthquake, people found hope in the generosity of the millions who donated, in the bravery of the volunteers and soldiers, and in the stories of heroism, of parents and teachers who sacrificed their lives.

Ten days later a story of a different nature appeared online. Fan Meizhong, a high school teacher in Dujiangyan, a hard-hit town, wrote a post on the widely popular Tianya forum detailing his experience during the earthquake. When the disaster hit, he yelled, “Earthquake!” and then immediately ran from the room, giving his students no instructions. While his school was not damaged and no students were harmed, his students had remained in their classroom; not a single one had followed their teacher out of the room. He justified his actions by saying that there is no specific legal regulation that gives instructions on how a teacher should behave in an emergency, and those who expect him to act heroically are imposing their own expectations and sense of morality. According to Fan, his belief in liberalism allows him to be selfish and value his own life first; he would only be willing to sacrifice himself in order to save his daughter and would even leave his mother to die, a direct assault on the importance Chinese tradition puts on filial piety.

Obviously, his post caused an uproar among Chinese netizens, leading to his nickname “Running Fan” or the “Running Teacher” (Fan Paopao), and even to his firing. His actions were criticized as disgraceful, and people wondered why on earth he would publicize his cowardice. Yet, Fan Meizhong's story has also elicited a debate about morality in China, and provided an opportunity to re-examine the country's collective moral values.

Like other targets of netizens' outrage before him (see: Grace Wang), criticism of Teacher Fan quickly crossed the line of common courtesy. As Si Wenhan, the pen name for a member of the Standing Committee of Dadukou District People’s Congress in Chongqing, points out, no officials at any level of government, no matter how responsible they may have been for the collapse of “tofu dregs” school buildings, have been on the receiving end of such harsh censure. This all came to a head on June 7, when Fan Meizhong and Guo Songmin, one of his critics, met in a head to head debate on Phoenix TV, during which Mr. Guo, who seemed to see himself as the upholder of morality, had a string of harsh words for Teacher Fan. He called him “shameless,” “a beast,” and “a half-breed,” and showed no concern for common courtesies of debate, often interrupting his opponent. Because of Mr. Guo's behavior, Chinese netizens have named him “Guo the Clown” (Guo Tiaotiao), indicating that he had made a fool of himself. Since the TV broadcast, they have also generally been more sympathetic to Fan Meizhong than the moralizing Guo Songmin.

As numerous commentators have pointed out, one reason we should all hesitate before lashing out at Teacher Fan is that, in truth, we are all like him. As Cao Lin pointed out in the Oriental Morning Post, Fan Meizhong had the courage to tell his story, and “Who dares assert that they do not have a part of Fan Meizhong in them? Who dares say that in the far reaches of their minds, they have never had a flash of thinking like Fan Meizhong's?” Chinese netizens and “morality police” have taken their own fantastical, idealistic notions of morality and tried to enforce them among the general population. They forget that they, like Teacher Fan, are human and have the same human flaws of hypocrisy, conceit and insecurity, all of which came out during Guo Songmin's tirade.

Yet, the controversy surrounding Fan Meizhong has provoked more than nasty insults. His story and especially his rationale for running have stimulated a debate about what common moral values we can expect others to hold. Teacher Fan used aspects of liberalism and his right to pursue the safety of his own life over saving others as justification for his actions. Shao Jian, a teacher in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Nanjing Xiaozhuang College, however, believes that his understanding of liberalism is flawed. While liberalism grants people certain rights, it also requires certain duties, and in leaving his students behind, Fan Meizhong abandoned his duty as a teacher.

Additionally, while the liberal market system and liberal governmental systems often presume that all individuals will act selfishly in their own interests, only extreme believers in liberalism – like Ayn Rand – actually view selfishness and lack of charity towards others as praiseworthy. Heroism and even cooperation cannot be counted on but that does not mean they are not virtuous, as a belief in liberalism is most certainly not equivalent to valuing selfishness. Because there were no regulations instructing otherwise, it can be assumed that most liberals would see Teacher Fan's behavior as lawful but definitely not admirable. Had the same situation occurred in the United States, Americans would probably harbor similar feelings of disgust towards the “Running Teacher,” (Americans craved stories of heroism after 9/11 just as Chinese did after the earthquake) though there would also likely be more questioning of why the school or education system as a whole had no regulations governing teacher and student behavior during emergencies.

Teacher Fan's run – and especially his public account of his actions – certainly challenged the status quo of traditional thinking about morality in China. But where does that leave us in constructing new ideas about public values? Li Zhongqin, a writer and former member of the Shandong Writers Association, argues that the Chinese need to stop advocating ideas of morality that correspond more closely with the morality of a sage* or the morality of a hero. It is unrealistic to expect people to put others' interests before or even on the same level as their own. The morality police who self-righteously expect others like Teacher Fan to sacrifice their own interests and even possibly their lives for others are also acting selfishly and unfairly by putting a higher value on the lives of some over others (as Li points out, Fan Meizhong's students were all in their second year of high school – almost adults – not young children). While attempting to uphold such unattainable standards of morality, the idea of citizen's morality has still not truly emerged in China; such an idea makes use of the liberal assumption of innate selfishness, yet as Li explains, from this assumption can come win-win outcomes and mutual benefit. Such a moral system would still give praise and credit to those who act heroically but would not depend upon each person to do so.

Is China ready to adopt such a citizen's idea of morality? That is not entirely clear. By invoking the word “citizen,” in addition to requiring people in China to respect individual choices of others, Li Zhongqin also implies that people should also begin to engage and question the government, as per the duty of a citizen. Instead of dwelling on Fan Meizhong's personal failings, they should worry more about systemic problems, such as the collapse of schools and the lack of regulations regarding classroom behavior in the case of disaster. The firing of Teacher Fan indicates that China might have a long way to go, but at least the conversation has begun.

*In Chinese history, the sage is looked up to as someone who embodies the highest level of morality, with Confucius being the most famous and revered. In Li Zhongqin's article, the morality of a sage is higher than that of a hero, as the sage puts others' interests first, while a hero puts others on an equal plane.

How the earthquake can change China

here

By Jennifer Haskell

The Wenchuan earthquake, in addition to causing horrific damage and loss of life, has also elicited reflection on where China should go from here. Many Chinese have personally changed their attitudes towards life because of the quake, while others have sought direction for the government and country as a whole.

Wang Liping sees the aftermath of the earthquake as an opportunity for systemic government reform. He says that when the earthquake occurred, the government was drunk on the “Chinese economic miracle,” and the entire country was happily welcoming the Olympic torch. But the disaster changed everything.

After the May 12 earthquake, as the entire country came together, rushing to provide relief and rebuild, people realized the significance of “the disadvantage of late development,”* and couldn't help but ask, in a country that has created an economic miracle, how could the government ignore the warnings of the experts? How could so many primary and middle school buildings collapse? While natural disasters cannot be prevented, if effective systemic preparation takes place (including freedom of the press, freedom of association, democratic elections, etc), the government, in order to win the trust of the people, will take precautions before it is too late. The people can also organize their social power in order to further take precautionary measures, so when disasters occur, losses are limited. Because of the stagnation of political system reform, the earthquake's most horrifying damages occurred in front of the eyes of the world, and the government's rush to provide disaster relief cannot make up for the heavy losses (including loss of life). As illustrated by human experience, natural disasters often aggravate societal risks, as they have even caused the overthrow of dynasties. Because of this, the government and the party, in facing “the disadvantage of late development,” cannot put off this opportunity and instead must advance political system reform with urgency. The May 12 earthquake was a wake up call for the government on the need for reform. It also prompted the government and civil society to work together. A new opportunity for political system reform has come, can we take advantage of it?

Hu Shuli of Caijing Magazine also called for using the earthquake response as a motivating force for reform, more specifically the building of an effective disaster relief system. In recent years, China has faced many huge disasters, ranging from SARS, to this year's snowstorm, to the Wenchuan earthquake. And while these disasters bring to mind the phrase “difficulties strengthen a nation,” (duo nan xing bang) – a phrase that Premier Wen Jiabao famously wrote on the blackboard at a Wenchuan middle school – actions need to be taken to improve disaster prevention and response in the future.

The disaster management system should be built on a legal framework, with clear authority and responsibility, specialized organization, and a clear separation of duties between the central government and localities. The system must be able to analyze risks ahead of time in all areas and assess possible economic and infrastructure damage. Similarly, the disaster response system should take measures to limit losses in the case of disaster, ensuring that not just schools but all public buildings meet strict standards. Japan's work to ensure the safety of its school children after its devastating 1923 Kanto earthquake can provide lessons for China.

Additionally, such a disaster management system must be able to respond rapidly and effectively when disasters strike, as time equals lives. The response must be comprehensive and coordinated among the government, the military, as well as social organizations, in order to take advantage of the specializations that each party brings as well as make full use of all resources. The public also needs to be informed about how to respond in the case of disaster, and channels for donating to the relief efforts need to be set up, even though the main funding should still come from the government. The government should make every effort to be open and transparent with how it allocates money in disaster relief.

After the Wenchuan quake, people's attitudes have become very positive, and China must grasp this opportunity to build an effective disaster management system. While the government has focused a lot of attention recently on disaster relief, the response to the snowstorm in January as well as the earthquake in May prove that there is still much room for improvement. Additionally, we need to make sure not to confuse a strong and powerful government for a “great government.”

While the wounds from this earthquake will heal over time, it will certainly not be the last huge disaster that hits China. From this tragedy, we should build a comprehensive system for effectively managing disasters. This has become China's historic responsibility.

Zhang Lifan sees the outpouring of volunteerism brought about by the earthquake as an opportunity for reform, as the quake caused an awakening of the consciousness of Chinese citizens. Since 1949, even after Reform and Opening, civil society in China has been basically non-existent, and the corruption and bureaucratization of the system have left most Chinese indifferent towards politics and civic life. Hu Jintao's and Wen Jiabao's philosophy of “putting the people first” has attempted to build a “harmonious society,” but there is still much systemic inertia to overcome. While Chinese people have praised their premier's rapid response to the quake, they have also questioned the use of funds and resources by the government and government-run charity organizations, preferring to donate to NGOs that they trust.

The government has always been suspicious of civil society, but the relief efforts represented a huge achievement for social organizations in China, who were able to prove their usefulness to the government. Similarly, the calls to oversee relief funds also represent progress. In 1945, Mao Zedong spoke of the importance of oversight in keeping the government in check, but this has yet to be realized. Requiring government organizations to make public how they spend donations has the same reasoning as taxpayers being able to oversee how the government spends their money.

The large number of people who volunteered to help with disaster relief signals that the Chinese people are gaining a sense of social responsibility. How should the party respond to this awakening of the consciousness of the people? This is an intractable problem, as the current accumulation of populist power, expressed through yelling “Go China!” (jia you) at the Olympic torch relay, can lead to patriotism and nationalism in their traditional, formulaic shapes . As the process of modernization has produced populist sentiments, these often reflect dissatisfaction, anti-elitism, and resentment of the government, and they could also easily foster xenophobia, isolationism, or class warfare. Without government reform, including the elimination of corruption, playing with the fire of populism creates huge risks for the government.

As huge earthquakes reorganize the structure of the earth, they also have the potential to reorganize society. Two years after the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, China embarked on the path of Reform and Opening – a huge reorganization. Can the Wenchuan earthquake inspire a return to our human condition, boost people's morale, inspire awe and re-double our appreciation for being Chinese citizens? How will it affect Chinese society? There is no way of knowing today.

China needs to build a healthy, harmonious society of citizens, as under this idea, we are all volunteers.

Even before the earthquake relief effort died down, commentary in both the Chinese and foreign press turned to how this disaster will change China. Obviously, it is too soon to tell if and how the country will transform because of the quake. The openness with which the government conducted the relief effort could be a sign of change or it could be a false hope. Still, the hope is there that out of such a tragedy will come progress, in the form of democratic reform, building an effective system for disaster management, and/or a renewed sense of civic responsibility. The earthquake has already caused the government to re-evaluate the utility of NGOs and other social organizations, and although we do not know what will come of this re-thinking, the hope remains that such organizations as well as private citizens will continue to press for the positive changes that these and other Chinese commentators see as necessary for Chinese society.

*theory that asserts that late developing countries have the disadvantage of imitating and not innovating and thus lack the motivation for system reform.

A new kind of Chinese nationalism

I have one slight issue with this article I wrote. But I still more or less like it. here

Chinese nationalism: from May 4th to recent anti-foreign sentiment to disaster relief

By Jennifer Haskell

This year’s anniversary of the May 4^th Movement coincidentally fell at a time of resurgent Chinese nationalism in the face of widespread protests of the Olympic torch relay and allegations of anti-Chinese bias in the Western media. Thinking back 89 years, it becomes obvious that Chinese nationalism is nothing new and has deep roots in modern Chinese history. Many commentators have compared the recent events to the 1999 protests after the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese Belgrade embassy and 2005 protests of Japanese textbooks that gloss over history. Yet, today’s “angry youth” (fen qing) who have demonstrated in front of and called for a boycott of Carrefour also have forbearers in the early twentieth century, though unlike their May 4^th predecessors, they lack much of a motivating ideology that goes beyond love of country.

On May 4, 1919, students protested in Tiananmen Square against the Treaty of Versailles, which had been completed in April and gave Germany’s concession in Shandong to the Japanese instead of back to China. The students undoubtedly thought of themselves as patriots. They were indignant at foreign countries for taking advantage of and ignoring China’s interests and also at the new Chinese government for not daring to stand up to such encroachments. In anger, demonstrators burnt down the house of Cao Rulin, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and part of the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. Growing support for the student-led movement forced the government to release arrested students, refuse to sign the Treaty of Versailles, and fire three targeted officials including Cao Rulin. The May 4^th demonstrations also promoted a rather effective boycott of Japanese goods in protest of Japan’s aggression against China.

Today’s nationalism has certainly taken a different, more modern face; much of it is expressed online in BBS forums and by attaching “[heart] China” to MSN screennames, and it has also spread to overseas Chinese who have demonstrated against the West’s treatment of their homeland. Different in form, much of the general sentiment is the same as the May 4 protesters’ almost 90 years ago. Chinese patriots again have a sense of being wronged by foreign countries, both in the biased and outright incorrect reporting on the March riots in Lhasa and the disruption of the torch relay by “Free Tibet” protesters in Western countries. Similar to other anti-foreign protests in the past – including the May 4^th movement – today’s nationalists have called for boycotts of foreign businesses, focusing on the French supermarket chain Carrefour, which has alleged but unsubstantiated ties to the Dalai Lama. Unlike in 1919, enthusiasm for the boycott died down quickly as some small protests occurred at stores throughout the country, but most people continued to shop.

Recent nationalism has focused more on wrongdoings by foreign countries, but it has also taken on Chinese citizens who are seen as “traitors” to the nation. Nationalist netizens have targeted Duke University student, Grace Wang, who urged dialogue with “Free Tibet” protesters and former heroine and handicapped torchbearer Jin Jing who opposed the Carrefour boycott. Wang, especially, has become an object of netizens’ anger, as the lives of her and her family members have been threatened, their home vandalized, and her high school diploma revoked. Today’s nationalists, unlike their 1919 predecessors, for the most part, have not targeted the government. The CCP has become rather adept at allowing Chinese citizens to vent through nationalism while not letting it get out of hand, both for the sake of foreign relations and the stability of the government. Xinhua and other media published a slew of articles condemning biased reporting in the West and the inflammatory remarks made by CNN’s Jack Cafferty, thereby proving the government's nationalist credentials. Yet when calls for a boycott strengthened, the government quickly attempted to dampen anti-foreign sentiment for fear it would become uncontrollable. The May 4^th Movement was a clear demonstration of dissatisfaction with the Nationalist government's handling of foreign affairs, and today, the CCP is quite attune to how quickly nationalism could turn against the Party.

Yet, the May 4^th Movement represents much more than pure anti-foreign, nationalist sentiment. It is inextricably intertwined with the New Culture Movement of the same period. The New Culture Movement, led by Chinese intellectuals including Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, advocated the adoption of Western ideas – the most iconic of which were Science and Democracy – in order to modernize and compete with the West. On the anniversary in 2006, while speaking at Beijing Normal University, Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized Science and Democracy as the main themes of the May 4th Movement, which should continue to be applied today, even going so far as to say that democracy includes criticism and oversight of government.

Still, the meaning of May 4^th, the New Culture Movement, and the ties between the two are up for debate. While some claim that the New Culture Movement represented not a revival of culture as Hu Shi claimed but a total destruction of traditional Chinese culture, while others assert that it was not a renunciation of all traditional culture but was more of a search for ideas that worked. Others argue that May 4^th and the New Culture Movement should not be conflated, and Hu Shi himself saw the two as very separate. Instead, the CCP created the idea of a close connection between the two, utilizing the legacy of May 4 for its own purposes and defining the movement in a way that has set up the Party as the movement's natural successor. Still, even if one sees the May 4^th Movement in isolation from the New Culture Movement, there is no doubt that May 4 and the spirit it represented helped push forward new intellectual thought in the early twentieth century and that it remains a symbol of “Science and Democracy” in the consciousness of the PRC. An article in the Beijing Daily described the May 4th Movement as a search for a new direction, something which definitely applies to the New Culture Movement as well. At the time, China was in a state of flux and seeking the appropriate response to changes thrust upon the country as well as its own place in the world.

There is no doubt that contemporary China is also in the midst of great change, as the Chinese people once again are trying to figure out where they stand. The paradox of both standing up to the West while at the same time utilizing Western ideas was certainly not reconciled in 1919, and today's young nationalists represent a similar paradox. Despite resentment towards the West, it is unlikely that many Chinese today would wish to return to the isolation of the Cultural Revolution. Their lifestyles demonstrate that they have benefited from Reform and Opening, but they do not see Western ideas, least of all democracy, as a panacea. In fact, the “angry youth” come across as distinctly undemocratic, as their treatment of dissenting opinions makes clear. In addition to vilifying Grace Wang, they have also attacked Chang Ping, former deputy editor in chief at Southern Weekend, for arguing for a freer media to counter Western media bias as well as a re-thinking of the Dalai Lama, likely causing him to be demoted. So, other than doubt of the West, what do today's young nationalists stand for? An article in the Southern Metropolis Daily asked this question and concluded that today's youth, unlike previous generations of nationalists, do not have any unifying ideology. While today's “angry youth” are definitely searching for a new direction for China, just as their May 4^th predecessors were, they have not provided many answers as to what that direction could be. If not “Democracy and Science,” then what? To stand for nothing, beyond support for one's country right or wrong, is dangerous and could justify Western worries about the future nature of China's rise.

In a recent op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, David Shambaugh discussed the existence of two types of nationalism in China – “aggrieved, defensive nationalism” and “confident and proud nationalism.” The violence that occurred on May 4 certainly exemplified defensive nationalism, as did the branding of traitors during this year's controversy. In 1919, patriotic Chinese had good reason to be angry after years of exploitation and abuse by foreign powers. However, China today, after many years of stunning economic growth and increasing international influence, has many more reasons to be confident in its nationalism. Furthermore, it is more likely that proud, not defensive, nationalism will achieve the international respect that is sought. After the recent devastating earthquake in Sichuan, the Chinese people are displaying such proud, confident nationalism. The outpouring of support and grief for those affected by the disaster, in the form of volunteering, donations, and expressions of solidarity, from Chinese all over the country – especially from students – has been impressive. The response to the disaster has done nothing if not demonstrate how nationalism, in its proud, confident form, can help a country come together to overcome adversity in a constructive, positive way.

Lack of public oversight, wealth inequality: worrisome signs in 2008

This is the first major translation I did. After it first went up, I read it again and decided it sucked but oh well. here

By Zhong Peizhang, translated by Jennifer Haskell

(The author of this article is the former Chief of the News Bureau at the Central Publicity Department of the CPC. Chinese version)

"I am the type of person who fully recognizes suffering; I fear that this year will be the most difficult for the Chinese economy." Wen Jiabao

After the 17^th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, the eleventh session of the National People's Congress opened. Both meetings focused on the topics of democracy and the people's livelihood, and both paid great attention to improving the situation for China's rural residents and improving the well-being of the people. As an element of political system reform, administrative reform also took a step forward. This demonstrates that China is continuing to move forward with reform, and that the tide of history is in the hearts of the people and the party.

In its thirty years of reform and opening up, China has achieved huge successes, which have been praised by both Chinese and non-Chinese alike. There are even those outside of China that summarize China's experience as "the Beijing Consensus," which is praise enough to make one drunk with happiness. Open a Chinese newspaper and the "main themes" all sing the country's praise, while other voices are rarely or never heard. Turn on the television and on each channel you can see performances that extravagantly and luxuriously sing a song of peace and prosperity as well as spectacular feats of engineering. Because of this, people cannot help but adopt the mindset of those passengers aboard the Titanic, entirely unaware that they could hit an iceberg or suffer the surprise attack of a storm. According to a study by the American Pew Research Center on the degree of optimism in seventeen countries, 76% of Chinese respondents believe that the future is bright, more than in any other country.

In fact, the gaps between the rich and poor and between the city and the countryside have widened and corruption has not been contained. The weak state of education, healthcare, and social security systems has not changed, as it remains difficult to afford schooling, housing, and doctors' visits. We are destroying our ecological environment and the problems worsen each day. In facing this reality, people have differing opinions. Currently in China there are two debates: move forward or go back? Move gradually or move radically?

There is no road back.. The Party's 17^th National Congress already gave a clear and resounding answer to that question. However, as long as the situation described above does not change, there will be cries to return, and even cries to "make class struggle the guiding principle', a return to the rhetoric of the Cultural Revolution.

Based on historical experience and China's current situation, the NPC and CPPCC have taken to follow the correct sequence to gradually institute reform as their main tune. Furthermore, gradualness has become the consensus of more and more people. At the same time, if the problems outlined above are not resolved or if reform comes to a standstill as bureaucracy, vested interests, and monopoly groups use "stability first" and other such slogans to cover, obstruct or even submerge reform, radical conflict could break out at any time. We still need to watch out for repeated mass incidents that could one day become furious enough to threaten governance by the CPC.

So should we move forward or go back? Should we move gradually or move radically? These two debates will continue in China for a long time.

Where does the worry come from?

As the year 2008 began, China experienced a disastrous snowstorm that froze half the country and left many southern locations paralyzed. The electric power network collapsed in many areas, food shortages arose, and many workers returning home for the Spring Festival ran into difficulties. The crisis brought to light the deficiencies in China's preparation for dealing with such disasters and its emergency response system. It also exposed China's coal reserves and energy crisis as well as the negative consequences of corruption, as monopoly companies had used inferior materials, which weakened the nation's power network.

Thanks to global warming, this type of extreme weather condition could easily become a common occurrence instead of a once in a lifetime phenomenon. A March 19 article on the Christian Science Monitor's website by Jacques Leslie highlighted some of the environmental problems that have resulted from China's rapid economic development, including deforestation and desertification. Leslie asserts, "Of course, what the Chinese are chiefly guilty of is emulating the American economic model, in promoting the development of the automobile industry as a centerpiece of growth, which worsens traffic as well as pollution."

China needs to be on its guard against multinational corporations that take advantage of the deficiencies of the country's environmental protection management, and more and more people are attuned to the actions of these corporations. Beijing officials are taking temporary measures to cut down on pollution for the Olympic Games, but no one knows whether this will continue to be a focus after the event concludes.

Other worries include the possibility of American economic woes affecting China, as prices in the mainland are already facing large inflationary pressure. And as Beijing prepares to host the Olympics, the Lhasa riots have woken people up to the possibility of other attacks. We all must be attuned to the possibility of facing a huge disaster. In today's circumstances, how can China's 1.3 billion people only rely on our prime minister's "full recognition of suffering"? When do we make our officials at all levels wake up from their focus on creating GDP growth and constructing their own image and earnestly bear responsibility to the people for the success of future generations?

Who will monitor the spending of the people's money?

During the past 30 years of rapid economic development, China has accumulated a large amount of wealth. Wen Jiabao's report on the work of the government listed a series of dazzling figures: China's GDP in 2007 reached 24.66 trillion RMB, the fourth largest in the world. Total government revenue reached 5.13 trillion RMB, increasing by a factor of 1.71. Foreign currency reserves surpassed 1.52 trillion RMB, the largest in the world. Speaking at the NPC, Hu Jintao said that China's success is owed to the people. Under the leadership of the CCP, all of the Chinese people have made concerted efforts and struggled tenaciously for this result.

China has begun to accumulate wealth, but who is actually wealthy? How much benefit have the people actually received during reform and opening up?

According to the analysis of Professor Chen Zhiwu, after accounting for inflation, from 1995 to 2007, government revenues increased 5.7 times. At the same time, the per capita disposable income for city and town residents' only increased by a factor of 1.4, while farmers' per capita disposable income increased by a factor of 1.2. Tax revenue is only the most obvious parts of government revenue. In reality, the government is China's largest holder of assets, so as the country's economy has developed, the increase in value of government owned enterprises, public land, and mineral resources is greater than that of tax revenue. The speed of increase is also faster. More than 76% of assets in China are owned by the state, leaving the people with less than 25%. Counting allocable revenue from assets along with the 5.1 trillion RMB in tax revenue, last year the government's total allocable revenue was 15.7 trillion RMB.

As the above situation demonstrates, the reality of China today is that the country is rich while the people are poor. As Professor Chen Zhiwu points out, the biggest gap between the rich and poor in China today is between the state and society, not among the majority of the people.

Government officials are also public servants, and in their hands, they have a large amount of the people's money. How is that money spent? This is a question that people in all modern countries have the right to ask. In a country governed by law, the most important thing is that the money is governed by law. When government exercises the right to do good things for the people, the most basic thing is managing money well. In modern nations, as taxpayers, the people strictly monitor how the government spends their money. At this meeting of the NPC and CPPCC a strong voice should call to account: 5 trillion in state revenue, plus 0.7 trillion of excess revenue, how is it spent?

Who is monitoring how the government spends the money? China has not implemented a separation of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government in a system of mutual restraint, as it is said that this is a capitalist concept, while China is implementing the socialist people's congress system. The people can entrust essential oversight to the National People's Congress. However, the NPC has so far not sincerely carried out its work of overseeing public finances, which is appalling. According to an official in the Ministry of Finance, Jia Kang (Director of the Ministry of Finance's Research Institute of Fiscal Science), each year during the time the NPC is in session, the Ministry of Finance sends a group of mid-level cadres to each small meeting to explain the ministry's actions and answer questions raised by the NPC. For the past few years he has not had any opportunity to speak at these meetings because no deputies have raised questions. What people further do not understand is that the NPC has taken this sacred responsibility, bestowed on it by the people, and given it to the government itself. When there is no system of oversight, government inevitably begins to operate in a "black box" and abuse its power, especially when it comes to excess revenue. Some provinces and cities use any means possible to persuade central government offices and leaders to approve their plans and allocate money to them. How does this prevent corruption?

Without a strict oversight system, there is no transparency in public finance. People again put their hopes in the "Sunshine Act," which namely oversees officials' assets. As early as 1766, Swedish citizens had the right to examine a list of how much everyone from ordinary to top officials paid in taxes. This system, which has been used as a reference by many countries around the world, became a very effective anti-corruption mechanism, so it became known as the "Sunshine Act." Currently, more than ninety countries around the globe have systems where officials must report their assets, including the Asian countries of Singapore and South Korea, and China's SARs of Hong Kong and Macao. These systems play a vital role in fighting corruption. In October 2005, the NPC approved China's ascension to the "UN Convention against Corruption." As the convention stipulated, "Each State Party shall consider establishing, in accordance with its domestic law, an effective financial disclosure system for appropriate public officials and shall provide for appropriate sanctions for non-compliance." In the past few years, there have already been many deputies, such as Wang Jinjie from Yantai, Shandong and Han Deyun from Shanghai, who have continuously proposed bills and suggestions related to a system for reporting officials' assets at the meeting of the NPC. Chinese people from all walks of life are also very interested in this topic. In January 2008, more than fifty retired high level officials and scholars signed a letter to the NPC and CPPCC requesting that they quickly formulate and implement a "Law for the Public Reporting of Officials' Assets at the County Level or Above", but many officials resisted on technical grounds. So, to this day, we still have not seen this vital aspect of the legal system formulated or implemented.

Only with a strict, effective system of oversight can we effectively prevent corruption. This is not only important in managing the people's money but also in cultivating people's talents to become good cadres and officials.

In answering a reporter's question at the NPC press conference, Premier Wen Jiabao said, "In the next five years, we will resolutely advance the reform of the public finance system so that the people's money will be better spent in pursuit of the people's interests." The people hope that they will not have to wait five more years before they can see an open and transparent financial system.

"Only if you put the people in your heart can the people allow you to govern"

These words were said at a press conference by Wen Jiabao. People can see that as a country's economic situation improves, officials consider how to bring that benefit to the people. Not only Singapore, but also China's Hong Kong and Macao have acted in this way. Russia is also a great example. After the collapse of the USSR and the disaster of "shock therapy," Putin's powerful measures have helped the country's economy recover, as last year's growth rate reached 8.1%. At a news release conference, a Western reporter asked about Russia's presidential elections, "Why is there no competition in the Russian politics?" Putin answered, "Wages have gone up by 16%, that is my answer for you." His answer reflects the idea of putting the people in your heart. With people at the center of Russia's economic growth, they can earnestly benefit, and Putin and his officials can safely retain the leadership positions given to them by the people.

Another question worth thinking about is why China continues to rely on cheap exports and does not call on its own great purchasing power. Why is America's purchasing power the highest in the world? In the US, the government owns virtually no productive assets, while in China the government owns 76% of all assets. Americans' have a savings rate of –1%, while at the same time they invest in stocks and mutual funds, and they can rely on the rising value of their assets to make money. We cannot believe that the state-owned economy will make us rich. "There has never been a country that got rich while maintaining a large state-owned economy, and there has never been a country that truly relied on the state system for wealth." (Chen Zhiwu, The Driving Force for the Future of the Chinese Economy). Besides in "returning the wealth to the people", the country should also "hide the wealth within the people," thus, the private economy must be actively encouraged to develop for the benefit of the people.

How can we still reform gradually?

Gradual reform has already become the consensus of more and more Chinese people.

There are many historical arguments for gradual reform. Right before his death, Engels changed his thoughts on how to create a socialist society, saying that the old capitalist system could be changed peacefully via the democratic and constitutional processes. Additionally, in the 20^th century, many European countries used gradual reform to put democratic socialism into effect. Within the capitalist structure, countries like Sweden, via the development of production capability and regulating allocation, have basically eliminated the gaps between city and countryside, between workers and farmers, and between laborers and management. They have also prevented the rise of a privileged class and put an end to official corruption.

The United States also used gradual reform to achieve its success. Despite experiencing economic crises, social crises, racial conflict, and cold and hot wars over the past hundred years, the US not only avoided violent revolution, coup-de-tat, or other forms of government overthrow but also became the lone superpower. The US's success can be credited to its gradual reform, as its defining characteristic is gradual improvement and compromise, both of which work to neutralize conflicts and crises. Additionally, one can learn from the failure of Russia's radical reform in the 1990s and the mistake of copying Western models without regard for the local situation.

China's thirty years of gradual reform prove that this road is the correct one to lead the country towards success. The Chinese people have survived long periods of chaos and disaster and suffered much harm. How can we continue to advance? Deng Xiaoping's deep and wise words, "crossing the river by feeling the stones," means that China's reality must be clearly recognized and policies must be based on it. However, this is not to say that we can unswervingly hold onto the notion of "stability before everything else." Our goal is still to "cross the river," and follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and this means continuing with reform and opening up in order to advance.

The three essential points of gradual reform

How can we ensure that gradual reform continues?

1. Emancipate our minds

Hu Jintao said, "emancipating our minds is precious," while Wen Jiabao added that emancipating our minds can never stop. Both are correct. Only by emancipating our minds can we take all of humanity's creation and use it towards civilized achievements to enrich our thinking. Only by emancipating our minds can we cultivate our own skill to the level of mastery and enrich our creative talent. Only by emancipating our minds can China stop acting as the "factory of the world," and become a country with high levels of intellectual property creation, with the Chinese people contributing to modern human civilization.

In order to emancipate our minds, we first need to thoroughly destroy "capitalist phobia". We believe what the Communist Manifesto, the bible of Marxism, clearly points out, that capitalist creation of wealth creates much more wealth than what was created in any other period of human history. Even today, in many areas, capitalism creates the vanguard of production capability. Only if you have the ability to climb to the peak of capitalist creation can you then create a new peak of socialism. Why do we want to bind ourselves by Mao Zedong's "Two All" or the slogans of other leaders, but dare not take the clearly useful experience of the past hundreds of years of capitalist creation for our own use?

2. Earnestly advance government system reform

If we sincerely want to resolve the issues pointed out at an early time by Deng Xiaoping, the excessive accumulation of power and the separation of party and state, we must earnestly make the legislature and judiciary independent. In its many years, the NPC has passed many laws, but it has not conscientiously done work towards its oversight function. At many levels of government, the heads of the people's congresses are often also the head of the government. Many governors or mayors are also people's deputies, both athlete and referee. How can someone oversee himself? The NPC should earnestly oversee the government's finances and quickly formulate and put into practice a system to report on officials' assets. Hong Kong set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which effectively monitors all of the region's officials, so why can't the mainland do it too?　

3. Guarantee free speech and set up community oversight

It is impossible to imagine a country on earth or a type of society that is perfect and without fault, where everything is harmonious and without contraction. The issue lies in choosing to expose weakness and resolving contradictions or choosing to shut the lid, allowing problems to intensify and moving towards corruption and break down. One could say, since its birth, capitalism has matured by listening to those who expose its weaknesses and provide criticism. Even today, the Western world still thinks of Marx, the 19th century philosopher who proffered the most severe criticism of capitalism, as the world's greatest thinker. In the US, from politicians to ordinary citizens, most believe that spiritedly blowing the horn of criticism is a "main theme" of society and provides lubricant for societal advancement and a catalyst for government reform.

As forces continue to move China forward, along with the wise leaders at all levels who make decisions, China also depends upon the initiatives of members of society at all levels as well as on the oversight of public opinion. In past Chinese dynasties, wise leaders always utilized criticism and oversight for the advancement of governance. For example, Tang Taizong regarded Wei Zheng's criticism as necessary and valuable. Today, however, some Chinese officials do not hear opposing views, and some county party secretaries have jailed those who disagree with them. Why is the positive power of loving one's country and one's people regarded as a scary, hostile power? We need to sincerely safeguard the right to free speech. The United Nations passed the "International Convention on the Rights of Citizens and Governments." As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China signed the convention ten years ago, but we are still waiting for the NPC to approve implementation of the agreement. The people also hope that the NPC can formulate and implement laws to safeguard freedom of the press that have been discussed for the past twenty to thirty years.

As the author of Cold Eyes Towards the West, Zi Zhongyun points out, "in one word, the separation of powers, supervision of public opinion, and the critical spirit of intellectuals, can these special American good luck charms continue to effectively restrict the power of money and the market? This is America's biggest test as it enters the 21^st century." We have definitely not reached the end of history, as the advancement of development has always come from struggling with contradiction. All countries have endured these types of tests. Let our country face these tests and advance without fear.

Chinese leaders have already said the words that many people hope to hear. A thousand miles begins with a single step. Now people hope to see sincere action. Taking education as an example, the quality of education determines the quality of a people and the people's destiny and future. Chinese leaders say they want to prioritize education, but for many years, the amount of money put into education is still not more than what is spent on state-owned cars and food and drink at the public's expense. The UN standard for education spending is 6% of GDP. The average level worldwide is 4.9%, while the average for developing countries is 4.1%. China's education spending has fluctuated between 2-3%, with the set goal being to reach 4% by 2010. Although many NPC and CPPCC deputies have appealed for action, education spending still did not reach 4% in 2007. We say we want universal compulsory education, but today in China more than 80% of primary schools and more than 64% of middle schools are in rural areas. Furthermore, many county governments have large debts, so how can they guarantee the quality of compulsory education? Leaders say that education must be fully supported in spite of financial constraints and that they want to make China into a country of creation. Now our country has money. Can we resolutely study the high levels of investment that countries like Sweden and Holland put into education and become a world leader in creation? The people are waiting.