On March 3, just days ahead of the opening of the annual “two meetings” of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) and Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Jiang Yu (姜瑜) responded to concerns over mistreatment of foreign journalists in China by issuing a warning. “Don’t use the law as a shield,” she said. “The real problem,” Jiang elaborated, “is that there are people who want to see the world in chaos. They want to make trouble in China. For people with these kinds of motives, I think no law can protect them.”
Just one week later, in the midst of the “two meetings,” China’s top legislator, Wu Bangguo (吴邦国), declared that a “socialist system of laws with Chinese characteristics” has already been fully established in China — an achievement he lauded as a “major milestone.”
But for many legal experts in China watching developments in recent months and years, statements like those made by Jiang Yu on March 3 expose a basic disregard for laws among some officials that underscores just how far China has yet to go.
In its latest edition, released last Thursday, Guangdong’s Southern Weekend ran an editorial by Chen Youxi (陈有西) that is clearly a direct response to Jiang Yu’s remark to foreign journalists on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A partial translation of the editorial follows:

“The Law Should Be Everyone’s Shield”
Southern Weekend
March 17, 2011
Chen Youxi (陈有西)
During the “Cultural Revolution” there was nothing left of the law, and this caused the entire nation to slide into civil strife. Injustice prevailed everywhere, and even the chairman of the republic [Liu Shaoqi] could not be protected. To a large extent it was in drawing lessons from this tragedy that our past 30 years of opening and reform have been not just 30 years of economic reform, but also 30 years of rapid development in building a legal system. Our legal provisions are now more or less complete, and the problem of having no statutes to apply has basically been resolved. And so, during the “two meetings” this year, chairman Wu Bangguo (吴邦国) solemnly declared that a socialist system of laws has been basically established. The general consensus in society now is that the goal in the present era is to move from having relevant laws to ensuring that these are observed and strictly enforced.
The focus in the present era is already on normalizing the [exercise of] authority by means of the law. The crux of ruling the nation according to the law is controlling officials according to the law, and controlling power according to the law. In this particular historical period, clashes in legal thought have become complex, and there are some rather unharmonious strains. During the “two meetings” this year, some officials declared: “The law should not be used as a shield.” This presented a stark contrast with the solemn declaration that our legal system has been basically established. [The remarks] drew some glances, and caused some to realize just how difficult the transition to rule of law is.
“The law should not be used as a shield” is perhaps just a momentary slip of the tongue, but it reveals the hidden thoughts of a number of officials, and it is worrisome. It gives people the impression that China’s legal system is little more than a slogan or an accessory, something that can be used when it suits the purpose. When the government requires the law, the law can serve as a set of mandatory rules the population must respect; when it seems the law restrains one’s hand, it can be set aside. It’s as though the law is one-directional, serving to check the population but not to check power. If the law comes to be used as a tool, then clearly it is seen as something without sacred importance and not deserving of reverence — just as something utilitarian.
. . .
Right now there’s a saying going around in the legal world [in China], that rule of law is in retreat. People may have different views on whether or not rule of law is really retrogressing, but the legal consciousness of some officials in China today is certainly moving backward. This is a fact. This is not just about some people declaring, in defiance of the main theme at the “two meetings” this year that our legal system has basically been built, that “the law should not be used as a shield,” or that, “[For people with these kinds of motives,] I think no law can protect them.” But other shocking remarks frequently pop out of the mouths [of officials]. Things like, “Are you speaking for the Party, or for the people?”Or, “Without forced demolition there would be no New China.” Or, “Going against the government, that’s wicked.” Or, “Self-immolation itself is a violent means of opposing demolition and removal.” These shocking statements seem at first glance to be incidental, but in fact they expose the blind faith these officials have in power, and the contempt they have for rules. [WSJ Blog on MOFA press conference].
The future is bright, but our real situation is severe. If we wish to turn laws on paper into real rule of law in practice, if we want to make a smooth transition to a system of rule of law, the core task facing us right now is to ensure that officials constantly respect the boundaries of the law. It is as delegate Zhou Guangquan (周光权) said, the focus of popularizing the law (普法) must mean a transition from [the law] applying to the ordinary people to officials abiding by the law, and the law serving as an important determining factor in transfers and promotions [for Party and government officials]. Only in this way can the legal system become the order respected by the whole of society. Only in this way can the whole nation operate with order and according to rules. And only in this way can every person [in our society] be free of fear. Only in a country ruled by law, where the law is supreme, can we ensure that the tragedy that faced Chairman Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇) is not replayed.

Watching China Central Television’s Nightly News (新闻联播) on March 10, I was completely taken aback. The 30-minute newscast placed news of the earthquake in Yingjiang, Yunnan province — which happened that very day, with serious loss of life and property — way back at the 27th minute. What’s more, coverage slide by in a flash. The news story was given less attention than a forum on revolutionary heroes and Gaddafi’s victories against Libyan rebels.
The 27 minutes of content prior to the brief spot on Yingjiang was all devoted to National People’s Congress (NPC) delegates, who glorified our building of a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics, and went on about how prosperous our people are, and how democratic the “two meetings” of the NPC and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference have been. What kind of journalism is this? I was truly shocked.
A number of friends have rolled their eyes accusingly, wondering why I bother watching the CCTV Nightly News anymore. Inevitably, I respond that, first of all, my writing focuses criticism on Chinese current affairs. If I don’t watch the CCTV Nightly News, where will I focus my research? When I watch American TV, my purpose is to reflect on America.
Secondly, if you don’t watch CCTV Nightly News, can you just pretend it doesn’t exist? In fact, it permeates every facet of your life, and it also influences your children and grandchildren. Even if you bury your head in the sand, this official news program is still out there, guiding you and everything around you. There’s nothing you can do about it.
Many of my friends say I’m just making a fuss. After all, many important news events in the past, such as the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, and riots in Xinjiang in August 2009, did not make the headlines at CCTV Nightly News. It only makes sense, then, that Yingjiang didn’t have prominent play. But this is wrong, nevertheless. The earthquake is a natural disaster, without any political dimension whatsoever. Such events are generally regarded as the biggest of disasters, and most countries in the world put news about one’s own earthquakes in the headlines, particularly when there are deaths, injuries and loss of property.
The CCTV Nightly News showed NPC chairman Wu Banguo (吴邦国) saying: “Considering China’s national situation, we solemnly make clear that we will not implement [a system of] multi-party rule in turn, [we] will not implement diversity of guiding ideologies, [we] will not implement separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, [we] will not implement federalism, or privatization.” He even announced that a socialist legal system has already emerged [in China]. I suppose with this news the delegates at the NPC could relax — they would have another opportunity next year to travel to Beijing and represent the people of the nation.
How did they represent the people this year?
As the focus turned to welfare issues, one delegate suggested ceasing use of the term “rural worker” (农民工). Another delegate suggested that favoring instead the terms “employee” or “personnel” would help eliminate prejudice and make “rural workers” feel a bit better. Will this kind of superficial change become part of their [project of] “making the people prosperous”?
Call public functionaries “public servants” and they will still be corrupt. I think the only right way is for us all to become full-fledged citizens, whether we are rural workers or public functionaries.
That the label rural worker is felt to be prejudicial is but a reflection of scorn for their status, treatment and occupations. When we say “thief”, it isn’t the word that grates but the conduct it implies. In the United States, farmers proudly identify themselves as farmers. So what we need are changes not in nomenclature but changes in the actual status and treatment of “rural workers.” Once rural workers receive fair and normal treatment, is there really any great difference between employees, rural workers, urban workers or public functionaries?
This piece originally appeared in Chinese on Yang Hengjun’s blog.

Just as China grapples with widespread fears over possible fallout from Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis — with a rush by citizens this week to horde salt in the belief it might help stem the effects of radiation — the country is dealing with yet another food safety crisis as well, this time over pork. Earlier this week, a report on the state-run China Central Television said Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development Co Ltd, China’s largest meat processor, had been selling pork containing high levels of meat-leaning additives identified in the media as ractopamine and/or clenbuterol.
In excessive amounts, these additives can cause serious health issues in humans. Li Zhiqi (李志起), an expert with the University of International Business and Economics, told The Beijing News yesterday that the use of such additives to produce leaner meat was not confined to Henan Shuanghui, and that the problem was common in the industry.
This is not the first time China has been hit with concerns over dangerous additives in pork products. In 2006, 336 people were reportedly sickened in Shanghai by pork containing clenbuterol, which has been used worldwide as a performance-enhancing drug and is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. In 2007, China suspended imports of animal products from the United States, citing the presence of banned additives, including ractopamine. A range of so-called “beta-agonists,” including clenbuterol and ractopamine, are approved for use in the United States. South Africa and Mexico, but banned in China and the European Union.
There may be a more complicated story behind the scenes here about the global use of these and other agents in meat products. But as state media have continued in recent weeks to drum home the point that Chinese are prosperous, secure and content with the performance of the Party and government, this latest food safety scandal has rattled nerves and sparked anger.
Here is a translation of comments under the news report from The Beijing News in the order they appeared earlier today at QQ.com:

腾讯常州市网友 中国人20小时前
Finally I hear a real expert speaking the truth. I’m moved. I’m truly moved. In real life, there are so few experts who have a conscience like this.

腾讯绵阳市网友 马丁——牧师18小时前
God! In the past I was fond of Sanlu, but Sanlu died. Now I’m fond of Shuanghui, but Shuanghui will die soon. All-powerful God, I want to say to you: Who I really like best are our inspectors in various industries!!! Amen . . .

腾讯网友 yfz19小时前
All of you so-called ‘civil servants’, what are you doing most of the time? Why is it that only after something big breaks you come out and give it ‘top priority’, and after the storm has passed let everything go on as it always had. Why do we taxpayers support you at all?

腾讯北京市网友 彼岸花开17小时前
This matter should be pursued all the way to the Bureau of Quality and Supervision. When products come out the first step is to inspect them for quality. I don’t know if everyone saw previous reports. Just by paying money you can get a ‘pass check’. [These inspectors] are eating from the table of the state but doing nothing for the people. It’s abominable!

腾讯江苏省网友 冰糖葫芦18小时前
I just want to know why it is that these problems require uncovering by the media. What are the relevant [government] departments doing? They are supported by the taxpayers!!!

腾讯网友 老百姓17小时前
The Sanlu incident was handled too leniently, and couldn’t serve as a warning. [The people responsible] should be found out and firmly, quickly and severely dealt with with death penalties. It should be like in the early days of Liberation, when dishonest traders who hurt the ordinary people were lined up and shot.

腾讯网友 ~清清山溪~17小时前
It’s a tragedy. There are minefields all around the Chinese people. Ultimately this comes down to a loathsome ruling class playing with power without any scruples whatsoever.

腾讯金华市网友 一杯清水18小时前
I support Wang Lijun (王立军). Those responsible for making harmful products should be shot.

腾讯网友 四夕王一人可53分钟前
‘Finally I hear a real expert speaking the truth. I’m moved. I’m truly moved. In real life, there are so few experts who have a conscience like this.’ Even our true experts are fake! Why is it that we need an expose from China Central Television before the problem of illegal additives in pork gets out and experts show their faces?

腾讯北京市网友 阿呆1小时前
Experts say: This is common . . . I have no words.

腾讯包头市网友 我心飞翔1小时前
When Sanlu ran into trouble that year, the whole industry was dragged in. This year Shuanghui runs into trouble, and are we supposed to believe that its peers are clean?

腾讯徐州市网友 海深天高1小时前
This is criminal behavior, so how can the [government] just ‘sweep up’ and call it a day. This is an irresponsible attitude!

腾讯网友 小树2小时前
Let this company go broke, just like Sanlu.

腾讯济南市网友 知者自知2小时前
So experts finally start to speak like human beings.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
No one should buy any.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
Good.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
It’s tragic!

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
We already have a Food Safety Law. When will this be implemented to seek criminal responsibility?!

腾讯网友 3693小时前
There are still experts who speak the truth. How rare.

腾讯网友 如影相随3小时前
And what kind of experts are most common?

腾讯福州市网友 Capricorn3小时前
God! Are we supposed to grow our own food and raise our own pigs now before we can eat with ease?

腾讯网友 蓝色天际3小时前
How is it possibly an isolated case? The meat I bought today is tainted with additives. I don’t think there is pork on the market in Hangzhou that’s free of additives. All of the pork you buy at the market has clenbuterol in it, right? I’m so angry, angry angry!!! No one is keeping an eye out.

腾讯网友 ZDX8783小时前
So Shuanghui, another major national food company, has problems. What can ordinary people still eat?

FRONTPAGE PHOTO: A Chinese dinner table, by FlickrMarcus available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.

In a piece posted in Chinese late yesterday, China Elections and Governance takes an interesting look at the way Japan’s response to the recent catastrophe has caused some Chinese to marvel at the resilience of the Japanese people, and how social order can be ensured without the strong arm of the government.
Called “Japan, a Society that Needs No Stability Preservation”, the piece is also a clear shot across the bow of the Chinese government’s policy of “stability preservation,” or weiwen (维稳), which essentially amounts to the mobilization of domestic security police to put down instances of unrest. A report from Reuters earlier this month revealed that China’s outlays for domestic security are expected to outstrip military spending by three billion dollars this year.
Yu Jianrong, director of the Center for the Research of Rural and Social Problems at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a former China Media Project fellow, has argued that China’s efforts at “stability preservation” are costly and ineffective, resulting in what he calls “rigid stability.” Outlining his arguments at Global Asia last summer, Yu wrote:

[A]ctive “stability creation” must take the place of passive stability preservation. This means breaking through the simplistic thinking behind the notion of stability as the overriding priority, and changing the idea that stability is something to be purchased at whatever cost. Breaking through this thinking requires a new way of thinking, which can be summed up in this way: facing mass incidents in China today, our society must be rational, our leaders must be wise and our researchers must show character. In a sensitive time of social tension, we need more than wise leadership. We need even more urgently a new way of thinking about stability that accords with our stage of social development. As they deal with massive problems concerning public interests, government leaders must be fair and just, dealing with issues reasonably and quickly, not half-heartedly, and they must not abuse their positions of power. The result of actively resolving social tensions and other factors of instability at their roots will be “stability creation.” At the same time, however, the steadily increasing social tensions in China cannot be dealt with through economic reforms alone. They must be resolved and controlled without delay through political reforms.

Real stability, argues Yu Jianrong, is a “dynamic stability” that arises from a recognition of social problems. By contrast, China’s current policy of “stability preservation by means of pressure conceals social problems, making it difficult to find real solutions” and resulting in “the long-term accumulation of social tensions.”
In the wake of the earthquake in Japan, some Chinese have glimpsed, the China Elections and Governance piece suggests, the kind of resilient stability Professor Yu says China must work toward. A portion of the article is translated below, but readers of Chinese are encouraged to read the entire article:

“Japan, a Society that Needs No Stability Preservation”
It must be said that maintaining social order in the midst of such chaos is a miracle, but the conduct of the Japanese is enough to make one believe in miracles. In a piece called, “A First-Hand Experience of the Japan Quake,” written for FT Chinese, Zhang Lei (张磊), a special assistant to the CEO of China’s Hanwang Technology, wrote that just 10 seconds after the quake occurred: “There was no other programming on any of Japan’s television channels, everything was about the quake, and the scenes being broadcast were staggering. I wondered: Was Japan’s government not afraid that it would cause instability for them to report the quake on the TV without fear like this? But in the TV reports on the quake, you rarely saw pictures of high-level Japanese leaders ‘dealing with the disaster’, and there seemed to be no images of the Japanese Prime Minister directing the relief effort, spilling his tears over the disaster-stricken area.”
In the face of major disaster, what we have seen is that the Japanese people are well-trained, calm and deliberate. The country has not descended into chaos or alarm, but instead has, just as ever, shown the world a face of calm order, solidarity and mutual assistance.
The article, “How Was the Social Resilience Shown By Japan After this Major Quake Achieved?“, published in Beijing Youth Daily on March 13], described Japan after the disaster in this way: “Even as they sought refuge city residents took it upon themselves to keep the main roads clear, those filing through stairwells divided to either side, keeping the middle open. They calmly waited in line for public transportation or to buy emergency supplies at supermarkets. Teachers were the last to leave their classrooms before shutting off the power. Public television stations broadcast essential information about the disaster and personal safety information in multiple languages. Toilets and other facilities were set up quickly in schools, parks and public areas. It was a scene of public order showing comprehensive expertise and efficiency in dealing with possible secondary hazards following the quake.”
. . .
Sun Yat-sen University Vice-President Chen Chunsheng (陈春声), who experienced the quake first-hand in Tokyo, said that when the quake began he wandered with other city residents to a public square, where everyone sat calmly on the ground. No one was flurried, and once the tremors had passed everyone headed back from whence they had come, the square cleared without so much as a hint of garbage: “Really, there was not a spec of litter, I’m absolutely certain of it.” He also emphasized that everyone was quite trusting of the government [Source: Phoenix Online].
At WSJ.com Chinese, editor Yuan Li (袁莉) said: “Going home, people waited in line. Using the public telephone, people waited in line. No one scattered litter anywhere. Faced with such a major disaster, Japanese have still not let go of their civilized ways. People like this fill one with admiration. I’m saying my prayers for them.”

FRONTPAGE PHOTO: Japanese wait in line at a grocery store on March 13 following the earthquake, available by Aaron Olaf at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.