Following initial reports on social media, Chinese media reported widely yesterday that a couple in Beijing were attacked on September 6 by the 15-year-old son of famous Chinese singer Li Shuangjiang (李双江) after a simple traffic accident. According to eyewitnesses, Li’s son, who was driving a BMW without a driver’s license, attacked the couple with another man within minutes allegedly rear-ending their car, beating them and shouting, “Who dares dial 110!”
For many Chinese, this incident bore eerie echoes of the “Li Gang case” of October 2010, in which the son of an influential police official in Hebei Province struck two university students with his car, killing one, while driving on campus. When finally stopped, the young man threatened others saying, “My father is Li Gang!” These words became a slogan in China summing up the problem of corruption, abuse of power and disproportionate privilege among government leaders and other elites and their family members.
The broader issue of privilege among China’s second-generation political and business elites is encompassed in two terms now widely used, the “power progeny” or “second-generation [of] officials” (官二代) and the “second-generation rich” (富二代). Li Shuangjiang’s son would be considered a prime example of the latter, as would Lu Xingyu (卢星宇), the daughter of billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) who is now embroiled, along with her father, in a scandal of her own.
In the lead editorial in today’s edition of The Beijing News, the term “second-generation rich” is not used explicitly. But the editorial deals generally with the issue of privilege and inequality of opportunity in China and what they mean for society.
These are issues that will no doubt be played out in many more cases to come.
A translation of the lead editorial in The Beijing News follows:

“Why Does a 15-year-old Dare to ‘Pick Fights and Make Trouble’?”
September 9, 2011
According to a report in The Beijing News, the son of vocalist Li Shuangjiang (李双江), who is suspected of driving without a license and attacking others, has already been arrested according to the law. There is nothing greatly suspenseful about the case, which in due time will be investigated and handled according to the law. But the repercussions of this suspected case of “troublemaking” certainly do not end here.
In all fairness, this dispute itself was quite plain and ordinary, and was not something awful. The direct damage resulting from it was also minimal. But the social impact is ugly. Not only the parents of those involved, but all society is perhaps asking: Why did a 15-year-old youth not even capable of bearing full legal responsibility for his actions act in such an aggressive manner? And how did the ideas and problem-solving impulses behind these actions take shape?
In the media and public appearances, Li Shuangjiang and his wife have often praised their son’s talents and abilities, and have allowed him to appear onstage in numerous public forums. At the age of 5, he became the “youngest ambassador for [China’s] Olympic big”, appearing onstage numerous times with his father to sing . . .
It’s not difficult to see that many of these opportunities and much of this limelight were not so much about the child’s talent, effort or professional skill so much as his being steeped in the light of being “Li Shuangjiang’s son.” And as for these undeserved opportunities for limelight, all sides gave them and received them in without the least unease, the famous Li Shuangjiang and his wife not only making them possible but clearly having no qualms whatsoever about it.
Everyone loves their children, but it is precisely this teaching by precept and example that might exercise a subtle influence, allowing the child to heap up the sense of relying on, trusting in and even reveling in the halo bestowed by their parents — believing that all of the conveniences and privileges enjoyed by “Li Shuangjiang’s son” are normal, and that just by raising the “great flag” of his parents he can live without restrictions and have whatever he pleases. Each time father and son took the stage, each instance of vaunting before the public, imperceptibly strengthened the son’s sense that he enjoyed special privileges.
Perhaps as a father Li Shuangjiang would not have hoped to instill in his son this sense [of superiority], but objectively speaking the possession of privilege and convenience itself is the best breeding ground for this sense of special rights and privileges.
Media have reported that Li Shuangjiang noticed from his sons keen interest and aptitude for cars from a young age, that when his son was young he would teach him hand-on-hand [how to drive] in the open space of their courtyard, and that he would compare driving cars to melodies and symphonies. The BMW without tags [involved in the recent incident] had previously been worked on, and the refitting was quite expensive, clearly not the kind of work that can be done by a youth on his own. A 15-year-old is unable to apply for a driver’s license under the law, and Li Shuangjiang and his wife must know this. They should also know that giving a motor vehicle to someone who does not possess a driver’s license is a violation of traffic laws. What is regrettable, though, is that they gave tacit consent, or even encouraged this symphony their son should not have played [ie, this recent incident]. . .
Parents are the first teachers of their own children, and while they may be proud of their kids they must not allow their kids to be puffed with pride. They must not allow their sons to wield special privileges that are not rightfully theirs, and act with [reckless] “courage,” because of [the parent’s] own status and name.
This incident has drawn a wave of public attention most of all because this is not an isolated case, and that to varying degrees [in different cases] these examples of youth misusing the resources of their parents and see public order and the public good as something to be spurned.
After this incident, Li Shuangjiang and his wife went to the hospital to visit the the woman who was beaten [by their son], and they apologized on behalf of their son saying that, “I didn’t teach my son properly,” that he would willingly submit to the victim “using a club to give me a good beating” and that he “would not indulge the errors committed by his own child.” This is proper behavior, and it might to some degree restore [Li Shuangjiang’s] image. But should we not as a society think deeply about why we had to wait for this kind of thing to happen before we confessed in this way?

Over the past few weeks, as commercial newspapers in China — most notably, Guangzhou’s hard-punching Southern Metropolis Daily — have been relentless in their pressure on billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) and his World Eminent Chinese Business Association, alleging improprieties with its charity activities, state media have remained quiet. All that changed late last night as China’s official Xinhua News Agency ran a lengthy “investigative” report called, “Raising the Curtain on Three Major Questions About ‘China-Africa Project Hope’.”
The Xinhua report is essentially a compilation of remarks from various sides of this story, including the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council — which is very critical of these “so-called ‘global'” events by ostensible overseas Chinese associations — billionaire Lu Junqing (as the official representative of all of the associations facing scrutiny), and other state offices and independent experts.
Comments reported from others are interspersed with “reporters’ investigation” sections in which the writers of the story insert other facts that help clarify the case or put remarks in perspective.
The following is a partial translation of the Xinhua report. We strongly encourage readers to have a look at the full version as well.

“Xinhua Viewpoint: Raising the Curtain on Three Major Problems at ‘China-Africa Project Hope’”
September 8, 2011
Reporters Zhou Ning (周宁), Li Dexin (李德欣) and Zhang Yu (张宇)
Recently, 24-year-old Lu Xingyu has drawn fierce attention from society because she posted on her microblog that she was the “executive chairman of ‘China-Africa Project Hope'” and “managed two billion yuan in project funds.” As the incident continued to ferment, the group behind “China-Africa Project Hope”, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA), suffered relentless questioning by the public. Was it legal for an outside association like the WECBA to hold events inside China? Was “China-Africa Project Hope” in violation of regulations? Was the fund in compliance by taking a 10 percent management fee from donations?
Concerning these three major questions, the [Lu Junqing] affair and the lessons it holds, Xinhua News Agency interviewed government authorities, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and parties to the “China-Africa Project Hope” affair for their responses.
Is it illegal for an overseas association like the WECBA to conduct activities inside [China]?
[Reporters’ Investigation] The State Council’s “Regulations on the Management of Registration of Social Associations” and the Ministry of Civil Affair’s “Provisional Measures on Stamping Out Illegal Non-government Organizations” stipulate that [associations] that have not registered and taking the liberty to carry out activities in the name of an association are regarded as illegal non-government organizations, and they should be suppressed and their illegal assets confiscated. The Ministry of Civil Affairs General Database on National Social Organizations does not include any registration information concerned the World Eminent Chinese Business Association.
[WECBA Chairman Lu Junqing] Our association is a global organization of Chinese businesspeople with a core comprising top-500 Chinese businesspeople and mainly composed of Chinese billionaires. It was formed in Hong Kong, with dual registrations as an association and a business, with registration names given as the “World Eminent Chinese Business Association” (legal representative Lu Junqing) and the “World Eminent Chinese Business Association Company Limited” (legal representative Lu Junqing) and Beijing representative office registration number (北京代表处注册号) 110000400160767.
Our association carries out charity activities inside [China] in the name of an association (以社团名义), and if we hold events jointly with other institutions, the association is only responsible for services on the public welfare side, and the market side of things (市场化部分) is entrusted to the Tianjiu Confucian Business Investment Group (legal representative Lu Junqing) which provides services to clients, collects relevant service fees and bears all business and legal responsibility.
The Tianjiu Confucian Business Investment Group supported the WECBA in jointly launching China-Africa Project Hope with the China Youth Development Fund [of the Chinese Communist Youth League], and committed to contributing ten million yuan every year to the China Youth Development Fund from 2011 to 2020, to be used in implementing Project Hope in various African countries.
[Overseas Chinese Affairs Office] Our office has never received any application for examination and approval for events concerning overseas Chinese from the WECBA. Our office has discovered that since 1990, a number of associations or organizations purporting to be “global” Chinese or overseas Chinese organizations, flying banners of “global,” “world” or “international” to carry out various overseas Chinese events, and these have internally impacted the normal operation of our own overseas Chinese work, doing damage to social stability in a number of local areas and to overseas cooperation . . .
Our office believes that these organizations have four principal characteristics: 1. they have names that do not reflect their real roles, and they exaggerate their membership rolls; 2. they are registered overseas, but carry out activities inside [China]; 3. they are full of bravado, often using the Great Hall of the People, the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse and other important national event sites to hold their events, and they falsely claim that they have close connections with our state leaders, and they abuse or illegally misuse the names of famous people in a bid for financial gain; 4. they accumulate wealth by dishonest means, and take the liberty of holding so-called “global” overseas Chinese activities with a clear financial motive within our borders.
For this reason, our office released a relevant document with the Ministry of Civil Affairs and other offices on January 2010 emphasizing that we would resolutely employ harsh measures to prevent so-called “global” overseas Chinese associations or organizations from holding activities in China and the abominable impact they have.
Is ‘China-Africa Project Hope’ in Violation of Regulations?
1. Is the “China-Africa Project Hope” for public good or private gain?
[Reporters’ Investigation] The official website of the China Youth Development Fund says that this fund is a public welfare fund. According to the sixth clause of the “Charter of China-Africa Project Hope” (“中非希望工程”基金章程) released by the China Youth Development Fund, the income for this fund comes not only from members of the World Eminent Chinese Business Association but also includes “donations from various corners of society.” Further, the donation hotline on the official website of “China-Africa Project Hope” give the phone number not of the China Youth Development Fund but of the WECBA, and the address given is for the Daheng New Epoch Technology Building (大恒科技大厦), which in fact is the office place of the WECBA in Beijing.
[China Youth Development Foundation Secretary Tu Meng (涂猛)] “China-Africa Project Hope” does not turn to the public for support, the source of the fund being the solicitation of members for donations by the WECBA. Donors sign a contribution agreement (捐赠协议) with the China Youth Development Fund, and at the same time directly deposit funds into the account of the China Youth Development Fund. Right now “China-Africa Project Hope” has already collected donations totaling 30.32 million yuan. The fund will take on the costs of construction of 20 schools in a total of five countries, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Namibia and Burundi, with each school receiving around 1.5 million RMB. Of these, Tanzania’s “Mosuoga” (摩唆嘎) Primary School has already started construction, with one installment of construction funds having already been given to contractors and the project slated to be finished by year’s end.
[Zhang Bufeng (张步峰), professor of administrative law at China University of Natioanalities] The biggest difference between public [welfare] funds and private funds (私募基金会) lies in the fact that the former is required in its annual report to make a public statement of where funds have been allocated, while the latter is required to make a report to its benefactors of how donations have been spent. However, any [organization] that “seeks donations from different sectors of society” (向社会各界捐赠) most certainly belongs to the category of a public fund (公募基金) and therefore has a responsibility to provide the public with information about its activities.

We wrote yesterday about the ongoing standoff between Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper and the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA), a private organization run by Chinese billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) whose charity activities have in recent weeks come under scrutiny. In a letter to Southern Metropolis Daily dated September 7, the WECBA said it would take legal action against the paper if it continued along its “path of errors,” running reports alleging the organization is guilty of deception. The newspaper has stood by its series of reports on Lu Junqing and the WECBA, and yesterday added another investigative piece to the mix, suggesting the stand-off is unlikely to mitigate.
But as the WECBA threatens legal action against Southern Metropolis Daily, it is now also facing a potential legal challenge of its own.
Zhou Xiaoyun (周筱赟), a well-known “Internet user” (知名网友) with a record as a professional journalist, issued a video statement yesterday through Chinese social media saying that he is in the process of filing a case against Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) and his lawyer, Zhang Yong (张勇), for allegedly damaging his reputation.
Here is the video on Tudou, one of China’s domestic Youtube clones:

In the video, Zhou Xiaoyun makes a statement of three points:

1. He is being represented by Beijing Cailiang Law Firm
2. The firm is working to file the case with the relevant court having jurisdiction
3. Evidence has already been preserved with a notary agency regarding the [alleged] violation of Zhou’s right of reputation (名誉侵权).

Chinese media have already reported on Zhou Xiaoyun’s action against Lu Junqing, which apparently stems from remarks made on August 30 by Zhang Yong, the head of the WECBA legal team.
The basic story is that on August 27, as questions swirled in the media and online about China-Africa Project Hope, a project administered by the WECBA in cooperation apparently with the China Youth Development Foundation of the Chinese Communist Youth League, the WECBA issued a notice offering a reward of one million yuan for the “black hand working behind the scenes” in the scandal — their assumption being that a particular competitor was trying to blacken Lu Junqing’s reputation.
The very same day the WECBA issued the notice, Zhou Xiaoyun, who was one of the earliest to post on the internet about China-Africa Project Hope, wrote on his microblog that he “surrendered himself,” and encouraged other web users to quickly inform on him and collection the one million yuan reward.
In a media interview on August 30, Zhang Yong, the lawyer, apparently called Zhou Xiaoyun’s confession was “a claptrap ploy to please the crowd, entirely with a mind to promoting himself.” These words prompted Zhou Xiaoyun’s accusation that the WECBA was impugning his reputation.
On September 1, lawyer Wang Cailiang (王才亮) issued a statement on Zhou Xiaoyun’s behalf, demanding that Zhang Yong apologize publicly.
Reports in the Chinese media on Zhou Xiaoyun’s action against the WECBA can be found at China Youth Daily here, at the Economic Observer here and at the New Business Daily here.

Back on August 18 we ran our first review of the then developing scandal surrounding China-Africa Project Hope — a Chinese charity initiative that says it plans to build hundreds of schools in Africa — and its founding charity organization, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA). We followed up with a media interview by Lu Xingyu (卢星宇), 24, executive chairman and secretary-general of China-Africa Project Hope and the daughter of Chinese billionaire and WECBA chairman Lu Junqing (卢俊卿).
Already confused?
Certainly, this is a complicated story, and aside from our coverage at CMP, a brief story by China Daily back on August 19 and a good mini-summary at CSR Asia virtually nothing has appeared outside the Chinese-language press — that despite Lu Junqing’s star power in the Chinese business world. It bears noting that the WECBA is allegedly a private company formed in Hong Kong, is allegedly not registered (as required) with the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and that its partner in launching China-Africa Project Hope is apparently the China Youth Development Fund of the Chinese Communist Youth League (whose China Project Hope was enveloped in scandal years back).
For a quick rundown of some of the initial (and ongoing) doubts and questions surrounding the WECBA and its charity work, you can see our August 22 translation of an August 20 piece in Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily called, “Eight Big Lies of Lu Junqing and the World Chinese Eminent Business Association.”
The “Eight Big Lies” piece, in fact, is now front and center as the row between the WECBA and Southern Metropolis Daily intensifies this week, with the association alleging libel and threatening legal action and the newspaper digging in for a fight.
In response to a “Lawyer’s Letter” on August 30 spelling out the WECBA’s grievances, Southern Metropolis Daily circulated a letter yesterday in which it said it stood by its series of reports on China-Africa Project Hope and welcomed the resolution of this issue through legal means.
The WECBA quickly volleyed back with a letter dated today in which it accuses the paper of acting “utterly without sincerity.” The WECBA notes prematurely that it is pleased to see the the Southern Metropolis Daily has not issued another report on the association since August: “[T]his is a positive attitude that we welcome,” today’s letter says.
Lu Junqing must therefore be steaming from his ears at the report in Southern Metropolis Daily‘s “In-Depth Weekend” section today.

The “In-Depth Weekend” report, a hefty piece of investigative work, probes into another of Lu Junqing’s organizations.
We’ll work on this latest Southern Metropolis Daily investigative report when we can get to it. For now, we offer translations of yesterday’s letter from the newspaper on the stand-off, and of the WECBA response immediate following.

“Statement Concerning Our Series of Reports on the World Eminent Chinese Business Association”
On August 30, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association issued a “lawyer’s letter” (律师函) saying that this newspaper’s report “Eight Big Lies of Lu Junqing and the World Chinese Eminent Business Association,” published on page A32 on August 20, was an infringement, demanding that this newspaper clarify all of its inaccurate reports, canceling out their negative impact, and that it issue a public apology. Moreover, [the paper] must [said the “Letter”] issue a written response by September 4, and if a response was not issued in time, or these conditions were not agreed, then necessary legal steps would be taken; On September 5, the association issued a “Letter to Media Friends and Online Friends” (致媒体朋友与网友书), saying that “since the association made serious representations concerning Southern Metropolis Daily‘s gravely inaccurate and misguided report, [it has] already received positive feedback. Through reliable channels [it said], the two sides delivered positive information, expressing the will to resolve these disagreements and ensure tensions do not escalate . . .”
Concerning this matter, this newspaper makes the following statement:
(1) The series of reports on the World Eminent Chinese Business Association by this newspaper constitute basic work in the exercise of the media’s supervision by public opinion function, and [the paper] was not “misguided” by any person or any organization;
(2) This newspaper has never, through either verbal or written means, confirmed that this series of reports or any particular report therein is “untrue,” “partially untrue,” “seriously untrue” or any other statement of this kind;
(3) This newspaper does not consider itself to be in “disagreement” (矛盾) with the World Eminent Chinese Business Association. Any private interest or institution engaging in charity or other public welfare undertakings has an obligation to submit to monitoring and scrutiny by public opinion [or “media monitoring”]. This newspaper expresses its support for any genuine charity undertaking.
(4) This newspaper welcomes at any time the resolution of this dispute through legal channels.
This statement is hereby given.
Southern Metropolis Daily
September 6, 2011

The following is a translation of the WECBA’s response to the Southern Metropolis Daily letter posted above. This letter was posted on the WECBA website today.

Notice from the World Eminent Chinese Business Association
(Notice 12, 2011)
Letter of Negotiation Concerning the ‘Statement’ Issued by Southern Metropolis Daily
Southern Metropolis Daily Publishing House:
The “Statement” issued today by your honorable paper is utterly without sincerity, and our side expresses its firm refusal!
Supervision by public opinion (舆论监督) is a cleaning mechanism for social progress (社会进步的净化器), and the media sets the bottom line of social morals. Promoting truth-seeking and whipping back falseness, ugliness and evil is the media’s first duty. In the midst of the China-Africa Project Hope incident, the honorable newspaper’s reports about our association have been seriously in error. Not only has it failed to offer commendation for the enormous good done by the international charitable endeavor of China-Africa Project Hope, but it has without cause slandered the project’s operating unit, its founders and donors, losing sight of the most basic position to be held by a responsible media organization, crossing the basic moral line of media and causing immense damage to the international image of this association and its chairman, Mr. Lu Junqing (卢俊卿).
Even as we feel righteous indignation at this, we have decided through cool consideration to take a rational approach, trying fairer means before sterner ones, first opting to resolve this issue through discussion. First, we discovered there were “black hands” at work behind this matter, and we though you too might be victims (though it seems now we were too simple in thinking this). We did not wish to give these “black hands” an opportunity to profit form the quarrels of others. Second, we considered that the honorable paper’s initial intention was to uncover corruption in the charity sector, not to attack us out of enmity. Third, we hoped to achieve tolerance and understanding by facing the media and the public, rather than dealing ruthlessly [with this matter] from the outset. In this regard, our association has already shown the largest measure of goodwill, the largest measure of sincerity, the largest measure of conciliation and the largest measure of patience. We hope that you do not misread our goodwill.
As you on your end transmitted some information through an intermediary to the effect that you were preparing an internal reference document (内参), were preparing to go to Africa to investigate the Project, that you did not fear a lawsuit, that through a lawsuit you could raise your level of fame and continue to cut deep [in your reporting], etcetera, it is clear that the basic conditions for negotiation are not there. We have nothing to hide, and we know that the truth will ultimately prevail over lies. If you on your end insist on trusting things to chance, refuse to come to your senses, and continue along this path of errors, then you can only in the end drop a brick on your own feet.
In a large media organization, with many employees and complexity of task, it is difficult to avoid incorrect reporting for various reasons — this is something we can understand. But once a mistake has been made, bearing the necessary responsibility is an unquestionable moral duty, and it is also in the basic professional character of a responsible media. While we admire the honorable newspaper for its backbone, this “backbone” in no way implies that it can refuse to bear responsibility in cases of wrongdoing!
We have noted that from September 1 to September 6, the honorable paper has stopped its mean-spirited attacks on us, and this is a positive attitude that we welcome. Before, we have been forced to respond to error after error committed against us by your paper. Now, as you have desisted from your mean-spirited attacks, we for our part naturally see no further need to respond. Owing to the positive result of your side ceasing your mean-spirited attacks, we for our part preserve the face of your honorable paper before the public, giving the paper a suitable step offstage. This represents on our side the greatest expression of goodwill owing to the aforementioned reasons [ie, not further reports being published], but we hope this not be mistaken for a sign that we can be easily bullied!
The demands our side made in the “Lawyer’s Letter” [of August 30] were reasonable, not harsh, and we hope that you for your side deal with them seriously and offer a positive response. Our side is willing to wait with the utmost patience for the arousal of your conscience and your concrete action. If your side ignores our solemn and just stand and continues to add error upon error, our side will resolutely maintain the use of the law to protect our just rights and interests.
                                              
World Eminent Chinese Business Association
September 7, 2011

According to a September 2011 report in the Legal Mirror (据法制晚), “school choice” leapt to the top of the list of education-related concerns facing Chinese in a survey taken this year, with more than 80 percent of parents surveyed saying that school choice in their cities was a major problem, meaning they felt the options available to their kids were poor. Difficult admissions requirements and high fees moved down from the top of the list from last year. Difficulties in school choice were reportedly resulting in a host of other burdens for families as they changed household registrations (户口), paid massive “school selection fees” (巨额择校费) or sought well-placed connections to get their kids in schools of their choice. In this cartoon, posted by Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, concerned parents, bearing their children on their backs, try against all odds to scale the cliff that separates their children from the excellent school of their choice.

According to a report by the official Xinhua News Agency, “many” experts at the 2011 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in the Chinese city of Chengdu said that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China faced “a situation seriously threatening their survival,” with investment capital hard to find, costs high and labor scarce. Experts suggested employing various measures to assist SMEs in navigating the tough environment. In this cartoon, posted by Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, a long trail of travelers representing small and medium-sized enterprises in China cross through a bleak desert landscape littered with the bones of the dead as the sun blazes down.

Over a range of stories and concerns in recent months, from the bungled handling of the July 23 train collision in Wenzhou to the nagging topic of government departments opening up their records of the “three public expenses” — use of public vehicles, “public” trips overseas and “public” expenses for entertaining guests — the issue of open government information has moved front and center.
On August 3, top leaders released an official notice calling for more open release of information about the unfolding of sudden-breaking incidents in China and their handling by authorities.
An editorial in today’s People’s Daily again deals with the issue of open government information (OGI), arguing that while OGI faces many challenges in China, it is the way forward for both the public and the Party.
A translation of the editorial follows:

“Open Government Information is a Basic Drill for Democracy”
People’s Daily
September 2, 2011
The public cry for open government information has been loud, and expectations are high. In the midst of these expectations, it’s difficult for the government to avoid being sized up by ever more discriminating eyes. For this reason, as central departments release [information about] the “three public expenses” (三公经费), concrete issues like numbers not squaring up at some departments will be rapidly ferreted out by internet users.
Along with the continued development of socialist democratic politics (社会主义民主政治), as the appetite for public participation rises and the capacity for participation daily matures, a powerful force has already gathered. The “chief who enjoyed exorbitant cigarettes” [Zhou Jiugeng, former director of a property management bureau in the city of Nanjing] fell from office under [a wave of] online scrutiny, and reforms to personal income tax attracted 230,000 opinions [online]. This is not just a reality of the times that open government information must face — it also adds pressure to other areas of reform.
If we count from the implementation of the Ordinance on Open Government Information [in May 2008], open government information has only gone for three years. In the short space of these three years, whether in terms of institutional support and the building of platforms, or in terms of personnel or evaluation and assessment [of implementation], all areas are in the process of improving. The constant “thawing” of [outmoded] concepts and “ice breaking” in terms of practice have broken through the traditional idea that “the people must be used, but must not be aware” (民可使由之，不可使知之), and this is a mark of major progress.
We should also note that against the expectations of the people, [our gains on] open government information still fall far short. In Western countries, open government information already has a history of a half-century, but we were only just out of the starting gate as we came upon the turbulence of the information age. In China, open government information is not just a self limitation of powers carried out by the government, but it is in a foot race with the expectations of the public. It’s as though we’ve just come into the world with wails and are expected to get up and run. Certainly, this is both urgent and difficult.
Recognizing the difficulty of this endeavor, some local governments have wavered back and forth, full of reservations. In an era of dramatic social transition, when we are at a turning point in which [social] stability is under pressure and demands are high, when we face a fervor for participation among the masses the likes of which we have never before seen, and as we face cautionary warnings in reform in certain quarters that “[white-fisted] control spells death, and letting go brings chaos,” it’s clear what challenges face the robust promotion of open government information. But for our leaders this is an issue of urgency, not a question of choice. The demands of the central party, the trends of the times, the demands of modern politics, the hopes of the people, all together constitute a wave [pushing us in the direction] of reform of government affairs. As to the logic behind this, it is exactly as central party leaders have said, that there is risk in reform, but without reform the party will itself face hazards.
At this time, what is needed urgently above all else is a new governance framework (新型治理框架) that can promote orderly public participation and drive a virtuous circle of society. How to handle order and chaos, how to strike a balance between trust and skepticism, these are test questions such a framework must answer as we open up budgets and expenditures for official business, and even the personal assets of state officials, allowing the public to participate in policy making, administration and oversight. Employed properly, the force of public participation can be a force of progress. Used incorrectly, it can be a force of destruction. Leaders must have sufficient wisdom and capacity to harness the “innumerable flowing streams” of public participation through institutionalized channels. The level and quality of open government information will determine whether or not we will make the gains of progress that participation must bring, and whether we avoid the chaos that can come with participation.
In our present experience of open government affairs, subjectivity and ad hoc decision-making are still very much in evidence. A number of local [governments] are still accustomed to using specious justifications to avoid public demands for information. As to some information made openly available, the public isn’t interested, or can’t understand it [NOTE: meaning that a lot of information released by the government is overly technical or does not address the issues they want to know about]. In a definite sense, this has resulted in an antagonism between “power” (权力) and “rights” (权利), which can quite easily do damage to the zest for participation [or allowing participation]. Only by expanding the “institutional supply” (制度供给) of open [information], actively improving execution, feedback and monitoring of information openness and the standards such as responsibility [by government officials] that govern the process, further clarifying the standards, methods and responsibilities in terms of information openness, steadily unblocking the channels for remedy of the public’s right to know, can we ensure that the zeal for openness moves forward through completely “orderly” and “stable” channels.
Whether for the government or for citizens, open government information is a kind of basic drill for democracy (民主训练). Helping each other forward, active participation by the public and the government’s institutional supply (政府的制度供给) will steadily raise [our people’s] democratic disposition (民主素质), and social harmony and progress will exist not only as an ideal in our hearts.

[Frontpage photo by Marcin Wichary available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.]

On August 24, 2011, Guangzhou citizen, Communist Party member and “independent” people’s congress candidate Liang Shuxin (梁树新) was notified by local authorities in Guangzhou’s Panyu District that his eligibility had been denied because “campaigning when one has not yet formally become a candidate is a violation of procedure.” Over a period of two months, Liang Shuxin, the founder of a local charity organization, had received widespread support for his candidacy and actively used social media to introduce himself and his views. In this cartoon, posted by artist Kuang Biao (邝飚) to his blog at QQ.com, a pair of gloved hands snip away a new green sprout growing out of the soil of two large Chinese characters for “democracy.”

Last week China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official statement on the storming of Gadhafi’s compound in Tripoli by Libyan opposition forces, saying in the midst of the apparent end of Gadhafi’s rule that China “respected the choice of the Libyan people.” The ministry’s remarks generated buzz on blogs and social media in China, where some were keen to draw parallels with China’s own political situation. Blogger and CMP fellow Yang Hengjun (杨恒均) asked pointedly: “When are we going to respect the choice of the Chinese people?”
Dragging out Libya’s lessons for China is of course a sensitive issue, and few traditional media have tackled the question even indirectly. One editorial in particular is worthy of note, however.
On August 26, Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post, which has distinguished itself as one of China’s hardest-hitting publications since playing a key role in breaking the 2008 poisoned milk scandal, ran a lead editorial called, “Give the People a Choice, Give Everyone a Route of Escape.”
While the editorial was about Gadhafi and Libya, its implications for China were not far beneath the surface. It argued that those in power must learn from the lessons of history and ensure that the “people’s right to choose” is respected. Leaders and vested interests who fail to do so pave the way not only for their own undoing, but they close all paths of escape for the whole society, leaving violence as the only means of change.
The editorial concludes with a clear reference to China’s dynastic past and the rise and fall of political rulers: “The men of the Qin had no time for sorrow [so swiftly did they fall], but was pitied instead by those who followed, even as they failed to learn its lessons, sowing the pity of future generations for themselves.”
The Oriental Morning Post editorial was quickly removed from the newspaper’s website, which now yields the following 404 error.

The editorial was then actively shared on social media using online services that instantly convert text into images that can more easily elude censors using keyword filtering methods.
Censors eventually caught up. The following is a screenshot of a re-post of an image-based version of the Oriental Morning Post editorial on Sina Microblog, which now carries the message: “This post has been deleted by its original author.” The Sina notice once again begs the question of whether this was really a voluntary deletion on the part of the user, or whether A) the user was asked by managers to remove the post or B) managers removed the post themselves and attributed the action to the user. This is something we’re looking into for this and a number of other cases.
The message from the user who re-sent the original microblog post reads: “This is just awesome! The Oriental Morning Post is awesome!”

Below is a partial translation (mostly complete) of the August 26 Oriental Morning Post editorial as re-posted on Sina Microblog. The user added a note to the top of the image-text file saying that the article had already been deleted from the internet.
As usual, recognizing that our time constraints do not permit perfection, we humbly invite comments and clarifications on translations or other issues.

“Give the People a Choice, Give Everyone a Route of Escape”
Oriental Morning Post
August 26, 2011
(already deleted from the website, but visible in photograph form)
Everything that has happened in Libya up to now only proves yet again the inevitable proposition that if people are not given the right to choose, this shuts off the path to peaceful negotiation and closes off all routes of escape available to the whole of society, those in power included.
On the situation in Libya, the position of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was this: “We have noted the changes in the situation in Libya in recent days, and China respects the choice of the Libyan people.” The significance of this statement lies first of all in the fact that it admits that the subject of change in Libya over the last six months and more has been the “people.” Second, it is significant because it admits that the fulsome struggles of the Libyan people in action over the past half year have been an exercise of their “right to choose,” and that [the exercise of this right] is normal and should be respected.
This wave of political change has spread, one after another, through many nations in the Middle East, so why was Libya singled out for attention [by the foreign ministry]? Clearly, this is because changes in other countries were swift and clean while changes in Libya came about only as the culmination of more than half a year of bloody civil war.
The Libyan people have paid a heavy price to realize their right to choose. The whole of Libyan society has suffered, including Gadhafi and his supporters. Many of the costs will become evident only in the future. It is difficult to say how the social scars of civil war and domestic enmities will impact the unfolding political situation in Libya. Blood and fire may voice the determination, courage and honor of the Libyan people in seeking their freedom, but they cannot heal the country’s wounds or dispel deep-seated concerns.
In this sense, the “weakness” of rulers in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries made it possible under particular circumstances for these countries and their people to avoid, much to their benefit, the path of violence . . .
Look at Gadhafi and how he was given the opportunity to compromise, but how he failed to cherish this opportunity. Violence was his only religion, and he wished to use the blood of the opposition to plunge the whole nation into war. By the time his mind turned to compromise, the opportunity had passed.
Of course, Gadhafi’s refusal to compromise has always been done in the name of “the people of Libya.” It’s certainly no secret that his use of the word “people” has from the very first day tallied a lousy record of misrepresentation and abuse. Today we understand that Gadhafi does not in fact represent “the people.” In truth, he and the forces he represents stand in opposition to the people of Libya.
But this is not something that was apparent only after the writing was on the wall. It could be seen on the day they threatened and massacred their own people, and even earlier, on the day they robbed the people of their right to choose. It was then that they cleaved themselves from “the people.”
It was his psychology of “whoever stands at the end represents the people,” or “victory justifies the victorious,” that made Gadhafi refuse to set violence aside. His logic, in which whoever is smiling in the end represents the will of the people, is at base a philosophy of violence, of the supremacy of arms. The natural outcome of this logic is that when those in power have lost all popular support, and when the people have no prospect of using legal means and procedures to exercise their right to choose, violent overthrow is their only alternative. [Under such a political environment] words and promises of negotiation, deliberation and “reform” are often no more than policies of deception. From the day the people’s right to choose was no longer respected, or was even trampled, Gadhafi left no exit for the people, and he left no way out for himself either . . .
Gadhafi came to power through violence, and he made his exit in the midst of violence. The difference is that in leaving power, he left behind even more blood, leaving Libya with wounds from which it will be all the more difficult to recover. When there is an unwillingness to face the existence of the people, when the people are not permitted to voice their own demands, when the people are not allowed to exercise their right to choose, the only form of change that remains is ultimately the fiercest, most extreme and bloodiest . . .
Broadly speaking, every change in the nature of society, every rebalancing of power and interests, is a transformation (变革). But owing to different attitudes toward the choices of the people [by those in power], the outcomes will be markedly different. There might be a gradual process of improvement, or there might the terrible prospect of “a successful revolution, in which millions fall to the earth.” On the other hand, of course, there is the possibility that revolution will not succeed, and millions will fall to the earth still. There have been many such terrible precedents. [NOTE: The portion here in Chinese referring to unsuccessful revolutions is a reference to the words of Sun Yat-sen, who said that if the Chinese revolution was not successful, the people must push on.]
The core measure of a civilized society is not how those in power came to be in power, but how they step down. When [those in power] are seduced by the desire to protect their personal interests, or those of their families or cliques, when they are tempted to grasp power firmly for all time, and will stoop to any false or fabricated notion of the popular will to extend their own legitimacy, then they ultimately leave the people no choice but to choose the extreme path of indiscriminate destruction. When such a situation emerges, the people may not understand or be adept at how to employ peaceful means to voice their demands, but given the fact of an authoritarian society, responsibility must be placed first on the shoulders of those rulers who lack political wisdom and a sense of historical undertaking.
Each and every day there might be powers big or small that exit the center of power [in this or that country]. The biggest difference between them is the extent to which they affirm the right of the people to choose and submit themselves to it. “When I left the Kremlin, hundreds of reporters thought I would weep. I did not weep, because I had already attained the chief goal of my life. For a true politician, this goal is not to hang on to one’s power and position, but to promote progress and democracy in one’s country.” These words were spoken by Gorbachev. Twenty years ago, he relinquished power. His merits and shortcomings will be determined by future generations. But we must at least admit this, that while those nations in transition, including Russia, have struggled through dramatic changes, little or no blood was shed. Meanwhile, Libya, which for such a long time was “stable” (but in fact stagnating) now faces terrible social divisions.
Gadhafi’s error was a pernicious and ancient illness repeated by men through the ages: “The men of the Qin had no time for sorrow [so swiftly did they fall], but were pitied instead by those who followed, even as they failed to learn its lessons, sowing the pity of future generations for themselves.” The people must be granted the right to choose gradually but resolutely, otherwise the frightening prospect of having no escape [from violence] will be the recurring nightmare facing any society in transition.

——————–
给人民选择权, 给所有人退路
August 26, 2011
迄今为止在利比亚发生的一切，只是再次证明了一个千古皆然的政治命题：不给人民选择的权利，就堵死了和平协商的变革路径，也会堵死包括掌权者在内的整个社会的退路。
对利比亚局势，中国外交部的表态是：“我们注意到了近日利比亚形势发生的变化，中方尊重利比亚人民的选择。”这个表态的意义，首先是承认利比亚半年多来变局的主体是“人民”，其次是承认这半年来利比亚人民充满折腾意味的行动，只是为了行使“选择的权利”，正当，应予尊重。
此轮政治变革先后波及多个中东国家，何以利比亚受到格外关注？显然，是因为前述几国变革急骤而利落，惟有利比亚的变革，是通过内战这种大规模流血的方式，前后迁延半年之久，才终于得以实现。
利比亚人民为实现选择权利付出的代价是惨重的。受到重创的是整个利比亚社会，包括卡扎菲家族及其支持者。代价还将在未来体现，内战造成的社会裂痕、家国仇恨会怎样影响利比亚政局走势，尚属难言。血与火固然能表明利比亚人民争取自由的决心、勇气，为他们带来荣誉，却不能抹平既成的伤口，消解未来的隐忧。
从这一点上说，突尼斯、埃及等国统治者的“脆弱”在特定情况下，却避免了兵火之灾，不啻是这些国家国民与社会的福分。不必为一个人、一个家族或者一个政治团体的私利，让全社会付出巨大代价，这是利比亚人民求之未得的。
反观卡扎菲，曾经有妥协的机会摆在他面前，但是他没有珍惜。他只迷信暴力，他要用反对派的血，来让所有的子民战栗。等到他想起了妥协的好，时机早已远去。
当然，卡扎菲的不妥协，一直是以“利比亚人民”的名义而行的。这不是什么秘密——“人民”一词从出现的第一天起，就充满了被挟持、滥用的不良记录。多少罪恶以“人民”之名行之。今天，我们知道卡扎菲并不是真正代表“人民”的。事实上，他和他代表的力量站在了利比亚人民的对立面。但这一点不是在他大势已去时才能判断，而是在他威胁屠杀自己的国民那一天，甚至更早——从他剥夺了人民的选择权那一天起，就与“人民”分道扬镳了。正是“谁坚持到最后，谁就代表人民”，或者说，“成王败寇”的心理，使卡扎菲执意不放弃暴力。谁笑到最后谁就代表民心所向的逻辑，实质上鼓吹的是一种暴力思维、“枪杆子至上”思维。由此逻辑能得出的惟一结论就是，即便一个政权的统治力量已经失去了民心的支持，也不能指望其让人民通过法定的程序行使选择的权利，除非用暴力推翻它。妥协、谈判、“改革”，这些词语或承诺即使有，也常常只是一种欺骗策略。从不再尊重乃至剥夺人民的选择权那一天，卡扎菲就没有为人民留下退路，也没有为自己留下退路，全不管“死后洪水滔滔”。
卡扎菲由暴力上台，也由暴力下台。不同的是，他下台时，流了更多的血，利比亚这个国家留下了更加难以痊愈的伤口。不愿正视人民的存在，不让人民表达自己的诉求，不准人民行使选择的权利，最后收获的，却是最激烈、最极端、最血腥的变革形式。此时，这当年的革命者，还能谈什么对国家民族的责任？
广而言之，每一种社会形态改变、利益与权力的重新分配，都是变革。但由于对待人民选择权态度不同，结局会有天壤之别：可能是和风细雨的渐进改良，也可以是“革命成功，千万人头落地”的恐怖图景。从另一面讲，“革命未能成功”，同样会有“千万人头落地”的可能。这种恶例更多。
文明社会的核心指标，不是掌权者如何上台，而是掌权者如何下台。面临保住个人、家族或小集团利益的诱惑，面临将权力把持千秋万代的诱惑，不惜以谎言和伪造的民意来增强自己的合法性，最终，却往往使人民不得不选择玉石俱焚的极端手段。出现这种局面，可能有民众不懂得、不善于通过和平手段表达诉求的因素，但在威权社会的现实背景下，首先必定归咎于缺乏政治智慧也缺乏历史担当的掌权者。
几乎每天都会有大大小小的掌权者离开权力中心。他们之间的最大区别，在于是否承认人民选择的权利并确实臣服于它。“当我离开克里姆林宫时，上百的记者们以为我会哭泣。我没有哭，因为我生活的主要目的已达到，对于一个真正的政治家来说，其目的不是保卫自己的权力和地位，而是推进国家的进步和民主。”说这句话的人叫戈尔巴乔夫。20年前，他放弃了权力。他的千秋功罪，尚待后人评说，但我们至少需要承认一点：包括俄罗斯在内的那些转型国家，尽管经历了巨变与折腾，但几乎没有流血；而长期“稳定”（实则停滞）的利比亚，如今却面临着可怕的社会裂痕。
卡扎菲的错误，是一种古老的痼疾，前有古人，后有来者，“秦人不暇自哀，而后人哀之，后人哀之而不鉴之，亦使后人而复哀后人也”。除非逐步但坚决地给人民选择的权利，否则，全社会退无可退的可怕图景，终会是每个转型社会挥之不去的梦魇。

Is this for real, or fake? The struggle has gone on for half a year, and just when people are about to lose all interest, Gadhafi falls from power? Fortunately, as soon as I went online to catch up on the news I found a statement from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “The other day the Libyan opposition forces pushed into the capital city of Tripoli . . . On this matter, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said: China respects the choice of the Libyan people, and hopes that the situation in Libya is returned to stability as quickly as possible, and that the Libyan people can live normal lives . . . ”
Back at the time when the United Nations voted on the Libyan situation, Old Yang was really concerned that the Ministry of Foreign affairs would go and cast a no vote, besmearing the faces of all Chinese. The fall of the Gadhafi regime was just a matter of time, and anyone with a basic sense of history and common sense is clear about that. Fortunately, this time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did the right thing.
So we still don’t know what deep hole Gadhafi is hiding in, and our [foreign ministry] gets a jump-start on respecting “the choice of the people.” But having repeated that phrase, it leaves me a tad uncomfortable. What does it mean to “return to stability” and “live a normal life”? Was the Gadhafi era what one might call stable? Was that normal life? If that was normal life, then we can say that pretty much the whole world lives in an abnormal state. And what’s more, when are we going to respect the choice of the Chinese people?
Talking about the whereabouts of Gadhafi recalls the time when Saddam Hussein was found hiding away in a hole, and some people wondered why he would subject himself to such humiliation. What had happened to all of those lofty sentiments about leading the country in opposing America and the West? Was he not willing to sacrifice himself for his righteous cause? How is it these tyrants are all the same? And in talking about Iraq, we can’t help but remember the words we’ve seen on so many websites in China lately: “We’re concerned that Libya might become another Iraq . . . ”
“Another Iraq”? This definitely means seeing Iraq as a negative example. After the American invasion of Iraq there certainly was a time of chaos and killing, but was that not because the dictator Saddam was unwilling to give up his absolute rule and continued to put up a resistance? Try asking the Iraqi people: How many of you are unwilling to make these sacrifices and would rather return to the era of Saddam Hussein? Was there less mass murder and chaos in Iraq under Saddam than there is now?
Iraq today is certainly not a negative example. Just look at the way major television news networks no longer have news to broadcast about mass killings and you know. Particularly in comparison to the era of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is heading towards brighter times.
When we hear international media reporting again and again on continued chaos and violence in Iraq, however, and when see Iraqis saying on the television that times aren’t as good as they once were, this in fact shows us the biggest difference between Iraq in the time of Saddam and Iraq today. In the Saddam era, did we ever see Iraqis looking into the lens of international media and daring to express their dissatisfaction with political leaders? Those who see Iraq as a textbook of bad examples should look at North Korea, which the American military never has managed to topple. Are the people there harmonious? Are there no killings? Is there no chaos?
America is the world’s preeminent political, economic and military power, and it is also the base camp for so-called freedom and democracy. These actions to overthrow political despots can’t happen without America’s participation. But from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Iraq to Egypt to Libya, there have been many differences. In the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the United States seemed to pull up its sleeves and cast aside all pretense, giving the impression that it wanted to push democracy into all corners of the world where tyranny reigned. After Iraq, though, it stopped its advance.
Still, history would not slow its steps even as America rested. Egypt and Libya are both old friends of the United States, and revolutions have now happened there. What does this tell us? Everyone take note: the concepts of freedom and democracy are not monopolized by the United States, and without the support of America, or quite the opposite, even as America is supporting despots like Mubarak, the people will eventually rise up and throw them down.
I would also say to calm those who think that the violence and chaos that followed the American occupation of Iraq will be replayed in Libya: these kinds of things could not happen in Egypt and Libya. The reason is very simple. The Libyan opposition party that has seized power in Libya is not the American military, and those followers of Gadhafi who dared to terrorize their own citizens will definitely face bloody retribution and be completely routed.
It may seem a bit politically incorrect for me to say that, but that’s the way it is. Six years ago, an American military officer recently returned from Iraq told me that all the United States had to do was pull out of Iraq and within three months there would be no terrorist attacks in Iraq. Why? Because Iraqi leaders felt that the American military was too meek, and they would employ the most extreme means of burying the old remnants of Saddam’s units, eliminating all terrorist activities. [Portions following were not translated, but we recommend them for readers of Chinese.]
In writing on this topic my heart feels heavy and conflicted. On the one hand, I feel some unwarranted anxiety, that if all of the tyrants pass on the world might somehow be a less interesting place. What use would there be for a “democracy huckster” like me? On the other hand, I really hope we can bid farewell on this earth to all tyrants, and all forms of undemocratic rule, never to see them again.
Everyone should have confidence — confidence in themselves, in their friends and acquaintances, confidence in the people. Believe me, no one is born hoping to be a slave, or spurning freedom and autonomy. Each person wants to be their own master. You don’t believe me? After this post I’m pasting two different news photos, both showing how people want to be their own masters. One is from Libya and the other is from China. Both photos show how the people of these two countries hope to “be the masters of their own country.” Just so everyone can see clearly, I’ve placed several of my recently published books between them (just a bit of casual advertising).

[ABOVE: At top, the people of Wuhan, China, with the hope of being masters by jamming their way into the absolute power [of the Chinese Communist Party], crowd together hoping to take the public service examination for official government posts. In the middle, Old Yang’s books. At the bottom, the people of Libya become their own masters, overturning absolute power and crowding into a public square.]
This is a translated and edited version of a post made by Yang Hengjun to his online blog on August 24.
[Frontpage Photo by “BRK Network” available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.]