Every night from seven o’clock to seven-thirty I have to watch China Central Television, just to see what kind of nonsense it’s saying.

In a fresh reminder that one can always expect the unexpected from China’s media, the Chinese Communist Party’s official People’s Daily ran an editorial yesterday calling on a tolerant attitude toward new and different ideas. In apparent reference to the recent suppression of dissident voices, such as that of Ai Weiwei (though the circumstances of the editorial are at this point speculative), the editorial called intolerance “a sign of weakness and narrow-mindedness” and said “diversity is the secret to prosperity.”
The full Chinese text of the editorial can be found at QQ.com here, at China Elections and Governance here and in traditional characters at Sina.com HK here.
Our nearly full translation of the editorial follows:

Only in the midst of competition will the value of ideas be shown, and only through practice can they be tested. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This [quote from Voltaire] expresses a kind of openness, and even more a sense of confidence. The hurling of epithets and the yanking of pigtails, this way of thinking is fundamentally is a sign of weakness and narrow-mindedness, and it does not benefit the construction of social harmony or the creation of a healthy temperament.
. . . China’s society today stands in an age in which ideas and culture are pluralistic, diversified and always changing. As we move into the deep zone and a crucial stage of reforms, the modulations and game playing of different interests will naturally give rise to the expression of different demands. As our opening expands and we move deeper into globalization, it is inevitable that various values and ideas, traditional and modern, foreign and homegrown, will collide and clash.
Without a doubt, this is a historic change. From one voice to a hundred flowers in bloom, from a thousand uniform faces to richness and diversity. This expresses a great liberation of ideas, and it shows that China is advancing.
When you have diverse expression, it is difficult to avoid having “contrary ideas,” so that it seems chickens are talking to the ducks [and neither side understands the other]. In this process, we must appreciate calm and rational discussion, being ready to admit our own errors. But it is with some regret that we note that some cannot countenance differing views in discussion, but resort to mutual insult, dragging up old misdeeds, and leaping to slap the other side with ugly labels, so that personal emotion trumps the pursuit of truth. In dealing with criticism and differing opinion, some not only fail to keep an open mind, but even raise charges of “slander” and exercise their power to suppress different voices.
Mr. Lu Xun once said that threats and execrations are a far cry from combat. Only in the midst of competition will the value of ideas be shown, and only through practice can they be tested. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This [quote from Voltaire] expresses a kind of openness, and even more a sense of confidence. The hurling of epithets and the yanking of pigtails, this way of thinking is fundamentally is a sign of weakness and narrow-mindedness, and it does not benefit the construction of social harmony or the creation of a healthy temperament.
In this sense, it is only through having a merciful attitude toward “contrary ideas,” adjusting our opinions through dialogue and dissolving tensions through discussion that we can we reach consensus to the greatest degree possible, promoting the progress of ideas. In dealing with ordinary people, those rulers who hold power especially require this “tolerance.” While the narrow-mindedness of the former might amount to verbal violence, the narrow-mindedness of the latter can lead to real harm, as we saw in the “Pengshui poetry case” (彭水诗案) and the “Lingbao text case” (灵宝帖案). If the tolerance of the former shows strength of character, the tolerance of the latter shows not only a kind of “magnanimity” (雅量), but further meets the needs of rule for the people, and the demands of a society rule by law.
“Because we serve the people, if we have faults, we do not fear the people criticizing them and pointing them out.” Criticism can perhaps be right or wrong, and some may even go to extremes. But so long as they are well-meant, do not violate laws and regulations, and do not harm public order and morals, they should be met with an attitude of tolerance. They cannot be subjectively dismissed as something being “done in opposition.” Quite the contrary, we should recognize that in a diverse society respecting different voices and opinions is a necessary part of respecting citizen’s right to express, and moderating anxieties within society.
. . . Actually, differing voices and even opinions of opposition, are important resources in raising the bar on leadership. So called “not making decisions without hearing different opinions” can only happen if different voices are allowed to exist. This is the only way different situations can be understood, rational assessments be made and accurate decisions rendered. This is why Mao Zedong said that the sky wouldn’t fall if people were allowed to speak. This is why Deng Xiaoping said that “seven mouths and eight tongues are not frightening, but most frightening is when not a crow or sparrow can be heard.” This is why central Party leaders have continuously emphasized that “we must create the conditions for people to criticize and monitor the government.”
Diversity is the secret to prosperity. The further a society develops, the more need it has for the expression of diverse personalities, and the more capacity it needs to draw on different opinions to create unity of will. If we treat different voices with tolerance, seeking “unity” in “diversity”, we will not become like “a sack of potatoes with no continuity,” but we will through the discussion and collision of ideas continue to coalesce and rise.

On April 26, prominent reformist and social critic Mao Yushi (茅于轼) ran a piece on Caixin Online, the website of the media group now run by former Caijing editor-in-chief Hu Shuli (胡舒立), called “Returning Mao Zedong to Human Form” (把毛泽东还原成人), enumerating the various crimes of the Chinese Communist Party’s revolutionary leader, and noting with criticism that the image of this “backstage orchestrator who wrecked the country and brought ruin to the people” still hangs over the Gate of Heavenly Peace. To call the appearance of such a piece in China’s media highly unorthodox would be a vast understatement. It is probably fair to say that such an essay has never, ever appeared in China’s media.
Of course, the essay disappeared quite quickly. By mid-day yesterday it had been scrubbed clean away from China’s internet.
The appearance of the piece is particularly interesting and significant in light of the recent tightening of pressure on dissident voices in China — such as Ai Weiwei, as well as other artists, activists, journalists, academics and lawyers — and in light of the apparent Maoist resurgence in places like Chongqing and Henan.
We have also seen what seems to be an intensification of intellectual divisions in China along ideological lines — along, that is, what is typically characterized as a fault line between the conservative Maoist “left” and the reformist liberal “right.” While the former emphasizes the glories of Chinese socialism, Maoism and the “China Model,” with a clarion call to maintain “stability” and not rock the boat (remember Hu Jintao’s bu zheteng 不折腾?), the latter emphasizes the importance of “universal values” such as democracy and freedom, and calls for a deepening of political reforms.
Exchanges along this fault line often get nasty. There were two relevant controversies last week. The first was between liberal scholar and CMP fellow Xiong Peiyun (熊培云) and Fan Zemin (樊泽民), deputy director of the university’s Student Affairs Division at the University of International Business and Economics, which we’ve profiled here. The second was between Wang Wen (王文), the head of the editorial desk at the Chinese-language Global Times, a newspaper generally known for its nationalistic bent (and most recently, for its character attacks on Ai Weiwei), and the poet and essayist Ye Fu (野夫). We have a full rundown of that exchange right here.
As Xiong Peiyun mentioned in his “cancelled” lecture at the University of International Business and Economics, both he and Mao Yushi, the author of this Mao Zedong bombshell, have been recently branded “slaves of the West” (西奴) by “angry youth” online, who have called for their hanging.
Without further ado, let’s get right into Mao Yushi’s piece, which is sure to draw blood from the eyes of those “angry youth.” We have translated the beginning of the essay to give readers a flavor. We include the rest in Chinese below.

“Returning Mao Zedong to Human Form”
Caixin Online
By Mao Yushi (茅于轼)
Mao Zedong was once a god. Now, as more and more materials have come to light, we have been able slowly to return him to human form, a person of flesh and blood. But still there are those who who regard him as a god, and who regard any critical remarks against him as a mark of disrespect. If you suggest that he committed errors, well that’s something really not permitted.
In the eyes of these people, Mao Zedong is someone for whom criticism is eternally unexcused, someone who cannot be looked at directly, a spirit that cannot be questioned. They refuse to see how Mao Zedong was unable to control himself and drooled, how he couldn’t even speak clearly, how he couldn’t step inside a car himself but had ask people to lift him up, that he was frequently bedridden, and that his legs were thin and weak. Fortunately, more materials are now available, and we can now view Mao Zedong as an ordinary human being, and form new impressions. There is no doubt about his humanity, and regardless of his great intellect he could not escape being caught up in the patterns that we all come up against. He could not escape these patterns, but in fact was limited by them. He was not a god, and all of the superstitions about him will gradually vanish . . .
One of the major things of his hand was the Cultural Revolution. This was his response to the dread of his responsibility for the three-year famine. More than 30 million Chinese starved, surpassing all estimates of starvation in the entire history of the world outside China, in peace and in war. In such a time of peace, there was no reason to be put forward by which [Mao Zedong] might evade responsibility. Who was responsible? Without a doubt, Mao Zedong was responsible . . .
Utterly without reason, he opposed the criticisms of Peng Dehuai (彭德怀), terrified that Peng Dehuai would seize his power. He ignored the calamities already caused by his left-leaning [policies], and continued his severe deflection to the left, not allowing people to speak the truth, carrying on with the so-called so-called “three red flags” and their complete divorce from reality — the Great Leap Forward, backyard steel production, and the People’s Communes. The result was the Great Starvation. In order to avoid this responsibility, he instigated the Cultural Revolution, hounding Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇), who had criticized him for the three year famine [and the Great Leap Forward], to his death. He sought to destroy all of his opponents in the political arena, and he planned as well to hand over his own power after his death to the person he trusted above all others, Jiang Qing (江青). In his eyes, the people were just meat and muscle, tools he could use to shout out “Long live!” His thirst for power dominated his life, and to this end he went entirely mad, paying the ultimate price in his quest for power, even though his power was actually weakened as a result.
His means of seeking power was the class struggle. The original idea of class struggle was to pit the bourgeois classes against the proletariat. But Mao Zedong’s class struggle wasn’t about the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. What he called the bourgeoisie meant those people he did not like, and most of these were true members of the proletariat. Ultimately, he himself was destroyed in this unprincipled class struggle. His obsession with class struggle began in the 1950s. The campaign of criticism against [Shanghai cultural figure] Hu Feng (胡风), the Anti-Rightist Movement, opposing “rightism”, the Four Cleanups Movement, the Cultural Revolution, all were launched around the notion of class struggle.
Based on details that have now been made available, Mao Zedong’s class struggle weakened everyone within the Party, and interpersonal relations became extremely abnormal. Every matter orbited around the question of “power.” National unity, the interests of the people, all were given secondary importance. All the country’s top leaders racked their brains about all day long was who benefitted [politically] from certain matters, and particularly what the [possible impact would be] on Mao Zedong’s power and standing. No one dared give offense to Mao Zedong. All national matters became personal matters of the Mao family. Many circumstances people found impossible to understand at the time have no become clear. How did the red-character posters of Nie Yuanzi (聂元梓) [criticizing what she saw as the control of Peking University by “bourgeois” intellectuals] become the red-character posters of revolution? How were a number of rebel leaders in the universities manipulated? How did the Wuhan Incident involving Wang Li (王力) occur? . . . [Other political mysteries are enumerated here] . . . All of these are things outsiders have been unable to understand. But actually they were all Mao Zedong eliminating his political opponents. He was very clear in his own heart, but could not say it . . .
—————————
把毛泽东还原成人
茅于轼
财新网
毛泽东原来是一座神，现在随着越来越多的资料的揭露，慢慢地还原为一个人，一个有血有肉的人。但是至今仍然有些人把他看成神，对他的任何评论都是大不敬。如果说他也有错误，那是万万不容许的。在这些人看来，毛泽东永远是不容分析，不许正视，不可评论的一尊神。他们永远看不到毛泽东控制不住自己而流口水，连说话都说不清，跨不上汽车而不得不请人把他抬上去，他长期卧床而腿肚子又细又弱。幸亏更多的材料的发表，我们能从一般人的角度来看毛泽东，得到了许多新的印象。他无非是一 个人，虽然他的智力过人，但是免不了陷入每一个人都会碰到的规律。他不能突破规律，而是被普遍的规律所限制。他根本不是神，对他的一切迷信将会逐步消退。
他做的一件大事就是文化大革命。这是他对三年灾荒责任恐惧的反应。中国饿死三千多万人，超过中外历史上和平或战争时期饿死人的最高记录。在和平时期，没有任何别的理由可推脱。这是谁的责任。无疑是毛泽东的责任。他毫无道理地反对彭德怀的批评，生怕彭德怀会夺了他的权，不顾已经暴露的左倾祸害，继续更严厉地往左偏离，不许人说真话，搞完全脱离实际的大跃进，大炼钢铁，人民公社的所谓“三面红旗”。导致大饥荒。为了逃脱这个责任，他发动文化革命，逼死曾经因三年灾荒批评过他的刘少奇。他想消灭一切政治上的对手，无限地扩 大自己的权力，还打算把自己的权力在他死后交班给自己最可靠的人，江青。在他的眼中，人民只不过是一推肉，是叫喊
万岁口号的工具。权力欲望控制住了他的生命，他为此而完全疯狂了，用最大的代价去追求权力，以至于他的权力本身因此而削弱。
他追求权力的方法是阶级斗争。阶级斗争的原意是资产阶级和无产阶级斗。但是毛泽东的阶级斗争和资产或无产根本不相关。他所谓的资产阶级实际上就是他所不喜欢的人，大部分还是真正的无产阶级。这种无原则的斗争最后把他自己也毁了。从五十年代开始他就迷恋于阶级斗争。反胡风，反右派，反右倾，四清，文革，都是围绕着阶级斗争展开的。他清除了彭德怀，贺龙，陈毅，刘伯承，陶铸。又利用林彪斗倒了刘少奇。到后来对林彪也不信任，想搞掉林彪。 最后连周恩来也要反，只剩下孤家寡人和几个亲戚，江青，毛远新，王海荣，和极少数几个家丁，像张玉凤等。如果毛泽东不那么相信阶级斗争，而是以和为贵，搞团结，他死的时候绝不会那么孤独，虽然有三年灾荒的责任，他作为开国元勋，还能受到大多数人的尊敬。可见毛泽东是被自己的阶级斗争毁坏的。林彪出事以后毛泽东多次教训江青要团结，他只看见江青到处斗人如何糟糕，但是江青只不过是他的一条狗，叫她咬谁就咬谁。他自己到最后也没有放弃阶级斗争。
毛泽东搞阶级斗争，死人无数，在所不惜。每次搞运动都有人自杀（他杀就不去说了）。特别是文革自杀的人还不是一般的人，大多数是社会知名人士，对社会做出过巨大贡献的人，有许多还是毛泽东的朋友。这些人自杀毛泽东完全知道，但是他 丝毫没有同情心。三年灾荒饿死三千多万人，大部分是帮助他打江山的贫下中农。但是他一点也没有感到痛心。和他有肌肤之亲的孙维世，上官云珠等人也被逼得自杀。他毫无怜惜之意。现在揭发发现，毛泽东奸污过不计其数的妇女。原来他在神坛上，他的人性的兽欲方面谁也不敢说。他从神坛上走下来之后，这些事一桩桩被暴露。其冷血性无与伦比。其心理的阴暗实在叫人吃惊。大家都说，毛泽东有超高的智慧，没人学得了。但是更没人能学的是他的冷酷无情，没有起码的人性。
从现在揭发出来的细节看，毛泽东搞阶级斗争使得党内人人自危，人际关系极不正常。一切事务都围绕一个“权”字。什么国家的团结，人民的利益，统统都放到脑后。国家的几个领导人成天想的是一件事对谁有利，特别是对毛泽东的 权如何。没有任何人敢于冒犯毛泽东，一个国家的事完全变成了毛家的私事。当时许多人无法理解的种种事态，现在一件件都摆清楚了。聂元梓的大字报怎么变成了革命的大字
报，几个大学的造反小将怎么被呼来喝去被利用的，在武汉王力被打，和以后的天安门保卫中央文革的大会的背景，谁是516分子，为什么要整516，何以要批林批孔批周公，这一切外人根本看不懂的事，
其实就是毛泽东消灭政治对手的策略。他心里很清楚，但又不便说清楚。文革中许多重要的事情请示他，他总是模棱两可，叫别人去猜。
因为他的真正目的是见不得人的，他的心理非常阴暗。一个国家由这样一个权力无边，又有不可告人目的的领导人指挥，一直走到了经济和政治双崩溃的边缘，这是一点也不奇怪的。原来许多人都以为毛 泽东发动文化大革命是为了夺取资产阶级在国家机器中的权力，为无产阶级争利。现在这场骗局被完全戳穿了。
毛泽东的最后几年里，虽然身体完全不行了，但是脑子还很清楚。他知道自己快要死了。国家的领导权交给谁？在他心目中只有江青最可靠。所以决定让江青接班。但是他也明白江青结怨过多，无法获得大多数人的同意，所以让华国锋协助江青。毛泽东一面对华国锋说：你办事，我放心。但是还说：有事找江青商量。毛在他死前一年对他死后的国家领导人的安排是：党主席，江青；总理，华国锋；人大委员长：王洪文或毛远新；军委主席：陈锡联。以后又改为党主席是毛远新。总之没有超出他自己的几个近亲。江青或毛远新何德何能，凭什么能担任国家主席之职？江青在文革中的表现完全是一个泼妇， 丝毫没有远见卓识，自我膨胀，不知天高地厚。粉碎四人帮后对江青的审判把她定为篡党夺权的反革命，判刑死缓，是极其公平的。毛泽东居然想把国家的政权交给一个反革命分子。他脑子里唯一想的就是毛泽东的家天下如何维持。和资产阶级无产阶级毫不相干。
一九七一年林彪出事后全国人民松了一口气，认为林彪为了夺权误导伟大领袖搞文化大革命。现在林彪死了这场毫无道理的文化大革命应该停止了。各处地方都在落实政策，解放原来反林彪和反文革的人。当然，因为反林彪而被处死的人已经不可再生。可是毛泽东因为林彪出事而心情极端压抑，生了一场大病，他的健康再也没有恢复。一国的领袖其心情和百姓的心情极端相反，面对同一件事百姓兴高采烈，、领袖闷闷不乐，真是百姓的极大不幸。在一九 七五年邓小平第二次复出后，首先整顿了梗塞了的全国铁路系统，使其能够正常运作。然后整顿各级政府中的派性，消除互相对立的情绪，并解放了一批被打倒了的干部，抓一部分坏头头，从而使政府工作逐渐走上正轨，生产明显恢复，各项指标转为上升，全国人民感到有了邓小平，形势在好转，破碎的国家有可能恢复正常。可是毛泽东想的和百姓的利益无关，只想着自己的权能不能保住，江青能不能接班。邓小平几次和江青发生正面冲突，毛泽东决定搞掉邓小平。这就是一九七六年毛泽东临死前的批邓运动。邓小平又一次被打倒。毛泽东从一个政治家沦落为处处和人民相对立的人民公敌，就是因为他被权力的迷信所控制，丧失了起码的理性。
权力欲彻底毁掉了毛泽东，使他完全丧失了正常思维，把国家的事看 成了自己一家的事。虽然他知道江青不得人心，说“不出三五年必将腥风血雨”。但是他无法摆脱这个局面。他已经疯狂了，被阶级斗争搞疯狂了。让江青接班是他仅有的最佳选择。他之所以欲置周恩来于死地，就是因为他不相信周会臣服江青。他本来的理想是让周恩来协助江青掌权。但是周恩来无法和江青合作。江青根本不是一个政治家。共产党在建国时期涌现无数英雄人物竟没有一个能够及得上一个泼妇。毛泽东之昏庸和他极高的智力相结合，把中国搞成一个不成为国家的“国家”。在毁坏国家上他的能力发挥到了极致，无人能及得上他的百分之一。
越来越多的资料解密，文革这场闹剧的来龙去脉越看越清楚了。毛泽东是了不起的，能够把这么多的英雄人物一个个斗倒，消灭。毛泽东和斯大林不同。斯大林 的目的就是清除异党，杀人就是目的。而毛泽东的目的不在把人杀掉，而是让他遭受极大的侮辱和痛苦。首先让他被孤立，谁也不敢同情他，把他搞成人民的敌人，继而剥夺他的基本人权，任何一个人都能随意侮辱他，可以随便打他，叫他喝痰盂里的脏水，打伤了不许医院给他治疗。最后让他自己觉得生不如死，自杀算了。而且自杀的时候还要喊“毛主席万岁”如果他胆敢有丝毫对毛泽东的不敬，他死后所有的亲属都会遭遇更悲惨的命运。毛泽东整刘少奇就是一个例子。刘少奇快要死了，毛泽东下令抢救，要等党代会
通过决议，把叛徒特务工贼内奸刘少奇永远开除出党，并选择在他七十岁生日的那天当面宣读给刘少奇听，然后让他慢慢在无助的痛苦中死去。毛整死的高干无一是经过审判（哪怕是走形式）正式处死的，都 是让他们慢慢地在孤立无援的极端隔绝的状态下，受够了一切痛苦再死掉。毛泽东极其痛恨周恩来，因为百姓拥护周远胜于拥护毛。但毛又无法整掉周恩来，因为这个国家内内外外都离不开周恩来。在周活着的最后几天中，病痛极度地折磨着他。毛泽东乘这个机会翻出了几十年前写的批评周恩来的文章，用尽挖苦，讽刺，刻薄的语言，叫人当面念给周恩来听，以增加周的痛苦。这一过程是需要精心设计的，是耗费精力的。毛的精力大部分都用在了这方面。
拿斯大林和毛泽东比，斯大林杀的人比毛泽东杀的多。解放前井冈山肃反杀了十几万人，这笔账该算在谁的头上，我说不清。解放后镇压反革命杀了七十万人。这主要是毛泽东的主意。以后在文革时搞清理阶级队伍，三反五反，杀过一大批。具体数目从来没有公 布，估计不超过二百万人。除此以外没有大规模枪毙人。饿死的三千多万不是直接杀害的；整死的，自杀死的，武斗死的都不是毛泽东直接杀的。而斯大林实实在在处死了几百万人。但是斯大林领导卫国战争，抵抗希特勒的军队并取得胜利，这是谁也不能否认的。反观毛泽东，除了抗战头两年共产党的军队打过几次抵抗日本军队的仗，从一九三九年以后就没有打过一场稍微大一点的仗。共产党的主要精力放在扩大解放
区，培养自己的武装力量。这时候是中华民族生死存亡的关键时刻，毛泽东放着日本人不打，打自己的小算盘，准备胜利后摘果子。他确实做到了。可是解放并没有给中国人带来幸福，相反，带来的是生灵涂炭的三十年。因政治原因死亡达五千万之众。超过第二次世界大战死亡总数。二战结束给世界带来和平 。战败国德国，日本，都变成了民主文明，繁荣幸福的国家。唯独中国这个战胜国却陷入内部无穷无尽的阶级斗争，造成人类史无前例的生命损失。
毛给中国带来的是使人痛苦，然后死去。不但自己用尽办法叫人痛苦，而且动员全国人民互相斗，互相制造痛苦。对一般的小人物，也不是简单地处死，而同样叫他们经受极大的痛苦才杀掉，像张志新，遇罗克，林昭，王佩英，无一不是在就义前叫他们受尽了罪才把他们杀掉。毛泽东还把人间一切美好的东西加以破坏。中国几千年积累的文化，理想，道德，艺术，全部被否定。可移动的古董，绘画，雕刻，统统烧掉砸碎。对不能移动的建筑物则推倒，把美丽的电影明星剃光头，让无知的群众用一切办法侮辱她们。把对社会最有用的知识分 子一个个打倒，甚至逼他们自杀。把宣扬善的宗教领袖关进监狱，甚至干脆杀掉。毛泽东的目的在于全世界都因他而痛苦。如果每个人的痛苦可以相加的话，毛泽东的目的是全社会痛苦的极大化。通过文化大革命他的这个目的确实做到了。痛苦的极大化是文化大革命最本质的东西。这就是“人民的大救星”所给予人民的礼物。
毛泽东不但做到了在国内制造痛苦极大化，而且输出他的理论，让全世界都要残酷斗争。他鼓励在东南亚搞武装革命，制造死亡。在马来西亚，印度，泰国，菲律宾，缅甸，印度尼西亚，尼泊尔，斯里兰卡，都有武装叛乱。他死后三十多年的今天遗留问题还有一大堆。印度的毛派有独立的武装，拥有两亿贫苦群众的拥护，但是三十多年来贫困问题丝毫没有改进。因 武装斗争每年死亡上千人。印度的中央政府拿他们没办法。搞得最惨的是柬埔寨。毛主席的好学生，波尔布特，遵从毛泽东的教导杀人无数，成为全世界近代史中杀人比例最高的人类灭绝案。这就是毛泽东功盖天下的事迹。这一连串事迹也说明一个问题。他的理论非常具有欺骗性，所以会有那么多的人上当受骗。至今还有人高举他的牌子做事。究竟他的理论是对是错？道理很简单，改善人们的生活要靠发展生产，靠人与人斗怎么能变富。所有遵从毛泽东理论的人，也许斗得很开心（被斗的人可倒了霉），但是摆脱不了贫困。无一例外。
但是毛泽东又是幼稚的，他绝没有想到最后自己变成了孤家寡人，没有一个真正志同道合的政治家在身边，剩下一批狐群狗党。最后他信赖的人，只剩 下后来被判刑的四人帮。大家吹嘘毛的高瞻远瞩，其实毛是鼠目寸光。他发动文化革命的时候怎么能想到自己会变成孤家寡人。最初和自己一起奋斗的亲密战友都被整得众叛亲离。毛泽东到死神智都非常清醒，但是是在非常孤独，失望，没有前途，没有同志和朋友的状态下死去的。他绝没有想到自己辉煌的一生竟然是这样一个结局。毛到死也没有丝毫的自责或后悔。毛死后华国锋和叶剑英抓捕了四人帮，最高法院审判了四人帮，把他们判了刑。但是四人帮的头头，这祸国殃民的总后台还在天安门城楼上挂着，在大家每天用的钞票上印着。中国的这幕滑稽剧现在还没有真正谢幕。不过毛泽东是人不是神，他终究要完全走下神台，成为一个普通人，在剥离一切神像外衣的条件下，在消除所有迷信的 条件下接受公正的评判。

Last week prosecutors in Chongqing finally dropped charges against the defense lawyer Li Zhuang (李庄), who had been accused of inciting a witness to give false testimony in an embezzlement case in 2008. The case against Li Zhuang, who is nearing the end of an 18-month jail sentence for a separate alleged crime of which he insists he is innocent, prompted concern from many lawyers in China, who argued it set a dangerous precedent for going after defense lawyers with charges of “perjury” and upholding weak evidentiary standards.
In both cases against Li Zhuang, this year and in 2009, prosecutors relied on written witness statements for witnesses who never appeared in court for cross-examination.
The Li Zhuang case has been highly sensitive, and according to many Chinese journalists and bloggers writing on Twitter last week, a ban was in effect instructing media to use only official releases from Xinhua News Agency, to avoid “playing up” the story and to refrain from commentary.
For more background on the Li Zhuang case, readers can turn to Ian Johnson’s recent report for The New York Times. We also encourage you to read our version of the open letter from legal scholar He Weifang (贺卫方), which he has now posted to his blog with the original, and in which he argues in light of the Li Zhuang case that “the ideal of rule of law is right now being lost” in China.
A number of valuable commentaries on the Li Zhuang case and rule of law in China have appeared in the domestic media and in China’s blogosphere in recent weeks. Below we offer a translation of a recent blog piece by Jiang Ping (江平), a tenured professor at China University of Political Science and Law who is one of China’s most prominent legal minds. We also point you to this relevant post on Jiang Ping at Chinese Law Prof Blog.

“Lawyers Must Be Able to Speak”
By Jiang Ping (江平)
This is the second round of the Li Zhuang case. And like the first round, it was drawn widespread attention and brought fierce controversy. In many ways, the case can be seen as an indicator of where rule of law in China is heading.
During the initial and second-instance hearings of the Li Zhuang case last year, I offered some opinions of my own. Judging from the situation at the time, I didn’t get into the debate over [Li Zhuang’s guilt] but only looked at a number of issues worthy of deliberation from a procedural standpoint. In the first instance hearing, for example, there was no calling of witnesses whatsoever. And after the verdict was announced in the second instance hearing, Li Zhuang shouted out, “I don’t admit guilt!” and said that his previous confession was “phony.” He had only plead guilty after receiving certain assurances, but the ultimate verdict differed from these assurances. By rights, the court should in this situation have recessed and moved for a retrial. If Li Zhuang did not confess, what reason would the court have to reduce his sentence? If Li Zhuang’s confession was the result of a huge misunderstanding, or if someone actually did give him assurances of some kind, the court should get to the bottom of this matter. For the case to wrap up so hastily without looking into such a major matter hardly gives reason for confidence.
Now, Li Zhuang’s 18-month sentence is about to end, and a new charge is laid against him — that of “perjury” (伪证). The law does allow for the discovery of new crimes and the making of new indictments after a person has been sentenced. However, based on what I have seen lately, this new indictment of the lawyer Li Zhuang for “false testimony” gives one the feeling that “a charge is being found for the sake of condemning someone” (欲加之罪，何患无辞).
Evidence in the “first round” of the perjury case against Li Zhuang consisted largely of witness statements from witnesses. During Li Zhuang’s meetings with [his client] Gong Gangmo (龚刚模) personnel from investigative organs were present, who told how his had implied with “a wink of the eye” and instigated Gong Gangmo to to perjure himself. Relying only on written testimony, with the witnesses not appearing in court for cross-examination, the evidence was insufficient. In the “second round” of the Li Zhuang case the accusations said again that he had, while conducting criminal defense at a certain place in Shanghai, “lured and incited Xu Lijun (徐丽军) to breach objective facts and change [his] testimony.” Again, the principle evidence was witness statements, and again these witnesses did not appear in court.
The so-called “verbal statement without any proof” (空口无凭), using only written statements to establish guilt, is extremely dangerous, particularly in cases where lawyers are being accused of perjury. In the midst of their professional duties, particularly in the investigation and gathering of evidence, and in conversations with witnesses and parties involved, lawyers in many cases do not have a third person present to offer proof. If this process is used in order to establish the lawyer’s guilt, the danger in this is huge! For criminal defense attorneys, this basically amounts to the “curse of the golden hoop” [used in the Chinese classic The Journey West to keep Monkey under control]. The personal security and freedom of lawyers might at any time suffer grave threat, resulting in massive risk for the entire legal profession!
In the Criminal Law, “lawyer’s perjury” is basically something about which there is much controversy. The police, prosecutors, parties involved in cases, witnesses, all might perjure themselves, but why should their legal representatives be singled out for charges of perjury? I completely feel that this crime needs to be handled with extreme caution, and must not be used willy nilly. The crime of perjury must be proven with the most thorough and complete evidence, and cannot simply be determined through written statements.
In the defense of criminal cases, the procuratorate represents the government in pursuing charges against criminal suspects, which means the accused faces a formidable organ of public power. The role of the lawyer is to plead the case for and provide legal help to criminal suspects and defendants who are held by these authorities in positions of weakness. This is a basic requirement of judicial fairness and the preservation of human rights.
In China, criminal defense is of particular value. Throughout the process of investigation, prosecution and sentencing, there is generally insufficient protection of the rights of suspects and defendants, and extraction of confession by torture is common. In 2010, the . . . “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgement of Evidence in Death Penalty Cases” and “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases” were issued, preliminarily establishing exclusionary rules on illegal evidence in China.
But the implementation of these regulations has become a major issue. Because searching out and demonstrating illegal evidence used by procuratorial organs means going directly up against these organs and even directly exposing their illegal conduct, which leads to an even stronger counterattack.
Under the current situation in which “lawyer’s perjury” is abused, if defense lawyers inquire whether the suspect’s confession was extracted through torture, or through entrapment, they easily fall into the net of perjury charges.
During the “first round” of the Li Zhuang case, the initial reaction from lawyers was that [the case posed a] “threat to criminal procedure.” Now, in the “second round,” I believe we’re seeing a warning shot fired at those lawyers who dared to play devil’s advocate [the last time around]: we can come back to settle these old scores with you. The cases you’ve represented in the past, even if verdicts have been rendered and the cases concluded, we can still revisit the issue of your responsibility.
But lawyers are a crucial part of our system of law, they are important theoreticians and practitioners of rule of law, and play a key role in its dissemination. This is a profession that must speak out!
I’ve said before that a country’s system of lawyers is a “shop window” opening on to rule of law in that country.
What we are seeing right now is that the lawyer’s rights stipulated in our “Lawyers Law” are not being properly protected, and in too many instances lawyers are faced with the “curse of the golden hoop”, and “forbidden zones” are being erected everywhere . . .
All of these things are stumbling blocks in the building of rule of law. If there is no tolerance toward lawyers, and even lawyers are not permitted to speak, how can judicial justice be ensured?

An embezzlement of public funds, and on such a grand scale, a violation of the law, and he gets demoted! Why? Isn’t this sacrificing the pawn to save the queen?

At a press conference earlier this week, the state-run oil company Sinopec announced that it had completed its internal investigation into the recent “high-priced liquor scandal,” which continues to draw teeth-gnashing in China’s press and on the internet. The investigation team found that Lu Guangxu (鲁广余), the now former general manager of the enterprise’s Guangdong branch (who has been demoted but retained), had deceived the company last year when a public complaint about his conduct prompted top management to order a “self-examination and correction” of his behavior.
What does that mean? That Sinopec dealt with a complaint about one of its most senior managers by instructing that official to investigate himself.
The sheer buffoonery of this approach seems still to escape Sinopec, which has, after its CEO publicly wrote off the scandal as an instance of “the conduct of a single individual disgracing millions,” ordered an enterprise-wide campaign of “self-examination and correction.”
Understandably, this outcome has irritated and concerned many Chinese.
A web user in Beijing wrote today:

An embezzlement of public funds, and on such a grand scale, a violation of the law, and he gets demoted! Why? Isn’t this sacrificing the pawn to save the queen?

Another from Zhangzhou City in Fujian province wrote in frustration:

Crap! It’s these guys who have pushed oil prices up so high! The Chinese people have already lost faith!

“Who would dare believe this government?” asked another, to which a user in Anhui province responded: “Only idiots would believe, those old Party grandfathers. It’s you all who are fools, and you all who still think that the people should go on being fools.”
Writing in today’s The Beijing News, journalist Wei Yingjie (魏英杰) addresses these and other concerns about the Sinopec case, arguing that the results of the internal investigation bode ill for the future.

“Is the High-Price Liquor Scandal ‘One Individual’s Wrong’?”
April 27, 2011
The Beijing News
By Wei Yingjie (魏英杰)
We finally have a result in the handling of the ‘high-priced liquor scandal’ at Sinopec, [in which more than one million yuan in state funds were found to have been applied inside the state-run enterprise for the purchase of Chinese Maotai-brand liquor], a scandal that has raged for days. Lu Guangxu, [the general manager of Sinopec’s Guangdong branch], will be “demoted but retained [by the company] for use,” and he will personally pay back the cost of the 1.3. million yuan worth of alcohol, which has already been consumed.
The CEO of Sinopec said recently in his assessment of the so-called ‘high-priced liquor scandal’ that this amounted to “the conduct of a single individual disgracing millions.” But was this really just a wrong committed by a “single individual”? What was it that allowed this individual to do wrong?
Judging from this recent outcome, it does seem that Lu Guangxu has shouldered this high-priced liquor scandal as “an individual.” But there are things about this outcome that remain unsatisfying. For example, the investigation [by Sinopec] found that Lu Guangxu justified his purchase of the alcohol in question by saying it was for a company business event. Well, does this use of the money amount to the embezzlement of public funds or not, and does it or does it not amount to conduct in violation of the law and disciplinary rules? So is an amount topping a million yuan not subject to financial stewardship? Could Lu Guangxu just spend it as he pleased? Even if this was not coordinated conduct of some sort, this certainly must show that Sinopec’s internal financial management system has serious problems.
Moreover, it has emerged that as early as October last year, Sinopec received notice from a member of the public about Lu Guangxu’s conduct. Lu reportedly found a way to hoodwink inspectors following up on these reports. Hence, Sinopec’s investigation team [for the recent liquor scandal] has concluded that “Lu Guangxu deceived the organization.”
There is no doubt that Lu Guangxu’s deceptions are a part of the story, but the person about whom there were reports was Lu Guangxu himself, so how could top management at Sinopec deal with this by instructing him to carry out an investigation of his own conduct? How can problems not go wrong with this sort of “self-rectification” of one’s own behavior? If the investigation team [dealing with the liquor scandal] fails to address questions about this method of oversight, the public must be concerned about the possibility of similar problems in the future. How will Sinopec maintain checks on the conduct of the bosses of its various branches? If there are no inside informants to break cases like Lu Guangxu’s wide open, does that mean problems go unaddressed?
Most regrettable is the fact a blind eye has been turned on these public concerns. The investigation team holds Lu Guangxu accountable on three counts, namely severe violations of the company’s internal management and oversight mechanisms, daring to make purchases without collective study by Sinopec’s leadership team and in the absence of supervision, and finally, employing deception to put off investigation by his superiors, thereby doing serious damage to Sinopec’s reputation. On the surface, certainly, these violations can be chalked up to “individual conduct.” But if Lu Guangxu is capable as an individual of committing all of these deceptions, shouldn’t that prompt much more serious reflection on the management mechanisms in place at Sinopec?
We are told that Sinopec has ordered a strengthening of internal management, including immediate self-examination and correction throughout the entire enterprise. But this was exactly the method used to respond to questions about Lu Guangxu’s conduct in October last year. Clearly, if responsibility for this scandal is borne by a single individual, and the need for deeper institutional change is shrugged off, the outlook for this “self-examination” is poor.

We wrote yesterday about how a scheduled 500-person lecture at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing by CMP fellow Xiong Peiyun (熊培云) was suddenly “cancelled” earlier this month and moved to a small venue with an audience of just 30 or so students and faculty. As a video of a sharp rebuttal to Xiong’s talk by Fan Zemin (樊泽民), the deputy director of the university’s Student Affairs Division, made the rounds on the internet, the focus of the incident turned to the ideological rift between China’s conservative so-called “left” and its reformist so-called “right.”
But the Xiong-Fan face-off was not the only exchange across ideological lines last week. Also getting some attention was an editorial spat between Wang Wen (王文), the head of the editorial desk at the Chinese-language Global Times, generally known for its nationalistic bent, and the poet and essayist Ye Fu (野夫). Wang’s articles were: “What China’s Liberal Camp is Most Lacking” and “There Aren’t So Many Bad People on This Earth: Another Discussion with Mr. Ye” And Ye Fu’s responses were: “What China’s Authoritarians Are Most Lacking: A Response to Wang Wen” and “The World Always Has a Few Bad Guys: A Response to Wang Wen.”
In his first essay, which prompted the exchange, Wang Wen issues a series of character attacks against academics and journalists he views as representatives of China’s so-called liberal faction, or ziyoupai (自由派). His words are what S.I. Hayakawa once called “snarl words,” full of emotional implications and associations rather than substance.
Pretending to a courtesy that masks a deeper nastiness, Wang chooses to identify none of the people he sets up as examples of the general churlishness and depravity of “liberal” or “reformist” figures in China. He speaks to the reader, as though in a whispered aside, of a certain “very famous professor from the Pearl River Delta” who verged on shouting at a forum on universal values. Then there is “the chief editor of a certain famous special ‘weekly supplement’ launched by a certain newspaper” who, Wang intimates (like the big-mouth gossip who vouches secrecy before spilling all), had possibly carnal relations with a female student from Taiwan ten years ago after delivering a “harangue” to adoring students.
Then, in a further act of pretended grace, Wang actually confesses that a couple of liberals are not so bad. By that point, however, he has successfully confuted moral righteousness and intellectual substance. And how can liberal thinkers possibly have valid points to make if their personal conduct is so odious?
Wang’s conclusion is the conservative mantra: “Let’s take our time.” China is a big and complicated place, after all. And what is needed, above all else, is stability.
In his rebuttal to Wang’s arguments, Ye Fu (野夫) tells the story of how he met Wang at a dinner hosted by a friend, how the two were amiable but had widely diverging views, so that he saw real friendship as impossible. Then, earlier this month, Ye came across an online video on China’s t.m4.cn website in which television pundit Sima Nan (司马南) and Wang Wen speak about the detention of artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未).
In the video, Sima Nan speaks first about Ai Weiwei, saying all Chinese must respect the law before launching into a political argument about how the CCP has led the People’s Republic of China for 60 years and “we should have confidence in this political system” — implying that Ai has incurred guilt by opposing China’s political system. Wang Wen then proceeds to attack Ai Weiwei on the notion of what constitutes “art.” “Is that really art?” Wang asks, noting that Ai Weiwei has exposed himself in public before. “If that’s really art, then anyone can become an artist.”

Taken aback by the video, Ye posted about it on his microblog. He writes of his thinking at the time: “From the standpoint of basic human decency, Mr. Fatty [Ai Weiwei] still belongs to the missing, and the government hasn’t given an accurate statement [on his case], so for these two to sing and strum and pick on the case like this, I can’t help but feel is a bit wicked. So I made a microblog post about this and mentioned for good measure the organization Wang was associated with [Global Times] . . . ”
Wang Wen was apparently upset with the publicity Ye gave to the video on his microblog, and with the mention of the Global Times, so he called Ye’s mobile and asked, quite politely according to Ye, that the post be removed. Ye obliged, and the two pledged to get together for drinks at some later date. Subsequently, Ye saw Wang Nan’s “magnum opus” on the problem with liberals — in which he actually referred to his exchange with Ye Fu over the microblog post — and he decided he had to respond openly. He first sent Wang Wen a text message to let him know that his rebuttal was in the works, to which Wang Wen responded: “So long as it is fair-minded, I will listen.”
Ye Fu’s response can be found in partial form below. But first a partial translation of Wang Wen’s essay.

“What China’s Liberal Faction is Most Lacking”
Wang Wen (王文)
In recent years I’ve tackled a number of issues on which I’ve deviated to the left, and I’ve often reflected on my own value tendencies. Am I a “leftist” or a “rightist”? Sometimes I’ve called myself a “center leftist” (中左). But sometimes my views on politics and the economy tend to the “right”, tending to be overly liberal (自由化), and the pain and anger hit home on a number of domestic political, economic and social issues . . .
Still, as I’ve grown older, that anger [I once felt as a college student] has slowly sapped away, like that saying that says if you haven’t experienced rage by the age of 30, you’re done for, and if you’re never enraged after the age of 30, you’re done for too. I think I really have passed the age of rage. But this certainly isn’t just a question of age, but stems also from an inherent recognition that what Chinese society needs right now is stability, and further from the doubts and spontaneous disappointment I have felt in recent years as I’ve come into contact with a number of reformists (or they might be called the “liberal faction” or the “right wing”).
My first recollection of disappointment came ten years ago from a chief editor at a certain famous special “weekly supplement” launched by a certain newspaper, which was dedicated to exposing the negative side of society. This was not long after I joined the media world, at a salon in which many young media professionals and students participated. This chief editor, who at the time has already stepped down, was of course someone that the “young men and women” of the media world worshipped, particularly a pretty young female student from Taiwan. As the chief editor delivered a harangue, the female student sat at his side, admiration gleaming in her eyes. Not long after, this chief editor began patting the student’s small hands and soft shoulders [as he spoke]. A bit later, escaping everyone’s notice, he led the female student by the hand to sit off to one side. After that, he led the female student away from the restaurant. I don’t intend to waste any words here speculating about what plot followed on after this, but this sort of situation impacted me quite strongly. How could this person act like this? . . .
The second disappointment that deeply affected me came from a salon at which the issue of “universal values” was discussed. That was around 2007, and the phrase was quite the rage in the intellectual world at the time. That conference probably brought together most all of the top reform faction personalities in China (顶级的改革派人士). At the time I met a rather bigshot professor of journalism studies and quite reverentially offered my business card. To my surprise, he immediately fired back with: “You guys are too nationalistic, in the end all #!*# together with the government.” This wasn’t the first time I had received such ungracious treatment.
In 2008, I was invited to take part in some project for media professionals put together by the U.S. Department of State. There I met the head of the editorial department of a certain southern [Chinese media] group that claimed it wanted to publish China’s best newspaper. Over there he was regarded by his fellows as a kind of central base camp of the “liberal faction” (自由派). I quite professionally exchanged name cards with him and earned in exchange the words: “Ah, that angry youth paper of yours.” This prompted an embarrassed colleague from his newspaper group who was also there to promptly apologize to me on his behalf. They said to him, “I think you should apologize to Wang Wen.” But to this day I’ve never received his apology. Still, I’ve kept his name card.
I ran into that journalism studies professor again at a forum held a year later. The discussion at the time was about how to raise our discourse power (话语权) in China. One of the views I expressed in my talk was that Chinese leaders should extend to domestic media more of the opportunities for exclusive interviews that they now so easily give to overseas media. This professor severely opposed this idea before I had even gotten my words out, saying that if this were done domestic media would “definitely come to blows.” I understood his remark to mean that these exclusive interview opportunities were neither permitted for nor suited to domestic media, and only overseas media were qualified to get them.
Coming back to that meeting about “universal values,” a very famous professor from the Pearl River Delta area gave a talk there. The first thing they said was that some people don’t believe there is such a thing as universal values in the world. “I think this is so ridiculous. I propose right now that we ask anyone present who does not believe democracy and freedom are universal values to please leave!” His speech bordered on crazy shouting, and [when he said this] I could barely keep from spitting out the water I had just swigged. Is that what he calls democracy and freedom?
. . .
I’m not saying that the character and conduct of all reform faction (liberal faction) scholars disappoints me. There are many who deserve my respect. For example, Ma Licheng (马立诚), whom I’ve spoken of at length several times, an old man of sophistication. There is Brother Xu Zhiyuan (许知远), who always keeps his words in check at gatherings of lots of people, and always listens to what others have to say. That kind of character and conduct are worthy of my imitation. But I must say that many of the liberal faction folk I’ve come across belong to that type of which we say they are “lenient with themselves, and strict with others” (宽于律己、严于律人). They are flush with criticism of our government and our society, and they hold that criticism is the first duty of the intellectual. Moreover, they believe that China is rife with ills and defects and reforms must be stepped up.
I can agree with this viewpoint, but I’m still of the view that you can’t sweep up heaven and earth if you can’t keep your own house in order. If you haven’t straightened yourself out, how can you expect others to keep to the straight and narrow? Shouldn’t you examine yourself first, and see whether you personally uphold these principles of democracy and freedom you support? Are you not speaking of democracy in a way that is itself despotic? Are you not yourself unintentionally fishing for glory with all of your insincere baloney?

The following is Ye Fu’s response to Wang Wen’s first essay. It is structured as a series of “comments” or “readings” on blocks of text from Wang’s piece. Unfortunately, I have not translated it all, but Chinese readers are very much encouraged to turn to the original.

“A Response to Wang Wen: What China’s Totalitarian Faction Most Lacks”
Ye Fu (野夫)
After seeing this essay [from Wang Wen], and seeing the delicacy and fairness of this passage [about our exchange], I decided this was a matter of personal virtue and public virtue, and that I must write to discuss [this issue with him]. So I sent him a text message in the morning and asked whether I could openly respond. I cared about friendship, I said, so I thought I would ask first. He responded that so long as I argued even-handedly, he was willing to listen. And so follows the discussion below . . .
ORIGINAL TEXT: Still, as I’ve grown older, that anger [I once felt as a college student] has slowly sapped away. But this certainly isn’t just a question of age, but stems also from an inherent recognition that what Chinese society needs right now is stability, and further from the doubts and spontaneous disappointment I have felt in recent years as I’ve come into contact with a number of reformists (or they might be called the “liberal faction” or the “right wing”).
COMMENT: You agree with stability preservation (维稳), you have doubts and disappointments about the liberal faction, and you’ve decided not to be angry. What does your original anger about social ills have to do with the reform (liberal) faction? Is it because the liberal faction is also angry about social ills, so you are no longer angry? Or is it that all these things that made you angry are the doing of the liberal faction? Any darkness, injustice or corruption is something than angers Man and God — this has nothing to do with left or right. Perhaps all joy and anger you feel must be defined against the liberal faction. Can that make for a stable society?
ORIGINAL TEXT: My first recollection of disappointment came ten years ago from a chief editor at a certain famous special “weekly supplement” launched by a certain newspaper, which was dedicated to exposing the negative side of society. This was not long after I joined the media world, at a salon in which many young media professionals and students participated. This chief editor, who at the time has already stepped down, was of course someone that the “young men and women” of the media world worshipped, particularly a pretty young female student from Taiwan. As the chief editor delivered a harangue, the female student sat at his side, admiration gleaming in her eyes. Not long after, this chief editor began patting the student’s small hands and soft shoulders [as he spoke]. A bit later, escaping everyone’s notice, he led the female student by the hand to sit off to one side. After that, he led the female student away from the restaurant. I don’t intend to waste any words here speculating about what plot followed on after this, but this sort of situation impacted me quite strongly. How could this person act like this? . . .
COMMENT: Assuming this isn’t all just a fabrication, of what possible relevance is this chief editor’s girl-chasing? How did it possibly harm you, or impact your political convictions? Did you have your own eye on the “soft shoulders” of that female Taiwanese student? She didn’t protest herself at her shoulders being touched, so brother, how could you get jealous about this? Is there a national law or regulation against patting someone’s hand? You’ve characterized this chief editor as a representative of the liberal faction, and he ruined those soft shoulders you had your eye on, and so now you have to go up against reformists? What is the logical connection between the personal virtue of a chief editor and the public virtue of liberals or reformists? So if I offer a few examples of rapists who ardently adored Chairman Mao, can I then use that as a criticism of you guys over on the left?
ORIGINAL TEXT: The second disappointment that deeply affected me came from a salon at which the issue of “universal values” was discussed. That was around 2007, and the phrase was quite the rage in the intellectual world at the time. That conference probably brought together most all of the top reform faction personalities in China (顶级的改革派人士). At the time I met a rather bigshot professor of journalism studies and quite reverentially offered my business card. To my surprise, he immediately fired back with: “You guys are too nationalistic, in the end all #!*# together with the government.” This wasn’t the first time I had received such ungracious treatment.
COMMENT: On this matter, most of the professor’s behavior can be chalked up to poor poise and grace, but as to his assessment of your noble newspaper, this is something you’ve already been quite proud of, so why do you find this hurtful? If you are angry because of this, you should know it’s only because this professor doesn’t worship your noble paper, and what does this have to do with the views of the liberal faction? Why do you not consider why it might be that your noble paper suffers disdain in this way?
ORIGINAL TEXT: In 2008, I was invited to take part in some project for media professionals put together by the U.S. Department of State. There I met the head of the editorial department of a certain southern [Chinese media] group that claimed it wanted to publish China’s best newspaper. Over there he was regarded by his fellows as a kind of central base camp of the “liberal faction” (自由派). I quite professionally exchanged name cards with him and earned in exchange the words: “Ah, that angry youth paper of yours.”
COMMENT: The impoliteness of these people toward you is not because you’ve done something wrong. They have no quarrel with you. As chief editor, shouldn’t you really think about why it is your noble paper has such a deplorable reputation? What they are showing contempt for is the media where you work. Just as you mock the Southern Daily Group, they are mocking your noble paper. But the media profession makes its bread by conscience, and if you really think your noble paper is doing right, then you should find in their criticism the honor you seek — and why again should this upset you? If this makes you feel you’ve been treated impolitely or in an undignified way, you can just think of yourself as the good bird getting the best tree. Why is it I wonder that society does not dishonor journalists at People’s Daily, but you guys always get it?
ORIGINAL TEXT: I ran into that journalism studies professor again at a forum held a year later. The discussion at the time was about how to raise our discourse power (话语权) in China. One of the views I expressed in my talk was that Chinese leaders should extend to domestic media more of the opportunities for exclusive interviews that they now so easily give to overseas media. This professor severely opposed this idea before I had even gotten my words out, saying that if this were done domestic media would “definitely come to blows.” I understood his remark to mean that these exclusive interview opportunities were neither permitted for nor suited to domestic media, and only overseas media were qualified to get them.
COMMENT: Again, a personal story of indignity suffered, having nothing to do with the liberal ideas of the professor in question. You criticize Chinese leaders for not respecting you “major domestic media”, but you should see from this how they actually score you guys in their own hearts. In a country where a press law hasn’t even been made, you don’t demand that media be independent, or that there be freedom of the press, you only demand that leaders have a good opinion of you big media, so of course this arouses scorn. The People’s Daily system of which you are part has already dominated enough of the discourse power and reporting power [in China], and still you whine like a concubine. Do you think that’s fair to the small media proliferating all over [China]?

FRONTPAGE IMAGE: “Mao stamp” by Karen Horton and the Goddess of Democracy in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park by iafos, both available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.

On April 18, CMP fellow Xiong Peiyun (熊培云), a young scholar who is also one of China’s most prominent bloggers and columnists, was scheduled to deliver a well-publicized lecture at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. The title of Xiong’s lecture, which was sponsored by Phoenix Online, was “Will this Society of Ours Be Good?” (这个社会会好吗?). Unexpectedly, the 500-person lecture was “cancelled” at the last minute, though it eventually went ahead in a much smaller university venue, with an audience of just around 30 students and faculty.
After Xiong concluded his downsized lecture, Fan Zemin (樊泽民), the deputy director of the university’s Student Affairs Division — one of the men many now suspect was behind the sudden cancelation — issued an insulting rebuttal in which he refused to address Xiong as “teacher.”

With respect to Mr. Xiong Peiyun. Why do I not call you ‘teacher’? Because I am a teacher here at the University of International Business and Economics. This is the first time I’ve met you face to face, sir. What I know of you is still from your time at Window on the South magazine. First of all, a moment ago you said you left Window on the South some time ago. Well, I feel that what you delivered to us today lacks sufficient depth of thought, lacks sufficient depth.

Fan’s critique hardly lived up to the rigor to which he somewhat patronizingly pretended, however. He offered no specific criticisms, but instead indicted the lecture on the grounds that “these ideas don’t represent China’s mainstream, or this society’s basic essence.”
“This is certainly not the standpoint of mainstream values,” Fan continued, to which Xiong interjected with a wry smile, drawing laughter from the small audience: “Yes, I think the Party still comes first in that respect.”
Fan then summarized his three objections to Xiong’s talk as follows: “First, the subject is unclear. Second, there’s no logical quality to it. Third, the entire speech has no thinking in it.”
The lecture, its cancellation, and the itchy session that followed it became a hot spot of internet discussion in China late last week, and it quickly became for many a textbook case of the sharp divisions between more liberal thinking scholars like Xiong and conservative Party loyals like Fan.
This, in fact, was not the only tense exchange of the week. We also refer readers to the editorial spat between Wang Wen (王文) — “What China’s Liberal Camp is Most Lacking” and “There Aren’t So Many Bad People on This Earth: Another Discussion with Mr. Ye” — and Ye Fu (野夫), whose contributions to the back-and-forth included, “What China’s Authoritarians Are Most Lacking: A Response to Wang Wen” and “The World Always Has a Few Bad Guys: A Response to Wang Wen.”
A video of Fan’s rebuttal, in which Xiong can be seen smiling uncomfortably in the background, is still available at Youku. Chatter about Fan Zemin’s remarks, however, were quickly scrubbed from the internal BBS at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE).

One open letter by a UIBE student addressed to Fan Zemin expressed strong objection to his words and actions, and called on all to preserve the integrity of the school and get rid of “this stinky fish that has spoiled the academic climate of UIBE.” In clear defiance of Fan’s own characterization of himself as a “teacher,” the student addressed him as “Mr.”

Respectable Mr. Fan Zemin:
Hello! Why do I address you as ‘mister’ and not as teacher? Because I am a student the University of International Business and Economics. I have just seen a number of images and reports about your criticism on April 18 of Mr. Xiong Peiyun’s lecture at UIBE, and I would like to discuss with you your viewpoints and thought logic, which are at many points unsuitable.
Owing to reasons you and I both know, but that I can say that you cannot say, you changed the location of the lecture, this with the hope that you would have complete power in your own hands to control the whole process of the talk and minimize the scope and impact of the lecture’s content. I can understand that the thought, logic and conduct of that group of people you represent has been like this for the past century. And we can also say that your basic objective was achieved even before you delivered your speech. But all that has happened after tells us that often times when someone of middling abilities shoots for a lofty goal that goes against common sense and basic principles, the result runs sharply counter to what this person originally intended.

Among the student‘s several criticisms of Fan’s remarks was the following:

You said in your remarks that the points Mr. Xiong made “did not represent the mainstream and basic essence” or are “certainly not the standpoint of mainstream values.” Must an individuals views represent the mainstream and basic essence? Personal viewpoints have a right to be in line with the mainstream, and of course they have a right to not be in line with the mainstream. Moreover, from the history of the rule of our dear Party one can see that the non-mainstream views at any given time tend to become the mainstream views in the space of one or two decades . . . I don’t oppose the fact that you represent those people who seek to use public institutions [such as media] to advance their own mainstream values, but I firmly believe under the principle of substantiating [arguments] with facts that every viewpoint should have a channel for expression within the framework of our laws and regulations.

I won’t go into detail about the arguments made by Xiong Peiyun in the lecture in question. But here are a few rough strokes.
Xiong speaks particularly about the recent Yao Jiaxin (药家鑫) case and the problem of violence and justice in Chinese society. One of his central concerns is how, as he understands the case, Yao, the son of a military official, has “become a symbol” and is being dealt with on this basis rather than through an impartial legal system. In other words, he is little more than a political pawn.
Here is one portion of Xiong’s remarks on the case:

I certainly believe that our society needs to progress, that a number of bad people do need to be punished. But in this process, there is no need to take a person, a very humble life, and he is a life, and elevate him to a higher political plane, and then carry out a political trial movement against him. What am I trying to say?
In this process, he has not only been turned into a symbol, but the entire so-called trial has been transformed into a kind of ritual. And what other problems are there as well? I’m saying that as we’ve paid such great attention to this case, as we’ve focused so much on whether or not he should die, we’ve actually forgotten a great many things behind the scenes. For example, no deeper questions have been asked about why was he involved in a traffic accident at the time, or what the media’s position has been. On the night I took part in the Phoenix TV segment [I spoke about earlier], for example, one of the participants was the elderly gentleman Lu Tianming (陆天明), who was quite worked up. He said that Yao Jiaxin must certainly be sentenced to death. I hadn’t gone that night to talk about whether or not he should be sentenced to death, and only after I went did I see that Phoenix TV’s headline at the time read, “Should Yao Jiaxin Be Sentenced to Death?” This was the topic everyone was to discuss. They never notified me of that, and had I known this was what would be discussed I would have refused to go. When I saw that the topic was about whether the sentence should be death, I said I was not a judge and that anything I had to say on the matter was without significance.

More generally, Xiong also voices his concern about what might be called the violent fabric of Chinese society today. He suggests, essentially, that there is an absence of basic respect for individual rights and dignity that creates an atmosphere of escalating violence with no working mores or mechanisms for mediation and arbitration. Here are Xiong’s own words:

“Speaking of the negative aspects of this society. The entire twentieth century [in China] has, as we all know, a foul reputation. During that century too many violent episodes occurred. Now too we see many violent things occurring, like the way today’s lecture was suddenly cancelled, partly cancelled, and they say someone made trouble. This sort of riot [against the lecture itself] is a kind of violence. I’ve discovered over the past few days that a number of extreme websites have dubbed myself, old [economist] Mr. Mao Yushi (茅于轼) and others as “slaves of the West” (西奴) and said we must be hung. They even used head shots of us and stuck red triangles over them. I have no idea what I could have done to make them bear such a deep grudge. I don’t know what Mao Yushi could have done to deserve such enmity. But this sort of violence is really awful . . .
I think this is an awful phenomenon. This sort of violence, this omnipresent violence, there is so much of this violence. It is online too, and from our major boulevards to our villages you can witness violence at any time. Aside from the cases of violent demolition and removal led by the government, there are many other cases arising from our society. I’m talking not just about government violence but about social violence. Social violence always has a profound impact on us. Some suffers a personal collapse, for example, everything goes wrong in their life, and they drive out on the streets and mow down life after life. In case after case, men brandish knives and murder children. Look at the recent case of Zhou Yuxin (周宇新), whose life they say took a turn for the worse, so he murdered his wife, his children, and his parents, and who even had to drive back in the midst of his escape to murder his elderly father-in-law . . . Cases like this one, I think, if we ask whether this society of ours is healthy, give us the first part of the answer, that this society is a mess and that we constantly see these heinous acts of depriving others of their lives, or what we could call torture. This is the dark side of our society. But of course I acknowledge that there are bright things [about our society] as well. What we are talking about today are the bad things in this society. And I hope we can gain some ground in this respect.
The other thing is that our whole society has an air of oppressiveness about it. I remember the time when I was living overseas [in France]. I’m not saying things overseas are necessarily great. But I believe the people are extremely courteous and mild in attitude. Let’s say, for example, that you’re walking through a building and come to a [glass] door and someone else is coming through the other way. Perhaps five or ten meters before the door, they will wait for you to pass. When people meet they often embrace. But I think that the distance between people in China is extremely vast . . . If you’re on a bus and someone steps on your foot, according to your understanding this person should apologize, but this person won’t apologize. I’ve seen it happen before where the first person will confront the second person about not apologizing and the other will say, look, why don’t I just inflict more harm on you? In the end, they’ll bring each other down fighting. We should recognize how this society [of ours] is brimming with this sort of air of oppressiveness, this unexplainable hatred. There is no shortage of things like this.