Author: David Bandurski

Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project’s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).

China's educated youth face a tough future

China’s so-called “educated youth,” or zhiqing, have played an interesting role in modern Chinese history. The term generally recalls those millions of young people with secondary or university educations who left China’s cities to labor in the countryside beginning in 1953, and especially during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). But the plight of China’s “educated youth” today is an urgent yet overlooked issue in our country, and its implications are not yet fully clear.
Looking at educated youth in China today, we can divide them into two distinct groups. The first group, those who are privileged by virtue of their access to the resources of wealth and power, principally through their parents, have united themselves through shared privileges and vested interests. They have created their own alliance of educated elites holding leading positions in Chinese society. The second, and much larger, group have become united by their common lack of privilege. Shut outside the halls of wealth and power, this second group has formed a sub-layer of educated youths who conscientiously oppose the mainstream values of Chinese society because they have been systematically shut out. While they possess a definite degree of knowledge and experience, this group has been excluded from dominant state institutions (国家体制内), so they tend to drift without stable employment.
This sub-layer of educated youths and their maturing attitudes have far-reaching implications for Chinese society.


Let’s look first at the makeup of this sub-layer of educated youths, which can be divided into three basic types. First, there are those urban youth who were born in the city, but are unable to find work after college graduation and so drift home to live with their parents. Second, there are youth who were born and raised in the countryside, study at urban universities, and are unable to find work after graduation. Many of these permanently enter China’s cities after graduation, becoming part of what has been called the “ant tribe” (蚁族), young educated drifters living on the margins. Finally, there are those youth who were taken along to the cities as their parents went there in search of migrant labor jobs. They have grown up in the city but identify fully with neither the city nor the countryside. They too remain mostly jobless after attaining a definite level of education.
Among these three groups, the second and third are in most dire need of attention. The sons and daughters of migrant workers are especially critical, as experts estimate that they number around six or seven million, accounting for about 6 percent of the total floating population of 130 million in China’s cities. Moreover, this youth segment accounts for a substantial proportion of the adolescent population living in China’s cities.
If we look at the ideas and identities emerging within this substantial sub-layer of educated youths, we can see important patterns that clue us in to larger problems of inequality and unfairness in our society, and their longer-term implications. The green shoots of these ideas are readily visible on the internet, for example. Emerging now behind every political position, and behind every hot-button social issue, we can see sharply dissenting points of view (反弹观点), standing directly at odds with the predominant values articulated by the state.
These dissenting views arise from the disaffection and resistance of this sub-layer of educated youths. If these emotions, and the real injustices that cause them, continue to develop without relief, they could give rise to a sharp conflict of interests between a significant portion of the public and entrenched state interests.
The current pains facing this sub-layer of educated youths result from a system of exclusion (排斥性体制) in China that has accompanied economic reform and opening. This system of exclusion imposes severe restrictions on social mobility in our country, and puts opportunity overwhelmingly in the hands of the sons and daughters of the rich and politically connected.
Systemic inequality has destroyed the very idea of fairness and equality among this sub-layer of educated youths, and has set them on a path of antagonistic opposition.
It has become extremely urgent, therefore, that those in power deal with the monopolization of political and economic resources by the those with influence and power. Action should be taken to ensure that all people, particularly educated youth who have been denied opportunities, have a fair and equal chance to become upwardly mobile.
At the same time the government must work on the following issues.
The first thing that needs to be done is that we need to better understand the lives, actions and aspirations of these sub-layer educated youths. That is to say, in researching politics in our country, we must turn our focus beyond elite intellectuals. We need to look at the internal structure of disadvantaged people living in our society, and explore the real, root reasons why social conflict and disaffection occur.
We need to foster among China’s sub-layer of educated youths, who have been shut off from the benefits of opening and reform, a basic sense of identification with mainstream Chinese society. For those living in the countryside, this means identification and inclusion with their place of origin. For those living in the cities, this means identification and inclusion in urban communities. All must feel that they are a part of, accepted by, and cared for by the society in which they live.
Government leaders at all levels need to provide these youth with the same public services enjoyed by other locals, and the most important of these is the building of a social safety net.
A version of this article appeared originally at Yu Jianrong’s Blog.

Yu Jianrong

Professor Yu Jianrong is head of the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Born in Hengyang, Hunan Province, in 1962, he studied politics and law at Hunan Normal University in the 1980s, and in 2001 received his post-doctorate in legal studies from Huazhong Normal University. Professor Yu’s writings include “Change in Political Structures at the Village Level in Transitional China,” “Rights Defense and the Modern Rural Population: An Investigation of Hengyang, Hunan” and “Class and the Contemporary Chinese Worker.”

Bold page on Party editorials killed

This afternoon Sohu.com posted a very interesting special page dealing with a recent series of conservative articles appearing in the official People’s Daily, including this one, which we fully translated here at CMP. Topped with a Cultural Revolution-era image of Party writers — an image uncomfortable to many Chinese, who would rather not repeat the ideological rancor of those days — the special page asked who the writer of these editorials, identified as Zheng Qingyuan (郑青原), really is.


The page also included a table revealing the flesh-and-blood people behind a number of prominent official editorial pen names.
We barely had time to pull the content on the page down and save it before the link to the special page was “harmonized.” Many of the links at Sohu for content included on the special page, such as an article from Beijing Evening News headlined, “Who is Zheng Qingyuan?”, were also removed, yielding “404” messages.
Here is a PDF of the full page: Sohu Missing Page 11.2

Cashing in on "Culture"

According to recent Chinese media reports, the Cultural Market Management Office of Weinan (渭南) in China’s northern Shaanxi province, an office under the local Cultural Department, has been running a lucrative racket by charging monthly “management fees” (管理费) of 1,000 yuan to the hundreds of local Internet cafes it is charged with overseeing, and by levying sky-high penalties for the smallest of infractions. Local Internet cafe operators who spoke with Chinese media said the levying of penalty fees generally happened at lavish dinners at which the cafe operators were asked to foot the bill. Media reports said the office’s lucrative rent seeking activities have necessitated the office’s personnel expansion far beyond the eight officials under formal contract (编制). At least 62 additional people are listed as earning wages from the office, and a total of 54 work there regularly. In this cartoon, posted by artist Fan Jianping (范建平) to his QQ blog, an octopus stretches its tentacles of self-interest out of the “Cultural Market Management Office,” grabbing piles of cash from frowning Internet cafes.

Tied to the Land

According to a recent news report in Guangzhou Daily, the official Party newspaper of the southern city of Guangzhou [view on the CMP Media Map], a recent survey of migrant workers in China found that 80 percent of those born before 1980 did not wish to change their rural identity registration, or hukou, in exchange for urban registration. Of those who were willing to change their identity registration, only half said they would agree to relinquish their claims to contract land, or chengbaodi (承包地), in their place of original registration in the countryside. The survey results, if accurate, seem to suggest that many rural migrants still associate the land with security and are unwilling to formally part from it. In this cartoon, posted by the Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, a rural resident holds on tenaciously to his plot of land — even though it is devastated by environmental damage — as a local official tries to yank him away with the promise of a new urban flat. A digger stands behind, suggesting the land is slated for a new development project

Is anyone really secure in China?

When a recent forum in Beijing brought together deans from law schools around the world, the most stirring moment came as Zhou Yongkang (周永康), the most senior Communist Party leader in charge of legal affairs in China, delivered an address stressing his support for a strong legal system. Zhou said China must “comply with the universal principles of law” and “adopt and learn from all great human precedents in the area of rule of law.”
The idea of building a “rule of law culture” is now all the rage in China’s media, and a look at recent major news stories tells us exactly why. Rule of law is no longer just about protecting the rights of the weak in China, but concerns the safety and security of government elites as well.
The first news story to make ripples lately is the bribery case against Long Xiaole (龙小乐), a senior Party official at Wuhan University in China’s inland Hubei province. Not long after the trial began, Long Xiaole told the court his confession had been extracted through torture, involving three consecutive days and nights of interrogation during which he was subjected to beatings and extreme cold. Long’s prosecutors acknowledged dismissively that “the interrogation had been rather long.” But they countered that “there are no laws or regulations [in China] about the length of interrogations, and so there no illegalities were involved.”
Legal scholars, including Ding Dafan (丁大帆), quickly pointed out that China signed and ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture more than twenty years ago. Article I of the convention states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession . . . ” Insofar as the convention applies to criminal law in China, any infliction of physical or mental suffering by public officers is illegal and constitutes torture.
The second major news story was the trial of Yang Jiannong (杨建农), a top police official in Hunan province. Shortly before Yang’s arrest, his wife, Chen Ling (陈玲), had made an internet post exposing a hornet’s nest of “dark plots” within the Hunan Public Security Department. Right on the heels of these online revelations, the department announced on its official website that Yang Jiannong was under investigation by provincial discipline inspectors for alleged acts of bribery reaching into the millions.
Both husband and wife are now prisoners. We can only speculate as to what connection this has to Chen Ling’s online muckraking.
Lawyers on the Hunan case have pointed to all sorts of problems in how the cases against Yang Jiannong and his wife have been handled. To begin with, Yang’s telephone line was reportedly monitored secretly while he was serving in his post. According to China’s Criminal Procedural Law, the family of Yang Jiannong’s wife, who was subsequently arrested for “fraudulent registration of assets”, should have been notified within twenty-four hours — they were not. Nor was the paperwork for her arrest handled properly.
Chen Ling has still been unable to meet with her lawyers, Hunan authorities claiming the case deals with “national secrets.” This explanation is ludicrous considering that “fraudulent registration of assets” is a common criminal offense, having nothing at all to do with matters of national secrecy. Everything gives the appearance local authorities are acting as they please, in utter contempt for the law and procedure.
Long Xiaole and Yang Jiannong are elites within China’s political system. They are, to use a popular phrase, “men of men.” But regardless of their privilege and status, their fates are fragile and every step is fraught with danger. Knocked down a notch, they find no more protection for their most basic rights than the most ordinary of Chinese. The system deals with them as it deals with all those who fall through the cracks and find themselves in positions of weakness.
In China, where modern rule of law effectively does not exist, and where experts say more than 70 percent of total social wealth is now concentrated in state hands, the national grab for wealth by those within the system operates by the law of the jungle. There are no rules or boundaries. This means the prospects for those inside the system, like Long Xiaole and Yang Jiannong, are as unpredictable as for anyone else. No one enjoys security, and the nightmare facing Long and Yang is shared by all those in positions of power and privilege. The system offers no guarantees, and might at any moment pull them down into the maelstrom.
We often assume the purpose of rule of law is to protect the weak. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Rule of law is about protecting the rights of everyone, regardless of how much wealth or power they have, and it should mean anyone can plan for the future with a sense of security.
If China’s ruling elite want this kind of security, the only way forward is developing a culture of rule of law in China. This is why Zhou Yongkang’s words were so timely and understandable. It is not enough for the weak to clamor for rule of law. The resources of our society are not in their hands, after all.
Only when both weak and strong reach a broad consensus on the urgency of this issue can we turn the resources of our country toward the development of rule of law. And only then will change truly come. Clearly, the time is already here.
A version of this article originally appeared in Chinese at Time Weekly. [View Time Weekly on the China Media Map].

Tears of Love for the CCP

According to recent media reports, Li Shujian (李树建), chairman of the Henan Theater Association, said after a recent audience with Henan’s top leader, party secretary Lu Zhangong (卢展工), “I was beside myself with excitement, and my face was washed with tears.” Almost immediately, the phrase, “My face [was] washed with tears,” became an internet sensation in China, Chinese heaping ridicule on this anachronistic expression of fealty to a leader pledged (at least in name) to serve the people. This cartoon, posted by artist Li Jianing (李嘉宁) to his QQ blog, satirizes Li Shujian’s excessive pro-CCP emotion by contrasting it with real public need. At left, a man tries to wash his face but finds no water running in the tap. Li Shujian, at right, perches dramatically on his stage, a toilet, and intones: “Just think of the graces bestowed on us by our leaders, and wash your face with tears!”

Internet Terrors

A recent report in People’s Forum magazine, published by China’s official People’s Daily newspaper, a recent study found that more than 70 percent of Chinese officials suffer from a condition known as “internet terror” (网络恐惧症). According to the study, the magazine reported, the condition is most acute among officials at the county (县级) and departmental (处级) levels. The condition is apparently an abiding fear on the part of Party and government officials that they might at any moment become the focus of an online campaign making their conduct a topic of national concern and ridicule. In this cartoon, posted by the Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, government officials (recognizable by the imperial-style official caps) cower and perspire with fear at a large computer screen over their heads, representing China’s vigilant masses of internet users, looms overhead.

A cancelled speech finds life online

Earlier this month Beijing’s Sanwei Shuwu bookstore [blog here] organized a lecture by Xin Ziling (辛子陵) called “The Political Reform Question.” The lecture, scheduled for 3 p.m. on Saturday, October 16, was suddenly cancelled and replaced with another lecture on rule of law by Xiao Han (萧瀚), a professor at China University of Political Science and Law.
Sanwei did not specify the reason for the cancellation, but it should be noted that Xin Ziling was one of the 23 Party elders who penned an open letter on October 11 calling for freedom of speech in China.
Xin, a former official at the China National Defence University, is also the author of The Accomplishments and Sins of Mao Zedong (千秋功罪毛澤東), a book assessing the legacy of Mao.
Xin Jiling’s original lecture for Sanwei Shuwu has now been posted online, and the piece has drawn a flurry of interest today.
A portion of the lecture follows. In it, Xin attacks those who seek, as he sees it, to hijack the political reform debate with the outdated “theory of delimitation” — distinguishing between “proletarian” democracy and “bourgeois” democracy — which he calls a “protective amulet . . . for single-party dictatorship” handed down by Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin.
We recommend that readers of Chinese review the comments beneath Xin’s essay at Chinavalue.net, including Xin’s own remarks. There is plenty of discussion there of yesterday’s People’s Daily piece as well, which is a good counterpoint to Xin’s arguments.

The Political Reform Question
October 16, 2010
By Xin Ziling (辛子陵)
Political reforms in China have dragged behind and scarcely budged, retarded by instinctual resistance from networks of influence and power. The protective amulet of their Leninism is the “theory of delimitation” (划界论). I’ve written an essay called, “Challenging One Paper and Two Magazines, Overturning the Theory of Delimitation,” which I posted online. It sets out to thoroughly overturn and shatter this “theory of delimitation.” [NOTE: “One paper and two magazines” (两报一刊) refers to the complete monopolization of the press by political power, particularly under Mao Zedong, but refers more directly in this case to recent pieces of conservatism on political reform appearing in prominent Communist Party newspapers.]
As soon as the winds of political reform start to blow, the writing hands of the mainstream media [NOTE: this means “Party media”] turn out to clearly delimit the issue. They ask whether we are surnamed Proletariat or surnamed Capitalist (姓无姓资), and they draw a clear line between bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy. On September 4, the Guangming Daily came out with this piece called, “Two Democracies of Different Natures Must Not Be Confused,” [https://chinamediaproject.org/2010/09/06/7345/]. The same day, the Liberation Army Daily issued a piece written by Jiang Ganlin (蒋干麟), the head of the People’s Liberation Army’s Nanjing Political Studies Academy, which spoke of the need to delimit “four crucial boundaries.” Issue 18 of the journal Seeking Truth ran a piece under the headline, “The Institutional Superiority and Basic Characteristics of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” which also urged the need to “clearly delimit the differences between the democracy of socialism with Chinese characteristics and Western capitalist democracy.” The Party media [NOTE: The term used here is “one newspaper and two magazines.”] are lining up for battle, puffing up for opposition to political reform.
This theory of “delimitation” is a legacy passed down from Lenin, our patriarch, and the representative work in question is, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Traitor [Karl] Kautsky.” Lenin said at the time that “proletarian democracy is more democratic by a factor of 100 than any other form of democracy; Soviet political power is more democratic by a factor of 100 than even the most democratic bourgeois republic.”
[1]. There are two key positions behind this thinking. The first is class theory, that in the democratic system of the proletariat, the worker’s classes, the peasants the masses of ordinary people rule the country, and this has class superiority. Then there is [the superiority arising] from numbers theory, in that the worker’s classes, peasants and the ordinary masses account for more than 90 percent of the national population, and this means superiority of numbers. Lenin said: “The proletarian democratic system (of which Soviet political power is one form) exists for the vast majority of people, and for the expansion of democracy across the world to a level never before seen for the sake of exploited labor.”
[2]. Once these two positions were admitted, the opposition withered. For decades ever after, the Communist Parties of the various socialist nations of the world took this up as their protective amulet, confidently going ahead with their single-party dictatorships.
The people still subscribed to this idea was during the first generation in these socialist nations. Once political power had been violently seized, who would rule if the chiefs did not? With the second generation, a crisis of legitimacy emerged, and by the third generation we had the disintegration of the Soviet Union, dramatic change in Eastern Europe, and new paths of reform and opening in China and Vietnam.
This protective amulet that Lenin created for single-party dictatorship was issued in 1918, more than 90 years ago. There have been fundamental changes since to the proletarian democratic system and the bourgeois democratic system. These fundamental changes can be seen in the transposition of these two. The so-called “proletarian democratic system” has gradually transformed into a system representing a small capitalist elite holding political power (in China and North Korea, for example), and the “bourgeois democratic system” has grown beyond the scope of the wealthy to become a democratic system of the whole people (as in the United States and the nations of the European Union) in which the vote has become a powerful weapon by which ordinary people protect their rights and interests.