An open “protest letter” signed today by more than 400 Chinese citizens — including well-known journalists, lawyers, academics and businesspeople — called on Chinese authorities to release Xu Zhiyong, a prominent lawyer and rights campaigner who was detained on July 16.
This latest domestic action over the Xu Zhiyong case was initiated by liberal economist Mao Yushi (茅于轼), Chinese venture capitalist Wang Gongquan (王功权), and veteran journalists Xiao Shu (笑蜀) and He Sanwei (何三畏).

[ABOVE: Clockwise from upper left: Wang Gongquan, Mao Yushi, Xiao Shu and He Sanwei, the initiators of a protest letter today calling for the release of lawyer Xu Zhiyong.]
Both Xiao Shu and He Sanwei are long-time contributors to Southern Weekly, an outspoken newspaper in the southern city of Guangzhou that was the focus of national protests over press controls in January this year. Southern Weekly was also the newspaper to which US President Barack Obama chose to grant a coveted exclusive interview during his November 2009 official visit to China, a decision that rankled with Chinese officials.
Xiao Shu, a former CMP fellow, reported that his e-mail account was attacked at midday today. Each time he attempted to logon to his account, he was kicked out, he said, and the account now appears to be permanently disabled.
Today’s protest letter includes a bulleted list of five demands:

1. That Xu Zhiyong and all citizens who have been detained for taking part in the New Citizen’s Movement be released without charge.
2. That the legal rights of the above-mentioned persons are fully protected while they are under detention and arrest.
3. That restrictions and bans on the internet and the media be lifted, allowing media to freely report, ensuring that the people’s right to know in the Xu Zhiyong case is protected, that government conduct is out in the open, transparent and subject to the scrutiny of society.
4. The government authorities must, using the Xu Zhiyong case as a mirror, must engage in deep reflection, adjusting its policies, creating a tolerant and favorable environment for the healthy development of civil society.
5. The unbridled repression of Xu Zhiyong and the New Citizen’s Movement not only damages rule of law and infringes on human rights, but also does serious damage to national prestige and has a pronounced harmful impact on society — therefore, relevant [government] agencies and responsible persons must be held legally responsible for these actions.

The original Chinese-language letter follows:

许志永事件之公民社会抗议书
7月16日，“新公民运动”发起人许志永博士在被非法软禁长达三个月之后，被北京市警方刑拘。而在此之前，警方已经刑拘或正式逮捕了“新公民运动”至少15名参与者。政府当局全面压制“新公民运动”的意图显而易见。
这是一起极其严重的事件。从远处说是对斯大林模式的所谓“无产阶级专政”的延续，从近处说是对十年刚性维稳的延续，就当下说更是对习近平先生承诺的“全面实施宪法”的公开背弃。
反宪政潮流因舆论的顽强狙击已经退潮，但对公民社会的压制仍甚嚣尘上，而且直接动用国家机器，实施定点打击。许志永和他的伙伴们遭遇的厄运，是这方面的最新案例。
“新公民运动”以温和理性的方式推进中国公民社会建设，许志永及其伙伴们的行动是在践行现行宪法第35条，完全处于合法范围之内，而对他们的打击压制则是对宪法与法律的公然践踏。
作为公民社会的倡导者和推动者，我们强烈抗议并紧急呼吁：
1、无罪释放许志永及所有因参与“新公民运动”而被捕的公民。
2、以上公民在被拘及被捕期间，其法定权利必须得到全面保障。
3、解除网络封锁和媒体禁令，让媒体自由报道，以保证公众对许志永事件的知情权，让政府行为公开、透明并接受社会监督。
4、政府当局必须以许志永事件为鉴，深刻反思、调整政策，为公民社会的健康发展创造宽松友善的制度环境。
5、对许志永和“新公民运动”的全面压制不仅破坏法治、侵犯人权，而且严重损害了国家信誉，具有明显的社会危害性，必须追究相关部门和相关负责人的法律责任。
我们将以公民的身份保持对许志永事件的持续关注，保持对真相的持续追问，保持对政府当局的持续压力。直到许志永博士和所有因参与“新公民运动”而被捕的公民重获自由为止。
同意加入联署的公民，请注明真实姓名，身份，所在地区，发信到联署邮箱: [email protected]
发起人：
茅于轼、王功权、笑 蜀、何三畏
联署人（以下共446人）：
阿 信，独立学者，现居成都
艾建强，职员，北京
艾晓明，教授，广州
艾小芹，职员，北京
毕 康，自由职业，诗人，江苏南京
长 平，时评人，旅居德国
谌 平，酒店从业人员，江西九江
蔡 庆，工程师，上海
崔 锦，职员，北京
崔 英，退休职工，山东潍坊
崔金友，退休职工，山西大同
陈德升，建筑工程师，海南海口
陈宏兵，公民，镇江
陈明祺，台湾清华大学社会学研究所副教授，新竹
陈建刚，律师，北京
陈家炳，个体工商户，福建南平
陈庆秋，华南理工大学经济与贸易学院经济系教员，广东广州
陈开明，公民，湖北恩施
陈启棠，公民，广东
陈曙杰，公民，湖南衡阳
陈武权，公民，广东
陈晓清，公民，现居广州
陈云飞，业余驯兽师，四川成都
陈柞良，自由职业者，四川成都
陈子亮，小老板，浙江杭州
陈照云，公民，湖南
陈宗瑶，温州，公民
陈泽尧，公司职员，厦门翔安区
柴金元，工人，江苏南京
柴子文，媒体人，香港
成怀山，淮安，公民
成玉兰，公司职员，北京
曹 辉，工人，江苏省邳州市
曹必琼，律师，福建厦门
曹劲柏，公民，北京市，[email protected]
曹志刚，IT工程师，上海
蔡 良，工程师，北京海淀区
蔡咏梅，编辑，香港
车宏年，自由撰稿人，山东
褚庆界，私营业者，山东枣庄
常旭光，公民，贵州贵阳
蔡淑芳，公民，香港
仇森模，建筑工人，广西钦州
谌洪果，西安，教师
丁 坚，公民，杭州
丁 欣，关注教育公平的家长，北京西城区
丁小龙，公民，浙江宁波
邓 乐，大学生，广西桂平
邓大龙，教师，湖南
邓林华，公民，湖南
邓淑珍，公民，广东湛江
杜新荣，从商，山西大同
杜智斌，公民，广州
段汉杰，公民，郑州
端启宪，公民，广西南宁
董文杰，公民，山西运城
费 峰，医生，河北
费 瓦，公民，广州
冯 玲，公民，湖北潜江
付 冠，随迁子女家长，北京
付国华，公民，江西广昌
付铁柱，内蒙古通辽
付永刚，律师，山东济南
范标文，律师，广东深圳
范力涵，中兴通讯系统工程师，南京
房树梅，公民，山东烟台
关 军，作家，北京
谷 中，残疾人维权者，安徽宿州
高 飞，公民，郑州
高 垒，公司职员，北京
高 松，农民，北京
高 扬，民间学者，北京
高勤荣，媒体人，旅居北京
关达华，工程师，广州
郭建和，公民，广州
郭永丰，公民，现居深圳
郭于华，教授，清华大学
郭宇宽，学者，北京
郭飞雄，民间学者，广州
苟志辉，退休工人，四川南充
戈觉平，苏州，公民
顾晓峰，公民，江苏常熟
巩胜利，学者，北京
华 泽，纪录片导演，旅居纽约
黄翠艳，自由职业，上海闵行
黄晓雷，教师，江苏启东
黄友成，公民，河北唐山
黄一龙，作家，成都
黄智勇，农民，广州
黄治安，公民，四川宜宾
何 轲，广告从业者，广州
何小华，退休国企干部，广州
何永全，自由撰稿人，上海
何忠洲，NGO从业者，广东
郝建强，企业职员，河北邢台
郝 建，教授，北京
郝 群（笔名慕容雪村），作家，成都
胡 城，公民，江苏常熟
胡 佳，公民，北京
胡 军，公民，深圳新安
胡 平，学者，旅居纽约
胡常根，农民工，上海
胡高友，农民工，广东中山市
胡仁涛，科研工作者，安徽合肥
胡石根，自由职业，北京
胡秀兰 公民，云南昆明
胡云飞（网名“染香姐姐”），自由职业，广州
侯远飞，基督徒，湖南长沙
金光鸿，律师，旅居美国
金继武，媒体人，广州
金雪花，从商，苏州
景军平，国企员工，河北秦皇岛
江天勇，律师，北京
蒋继龙，自由职业者，江西樟树
蒋亚林，结石宝宝家长，浙江金华
姜绍全，农民工，温州
姜增伟，公司职员，山东烟台
季雪鸿，农民，山东临沂
孔小东，个体从业者，安徽合肥
冷 海，农牧业，山东
李 冰，记者，北京
李 红，公民，浙江台州
李 靖，公民，北京
李 军，从商，江苏淮安
李 君，法学博士，律师，重庆
李 鹏，工程师，广东惠州
李 强，作家，旅居纽约
李 青，美容师，上海徐汇
李 新，编辑，北京
李 毓，发电厂职员，陕西略阳
李 勇，自由职业，武汉
李 志，工程师，上海
李成立，公民，河北保定
李大康，公民，重庆
李大同，媒体人，北京
李德鑫，自由职业，广西柳州
李革林，销售人员，成都
李洪波，公民，北京通州区
李和平，律师，北京
李化平，公民，上海
李海军，农民工，江苏无锡
李继红，工程师，山东
李金革，公民，山西太原
李剑芒，学者，旅居荷兰
李良德（网名苍蝇01），个体从业者，现居河北唐山
李启涛，公民，北京
李绍民，公民，宁夏银川
李太云，公司高管，福建泉州
李永忠，小老板，四川彭山
李泽慧，非京藉随迁子女家长，现居北京
李志红，公民，山西忻州
李旭东，中国经营报记者，山西太原
李兴隆（网名6-乡山故水），公司职员
李应峰，公民，福建漳州
李雅娟，公民，辽宁鞍山
李燕双，企业主，北京
李昨承，电商运营业者，四川绵阳
李志坚，自由职业，云南昆明官渡区
李占民，公司职员，北京
刘 杰，公民，山东烟台
刘 华，公民，遵义
刘 明，律师，湖南长沙
刘 明，个体从业者，郑州
刘 敬，公民，湖南株洲
刘 巍，律师，辽宁
刘 啸，公民，北京昌平
刘 勇，僧人，山东高密
刘 瑜，教师，清华大学政治学系
刘飞跃，公民，湖北
刘洪凯，工人，盘锦
刘金滨，律师，山东
刘家财，监理工程师，湖北宜昌
刘继民，公司职员，北京
刘军兴，公民，现居北京昌平
刘军宁，学者，北京
刘京生，自由职业，北京
刘建新，平面设计师 中国工业设计协会会员，山东烟台
刘青霖，个体工商户，吉林白山
刘四仿，公民，现居广东
刘士辉，摘牌律师，广州
刘守刚，公民，河北秦皇岛
刘卫国，律师，山东济南
刘新花，公民，上海
刘玉亮，公民，现居北京
刘绪贻，武汉大学教授
刘远远，公民，现居杭州西湖区
刘志强，律师，陕西
卢红旗，民企技术总监，杭州西湖区
黎小龙，公民，广西
林京海，公民，广州
罗 茜，律师，湖南邵阳
罗桂华，建筑工人，湖南武冈
罗俊杰，工人，广东肇庆
罗加鹏，中共党员，军队转业干部，现住上海
罗模忠，自由创业者，四川宜宾
罗世铮，成都，公司经理
罗文洋 ，法律学人，广东
雷思政，自由职业者，湖南常德
雷永明，工人，湖南郴州
雷渊贵，自由职业，广东东莞
梁 辉，公民，广东深圳
梁述华，公民，重庆
梁太平，笔名尾生，公民，湖南长沙
陸贵贵，公民，现居中山
龙 飞，打工者，现居江苏南通
龙乐海，公务员，江西吉安
吕国利，民间学者，山东青岛
陆自范，公民，浙江
林宏杰，自由职业，广东茂名
林止月，公司法务，北京海淀区
赖建康，媒体人，四川乐山
黎雄兵，律师，北京
马 威，公民，温州
马晨皓，公民，甘肃兰州
马云龙，媒体人，河南
马永涛，公民，河北廊坊
毛汨平，公民，湖南长沙
孟维娜，NGO从业者，云南
孟俊涛，公民，新疆乌鲁木齐
梅中武，教师，湖北鄂州
蔺其磊，北京市瑞凯律师事务所律师
欧春花，公民，广东深圳
歐彪峰，公民，湖南株洲
彭 伟，自由职业，现居广州天河
彭建军，农民工，安徽阜阳
潘飞山，公民，旅居北京
潘俊朋，公民，陕北
裴利鹏，外企管理，上海
乔 木，学者，北京
乔春鸿，公民，济南
乔光习,自由职业者,上海
乔曙亮，技术人员，北京
寇建玲，公务员，河南郑州
秦家君，律师，北京
秦信江，自由职业，江西南昌
屈俊虎，企业家，陕西西安
屈坤磊，法务，北京朝阳区
钱新利，个体从业者，安庆
齐志勇，六四伤残者，北京
任 铭，公民，广东深圳
任爱娃，农民，山西永济
任青霞，教师，广东惠州
任中选，农民，山西永济
荣君明，公民，山东威海
芮美荣，公民，北京
冉红兵，公民，现居浙江杭州
冉云飞，编辑，成都
阮云华，作家，珠海
宋 琢，IT人，湖南长沙
宋志红，工程师，大连
沈 脉，公务员，贵州安顺
沈益群，公司职员，福建莆田
石 武，灵活就业者，西安
石玉林，《民生观察网》网站编辑，湖北宜昌
孙立勇，工人，旅居悉尼
孙宇晨，学生，北京
孙志刚，山东，公民
苏福平，项目经理，武汉江夏区
苏小和，诗人，经济学者，北京
苏义明，学生，黑龙江哈尔滨
申佳钰，学生，黑龙江
邵长波，自由职业者，青岛
邵建文，造价工程，江苏南京
隋牧青，律师，广州
史明珍，随迁子女家长，现居通州区
陶 波，技术员，天津
滕 彪，学者，北京
田 进，公民，湖北恩施
田 亮，职员，天津
田发全，公民，陕西汉中
田亚超，农民工 河北石家庄
唐 彬，媒体人，广东
唐爱玲，公民，天津
唐才龙，独立撰稿人，四川
唐荆陵，公民，广州
唐宪彬，公民，山东济宁
汤建宇，车间管理人员，江苏省张家港市
谭道强，公民，现居江西抚州
谭毅强，公民，江西抚州
童文杰，公民，湖南汉寿县
汪 华，公民，江苏太仓
汪 蛟，公民，安徽安庆
汪 廖，律师，浙江温州
汪江海，医生，上海莘庄
王 成（王楚襄），律师，杭州
王 藏，艺术家，北京
王 洪，公民，北京
王 晗，数学辅导老师，北京
王 平，公司高管，江苏常州
王 奇，公民，陕西
王 群，建筑工，墨尔本
王 尚，公民，山东泰山
王 跃，服装贸易从业者，湖北武汉
王 云，美容师，上海徐汇
王 伟，公民，广东鹤壁
王 正，产品经理，上海
王必君，公民，广东
王晨光，大学应届毕业生，安徽合肥
王冬梅，无社会养老和医疗保障老人，上海
王衡庚，前浙江财经大学教授，杭州
王金洪，地质队员，内蒙古呼伦贝尔
王进京，厨师，北京
王江松，教师，北京
王建勋，教师，北京
王利成，公民，河南商丘
王龙蒙，戏剧工作者，旅居法国
王力雄 作家 北京
王淑艳，公民，浙江黄岩
王思远，学生，合肥
王文平，糕点师，江西抚州
王五四，自由撰稿人，杭州
王卫华，律师，上海
王晓峰，自由职业，上海
王晓鹏，软件工程师，上海
王晓青，职业经理人，西安
王晓霞，公民，北京
王雪臻，公民，莱阳
王懿金，公民，海南东方市
王阳宁，自由职业，湖南邵阳
王友雄，工人，广东
王泽民，公司高管。武汉市东西湖区
吴 昊，银行职员，江苏南京
吴 淦，自由职业，福建厦门
吴 伟，独立学者，北京
吴金圣，作家，北京
吴祚来，学者，旅居纽约
温 航，新闻从业者，福建厦门
温克坚，学者，浙江
伍 雷，律师，北京
伍晓涛，公司职员，湖南娄底
谢 丹，企业职员，上海
谢 涛，在读博士，上海
谢亨津，公民，深圳
谢明华，教师，河北
谢镕丞，商人，广东省清远
徐 彪，工人，上海徐汇
徐 皓，公民，安徽省
徐 娟，个体，上海徐汇
徐 健，工人，上海徐汇
徐 琳，建筑高级工程师，广州
徐 强，工人，上海徐汇
徐 旭，文艺批评家，湖北
徐益民，公民，上海
徐冬梅，公民，黑龙江省
徐瑞芳，编辑，现居北京
徐友渔，学者，北京
徐志戎（笔名肉唐僧），作家，大连
熊 伟，民间学者，北京
熊崛南，教师，云南彝良
夏业良，学者，北京
夏子期，外企职员，广东深圳
许 生，自由职业，深圳
许林铭，自由职业，居住地台湾
许医农，编辑，北京
野 渡，作家，广州
闫 巍，公民，山西长治
于 全，律师，成都
于 陆，自由职业者，河南巩义
袁 剑，自由职业，四川眉山
袁 颺，学者，北京
袁天开，公民，广东深圳
袁雪成，苏州，教师
袁新亭，公民，广州
杨 波，公民，福建厦门
杨 帆，产品设计师，现居广州
杨 勇，公民，南昌
杨达清，公司职员，现居深圳
杨林海，公民志愿者，北京朝阳区
杨培培，从商，苏州
杨守文，公民，甘肃镇原
杨秀英，退休职工，山西大同
杨性选，个体工商户，浙江台州
杨子立，学者，北京
杨子云，媒体人，北京
姚立法，教师，湖北潜江
姚志勇，工程师，北京石景山区
鄢烈山，媒体人，广州
鄢铭江，在校学生，广西
叶彩红，供职事业单位，浙江
叶廷芳，学者，翻译家，中国社科院研究员，苏黎世大学荣誉博士，第九、第十两届全国政协委员
殷德义，公民，北京海淀
游精佑，公民，福建
俞庆好，公民，安徽六安
郁葱林，学生，上海徐汇
郁建国，个体，上海徐汇
郁建洪，工人，上海徐汇
郁建华，工人，上海徐汇
郁建友，工人，上海徐汇
颜海滔，自由职业，广东湛江
禹燕飞，公民，湖南
易曙光，公民，湖南长沙
尹正安，公民，湖南邵阳
郑 霖，自由职业者，北京
仲 超，央企员工，江苏宿迁
钟 文，工程师，湖北荆州
章 毅，教师，安徽
章 文，媒体人，北京
张 波，公司职员，四川成都
张 浩，工人，山西临汾
张 昆，公民，江苏徐州
张 磊，律师，北京
张 勇，公民，四川
张爱文，随迁子女家长，北京
张传付，农民，河南濮阳县
张达宁，自由职业，黑龙江哈尔滨
张昆仑，公民，北京
张良生（笔名张三一言），独立时评人，香港
张丽远，大一学生，浙江温州
张荣平，自由职业，湖南郴州
张汝俊，自由职业者，上海
张书铭，自由职业，湖南长沙
张建党，公民，北京昌平
张千帆，学者，北京大学
张若尘，教员，河北唐山
张善光，公民，湖南
张拓木，互联网工作者，湖北荆州
张小青，农民，自由职业，浙江临安
张彦萍，公民，北京
张永攀，公民，北京
张幼南，退休职工，江苏扬州
张燕生，律师，南京
曾 蓉，公民，广州
曾国凡，公民，江西南昌
曾建平，农民工，深圳
曾庆彬，公民，广东潮州
赵 牧，媒体人，北京
赵 勇，全职爸爸，北京
赵廷国，工程师，江苏扬州
赵修亮，电子商务，湖南邵阳
赵永林，律师，山东
朱东华，公民，上海浦东
朱学平，西南政法大学行政法学院教师，重庆
朱智勇，学者，重庆
周 民，新疆生产建设兵团基层工作者，新疆石河子
周 贤，农民工，海南文昌
周 翔，通信工程师，安徽
周里应，公民，广东深圳
周维林，公民，安徽合肥
周志远，公民，江苏常州
周选枢，脱党打工的大学生，浙江宁波
占海特，失学少年公民，上海
占全喜，自由职业者，上海
邹海耀，公民，湖南长沙
翟明磊，公民记者，上海
查建英，作家，北京
钟奕剑，工程师，四川成都

Participants of China’s New Citizen’s Movement, a grassroots social campaign launched by lawyer and activist Xu Zhiyong (许志永), issued a statement today objecting to Xu’s recent detention and calling for greater attention to his case.
The letter, apparently drafted by Chinese investor Wang Gongquan (王功权) and veteran journalist Xiao Shu (笑蜀) (the author of a petition earlier this year calling on China’s National People’s Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), called the New Citizen’s Movement a “movement of social renewal and reform led by citizens themselves,” its objectives to promote constitutionalism and civil society.
“There is no amount of intimidation or bribery that can divide us,” the statement said.
A full translation follows:

Our Statement on the Xu Zhiyong Incident
We, the participants in the New Citizen’s Movement, compelled by a sense of duty, must stand up and make our views known as the initiator of the New Citizen’s Movement, Xu Zhiyong, faces detention:
1. First, we must object to [the actions of] the authorities concerned. Before he was taken into custody, Xu Zhiyong had already been under house arrest for three months, and there were no judicial procedures whatsoever involved. This is a classic example of the illegal deprivation of personal liberty. Even when [this issue] was beyond the limits of our tolerance, we continued to exercise restraint. Now, we can no longer tolerate [these actions], because our restraint was not answered by restraint on the part of the authorities. Looking back now, it seems we were complicit in the abuses of power perpetrated by the relevant authorities [in this case]. In order to protect the human rights and civil rights of Xu Zhiyong, in order to prevent authorities traveling even further down this path of error, we must say NO to this sabotage of the legal system and especially to this violation of human and civil rights by the authorities. Otherwise, we have not done our utmost to assist Xu Zhiyong and uphold our responsibility as citizens to check public power. And how then can we face our own consciences?
2. We believe the authorities are in error in placing Xu Zhiyong under house arrest and subjecting him to criminal detention. But as citizens we have the utmost respect for the law, and we hope this problem can be resolved through legal channels. We encourage the authorities to act with the fullest respect for the laws they have themselves advanced, and not to trifle with the law. To this end, it is our hope that every aspect of the Xu Zhiyong case accords with modern legal standards of fairness, openness and independence, that it not be subject to political interference or the application of any invisible rules. Xu Zhiyong’s legal rights must be protected. His lawyer’s right to act in his defense must be protected. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to free reporting must be thoroughly protected. We call on the public at this juncture to exercise the greatest possible degree of supervision of the relevant authorities, and we call on media outside China to report all aspects of this case with the utmost sense of journalistic professionalism. Attention is power; a united gaze can transform our destiny.
3. Xu Zhiyong was the initiator of the New Citizen’s Movement, but freedom and equality are defining characteristics of the New Citizen’s Movement – and though the initiator, Xu Zhiyong is only an equal participant in the New Citizen’s Movement. The New Citizen’s Movement will not lose momentum due to Xu Zhiyong’s misfortunes. We will continue to push ahead with the New Citizen’s Movement within the Constitution and the law, drawing on the fragile power we have as ordinary citizens.
4. The New Citizen’s Movement and its historic mission have two aspects. The first is political, promoting through peaceful means the transition of our country to constitutionalism. The second is social, which means promoting the modern transition of our society from a “people’s society” – in fact, a society of feudal subjects – to a civil society. The keystone of constitutionalism is the protection of human rights and the limiting of power. To this end, we have already called on the National People’s Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And we have pressed through petition for the open declaration of property and assets held by public officials. In the arena of social reform, we have promoted equal rights in education, beginning with better access to college entrance examinations by migrant youth. We will continue to push ahead with the New Citizen’s Movement in both of these arenas. We understand that the road is long, but we will not give up our beliefs, and we will not slacken our efforts.
5. It is our firm conviction that the New Citizen’s Movement is well intentioned, not hostile – that it is constructive, not destructive. This positive and constructive attitude is something China is in most urgent need of right now. In China today it is not only the natural environment that has been recklessly destroyed. China’s social environment is being pushed to the limits of destruction and pollution, and protecting society is now of utmost urgency. The ultimate value of this positive and constructive [attitude] lies in protecting society. That is to say, the New Citizen’s Movement is a social gexin yundong, a movement of social renewal and reform led by citizens themselves. While its significance is of a revolutionary nature, it is not a traditional revolution – even less is it a Leninist-style revolution in which “the core question of revolution is the question of regime.” The goal is not political power, but rather a fuller public life [for China’s citizens], fostering a citizen mentality, promoting citizen cooperation as a means of training and fostering citizenship. On the basis of this goal, we encourage more of our brothers and sisters to shake off fear, to join our ranks – beginning with ourselves, beginning now, and beginning with the exercise of citizenship in whatever space is available to us. In this way, drop-by-drop, we can push change, creating a better social environment for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. We call especially on the authorities to desist in their suppression of the New Citizen’s Movement, because you live not only in the temples of power but also in the midst of society. Protecting our society equally concerns your interests and those of your children and grandchildren.
6. We believe we stand on the right side of history. But we also understand that our own reason has its limitations, that we cannot claim a monopoly on the truth. We believe social progress must be the product of many forces coming together, and so we respect all efforts to promote peaceful change, wherever they arise – regardless of whether they emerge from within the system, or outside of it. At the same time, we understand that we cannot be rigid in our beliefs, that we must always ask whether we have gone too far and lost sight of original intentions, or whether our goals and methods are at odds. This is why we invite the scrutiny of society, understanding that criticism is the best form of counsel. But we will never yield in the face of despotic power. Despotic power, in fact, will only steel our determination. Persecution and suffering will only galvanize our fighting spirit. We are not prophets. We are not heroes. We are not sages. We are ordinary human beings, flawed like the rest, but more than that we are citizens awakened. The decisive power of peaceful change lies with the millions of citizens who have awakened. We are content to be individuals among them, to be a part of the New Citizen Movement, to stand with Xu Zhiyong. There is no amount of intimidation or bribery that can divide us.
In the midst of Xu Zhiyong’s difficulties, this is our statement. For Xu Zhiyong, for all of our brothers and sisters, and for ourselves.
SIGNED by the following Chinese citizens:
Wang Gongquan (王功权) — Beijing, investor
Xiao Shu (笑蜀) — real name, Chen Min, Guangzhou, media professional
我们对于许志永事件的声明
我们，新公民运动的参与者，在新公民运动发起人许志永博士被有关当局刑拘之际，必须站出来声明我们的立场，义不容辞。
第一， 首先必须抗议有关当局。此次拘押之前，许志永博士已经被软禁达三个月之久，而未经任何司法程序。这是非法限制人身自由的典型案例，我们忍无可忍但仍保持了最大克制。现在，我们再不能忍受，因为我们的克制并没能换来有关当局的克制，回头反思，恰恰纵容了有关当局滥用权力。为了捍卫许志永博士的人权与公民权，为了不再纵容有关当局在错误的道路愈走愈远，我们必须对有关当局破坏法制尤其侵犯人权与公民权的错误行为公开说不。否则我们就没有尽到我们对于许志永博士守望相助的责任以及我们作为公民监督制约公权力的义务，我们就对不起自己的良心。
第二， 我们认为有关当局非法软禁乃至刑拘许志永博士是错误的，但是作为公民，我们充分尊重法律，愿意在法制的轨道上解决问题。也提请有关当局充分尊重自己制定的法律，而不是玩弄法律。为此，我们希望许志永案件得到每个细节上都完全符合现代法治标准的公平的、公开的、独立的审理，而不受政治干预以及任何潜规则的支配。许志永博士的法定权利必须得到充分保障，律师的辩护权必须得到充分保障，公众的知情权尤其媒体的自由报道权必须得到充分保障。我们呼吁公众在此环节最大力度地关注和监督有关当局，呼吁中外媒体基于新闻专业主义的立场负责任地报道一切。关注就是力量，围观改变命运。
第三， 许志永博士是新公民运动的发起人，但新公民运动的特点之一是自由的，平等的，作为发起人的许志永博士也只是新公民运动的一个平等的参与者。新公民运动不会因为许志永博士遭受厄运而丧失动力，我们会在宪法和法律的范围内，尽我们作为普通公民的微薄的力量，继续推进新公民运动。
第四， 我们理解的新公民运动，其历史使命不外两点，其一是政治的，即推动整个国家通过和平之途朝向宪政转型；其二是社会的，即推动整个社会从所谓“人民社会”即实质上的臣民社会，朝向公民社会的现代转型。所谓宪政，其要旨无非保障人权和约束公权，为此，我们已经推动了呼吁全国人大批准《人权与公民权利国际公约》之公民联署，以及敦促官员财产公示之公民联署；而在社会层面，我们则推动了以争取随迁子女就地高考为内容之教育平权运动。我们之继续推动新公民运动，仍基于这两点。我们知道路阻且长，但我们不会背弃自己的信念，放弃自己的努力。
第五， 我们坚信，这样的新公民运动不是敌意，而是善意；不是破坏，而是建设。而这样的善意和建设，正是当下中国最需要的。当下中国被破坏被污染的不只是自然环境，社会人文环境之破坏和污染更逼近极限，保卫社会更刻不容缓。这样的善意和建设，终极价值即在于保卫社会。也就是说，新公民运动是一场民间主导的社会革新运动，具有革命性意义但不是传统的革命，尤其不是“革命的根本问题是政权问题”之列宁式革命；不以政权为目的，而以健全公共生活、培育公民气质、促进公民合作为内容之持久的公民训练。基于这一立场，我们呼吁更多同胞告别恐惧，加入我们的行列，从我做起，从现在做起，从所有可能的空间来扩大公民训练，以点滴之善推动改变，为我们自己也为子孙后代，营造一个宜于人居的社会人文环境。我们尤其呼吁有关当局停止对新公民运动的打压，因为你们不仅身居庙堂，你们也在社会之中，保卫社会也与你们自己和你们的子孙后代的福祉攸关。
第六， 我们相信我们站在历史正确的一边，但我们更清楚自己理性上的有限，并不认为自己垄断了真理。我们相信社会进步是合力作用的结果，所以我们尊重推动和平转型的所有努力而无论其来自哪个方向——无论来自体制内还是体制外。我们同时更愿意时刻检讨自己，随时准备纠正自己的错误，决不固执己见、偏于一端，随时警惕自己是否走得太远而忘了初衷，是否目的与手段相悖。为此我们欢迎社会监督，我们承认批评就是最好的提醒。但是我们决不屈服于强权。恰恰相反，强权的压迫只会使我们更坚韧，迫害和磨难只会更激励我们的斗志。我们不是先知，不是英雄，不是圣贤，我们是有毛病甚至是有严重缺点的常人，但我们更是觉醒了公民。千千万万觉醒了的公民才是和平转型的决定性力量，我们愿做其中的一分子，愿做新公民运动的一分子，愿跟许志永博士站到一起。任何威胁利诱，都不能把我们分离。
在许志永博士危难之际，我们谨此声明如上。为许志永博士，为所有亲爱的同胞，更为我们自己。
中国公民：王功权（北京，投资人）
笑 蜀（真实姓名陈敏，广州，媒体人）

There is a long-running debate in China about the regime of “stability preservation” — deep government spending to maintain domestic security by intercepting rights defenders and suppressing dissent — and whether it maintains stability or undermines it in the longer term. [More HERE and HERE].
For several years running, China’s spending on domestic security has surpassed its military spending, suggesting “stability preservation,” or weiwen (维稳), is a massive drain on resources.

[ABOVE: Are grassroots officials in China now handling too much? Environmental protection. Work safety. Economic development. And on top of it all, stability preservation. Image from Caixun.com.]
A recent letter of resignation posted to the internet by the deputy head of a township-level government in Sichuan now has many wondering about the immense pressures placed on the daily work of grassroots government officials by the stability preservation mandate. On July 5, The Beijing News published an interview with the deputy township leader, who estimated that a third of his work time was taken up by stability preservation:

A 28 year-old deputy township head in the city of Luzhou in Sichuan province resigned his post on July 1. He posted his feelings on the internet saying that over his past two years serving as deputy township head he had spent about four months a year doing stability preservation work (维稳) and only about four months doing “real things.” Aside from facing immense pressure and having a low income, there was the problem of “values” (价值观). He said that to this day the question remains for him: “I wonder if some stability preservation work is really about maintaining the stable development of the local economy, or whether it’s for the sake of [officials] maintaining their posts” (保帽子).
He said that he planned to become a lawyer after his resignation. . .
The Beijing News: Why did you decide to resign?
Deputy Township Head: It was a decision in the works for a long time. The choice to resign my official post as deputy township head was made rationally by weighing the advantages and disadvantages. There were two basic reasons. First, grassroots [government] affairs is so complex, and the pressure is immense. It’s tough and its hard to see any real results in the short term. It’s hard to accomplish anything through your own efforts alone. Secondly, the pay is low. My wages were just enough to pay for formula and diapers for my child. After working for six years I still relied on my parents to support my family.
The Beijing News: You said in your letter of resignation that this was also a question of values, that you couldn’t apply your personal values in your work. What did you imagine back then when you were selected to serve as deputy township head?
Deputy Township Head: After I finished my undergraduate in 2006, I worked on building projects in Guangzhou for a bit of time. Life on the go was really unstable. In 2007 I started working in the court system after taking employment examinations. I worked as a judge for a few years. It was later that I was successfully elected deputy township head.
My idea was that by serving as a judge or as a government official I might be able to use my work to advance justice and do good things for the people, helping the local [government] to improve the living environment and make sure people can benefit from their hard work. But in my six years of experience as a public servant I discovered that this was in fact not the case.
My work was extremely difficult, and the work of the grassroots cadres all around was extremely difficult, but change was very slow — it was hard to see any real results. For example, I cared a lot about transportation issues. I involved myself in road network construction, and projects started but couldn’t make progress. I was really disappointed.
The Beijing News: When did you start thinking about resigning? And what was it finally that drove you to resign?
Deputy Township Head: It was in January this year. My exhaustion had built up a long time. I was mentally and physically exhausted.
There was one thing that really affected me. From the second half of last year to January this year I spent most of my time and energy watching the Liu brothers, who were busy petitioning, but ultimately I was disciplined with an administrative warning (行政警告) because five people petitioned. This year too I went many times to cities outside the region to do stability preservation work [NOTE: He means he had to go deal with petitioners traveling to other cities with complaints originating in his township]. Every time I went out for stability preservation work I had to set other tasks aside.
The Beijing News: How much of your work time was taken up with stability preservation?
Deputy Township Head: I wasn’t specially tasked with stability preservation. The areas I was responsible for were safety, law-based administration, land issues — there was a lot of complicated stuff to do. But stability preservation took a big chunk of my time. Based on my experience, about four months out of every year is taken up with stability preservation. About two months are taken up with dealing with materials for inspections [by superiors], and another two months for meetings, study sessions, etcetera. So that leaves only about four months to do real work.
The Beijing News: Did stability preservation have a big impact on your work?
Deputy Township Head: Stability preservation wasted a lot of my time and energy. I wanted to do more real work. I wonder if some stability preservation work is really about maintaining the stable development of the local economy, or whether it’s for the sake of [officials] maintaining their posts.
The Beijing News: What gave you the most pressure in doing grassroots work?
Deputy Township Head: I was responsible for safety, and I had to cover everything from on-the-job safety to the general safety of the population and their property. Work on safety is also the most high-risk of government jobs. No matter how hard you work there’s no way to foresee how some accident might mean you’re held responsible.
The Beijing News: What did you find hardest about your work?
Deputy Township Head: I had no way to take care of my family. My son wasn’t even a year old. My wife and parents lived in the city, more than 300 kilometers from where I was working. It was a four-hour drive to head back home once a week. I often went home on Saturday nights. I would have to head back first thing Sunday. From May until the time I resigned there was almost two months in which I didn’t have a day off.
The Beijing News: Can you tell us exactly what you’re salary was?
Deputy Township Head: Every month my salary was 3,046 yuan, with a housing allowance of 422 yuan a month and phone subsidies of 400 yuan. At the end of the year I could look forward maybe to a performance bonus of several thousand yuan. But every month my son went through at least four packs of diapers at 138 yuan a pack, and four cans of formula at 209 yuan each (total 1,388). I don’t smoke or play cards. I don’t buy my own liquor. I still depended entirely on some support from my parents.
The Beijing News: How do you view your last six years as a public servant?
Deputy Township Head: I don’t deny that I’ve gained a lot from the last few years of work as a public servant. As a judge I tried more than 100 cases a year. And as a public servant I was able to do a few real things for the people. I don’t see myself as someone standing against the system, nor am I an idealist. I see myself as a rationalist. I decided to change my life. This was a rational choice.
The Beijing News: What impact did your resignation have on your colleagues and your family?
Deputy Township Head: At first my family didn’t agree, but when I explained the economic reasons to them they understood. My leaders also advised me, saying I shouldn’t be too anxious, that I should slow down, that work can only be done step by step. But I couldn’t wait anymore. Ultimately, leaders respected my personal choice.

In January this year, Xi Jinping pledged to deal aggressively with corruption. He said the Chinese Communist Party would “strike tigers as well as flies,” meaning it would pursue corruption cases involving high-ranking officials as well as small-time crooks. The above cartoon, posted by artist Lao Xiao (老肖) to Sina Weibo, the hand of the CCP tries to deal with a fly of corruption. But the swatter of “punishment” (惩) in the Party’s hand is so small it is hopeless against the massive fly.

The 5:1 loss of the China men’s soccer team to Thailand on June 15 resulted in riots online and offline as fans vented their frustration over a series of setbacks for its national team in the world’s most popular sport. As disappointed fans poured onto social media to voice their anger, a joke dialogue between China and Thailand summed up frustration not just over the sucking sound of Chinese soccer, but over all of the patchy vulnerabilities in the country’s professed greatness.

China: We have 5,000 years of history!
Thailand: Your team was abused 5:1.
China: We have an area of 9.6 million square kilometres.
Thailand: Your team was abused 5:1.
China: One in every five people in the world is Chinese!
Thailand: Your team was abused 5:1.
China: Can’t we talk of something other than men’s football?
Thailand: You’re beaten down by local government officials every day.
China: …
Thailand: You eat toxic food every day.
China: …
Thailand: You suck in toxic air.
China: …
Thailand: Even if you struggle for a lifetime you can’t afford a house.
China: Let’s continue talking about the football team, OK?
Thailand: Your team was abused 5:1.”

In the above cartoon, posted by artist Zhu Senlin (朱森林) to Sina Weibo, China is depicted as a “paper tiger” of sports prowess, a body cobbled together with paper money and draped with an arrogant red banner that reads: “Sporting Giant!”

Blind activist and Chinese exile Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚), whose unhappy departure from New York University after a year-long fellowship there has recently kicked up a stink, arrived in Taiwan yesterday for a speaking tour. The news of Chen’s trip to Taiwan was heavily censored on Chinese social media.

The following post made to Sina Weibo after 6:33pm yesterday, June 23, shares an online Chinese-language report from France’s RFI about Chen Guangcheng’s visit to Taiwan. The post emphasizes the headline which reads: “Chen Guangcheng arrives in Taiwan today to experience a democratic environment first-hand.”
The Sina Weibo post was deleted sometime before 9:14pm yesterday, surviving for about three hours. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

Seeking Truth, an official journal of the central CCP leadership, has run a new piece criticizing the use of the internet to attack the government and spread negativity about China.
The piece, which attempts to analyze the logic (or illogic) and ethos of China’s internet, concludes:

We must have an accurate grasp of online public opinion. The government must . . . see online public opinion as a way to understand the popular mood . . . At the same time, we must recognise that China’s mainstream are those who are busy going to work everyday, those employees busy at their jobs; they are those men and women pushing their carts at the supermarket; they are those strolling at the park on the holidays. In the online world, they are the silent majority, and they are the principal part of our modern society. . . When a voice emerges, one must ask who that voice represents, and how many people it can represent. One cannot listen to the wind and simply assume there is rain.

Seeking Truth, however, seems not to realize those people at the supermarket and strolling through the park are increasingly using smartphones.

Still wondering what Xi Jinping’s new buzzword, the Chinese dream, is all about? Well, the Red Flag journal, a sister publication of the CCP’s official Seeking Truth, continues this week with its series on what the Chinese dream IS NOT.
This latest theoretical rant, written by Yu Zhong (喻中), the head of the School of Law at Capital University of Economics and Business, is called, “‘The Chinese Dream’ and the Choosing of a Road to Democratic Politics.” The basic gist of the piece is that constitutionalism — the recent bugbear of China’s leadership — is a notion inferior and subordinate to the Chinese dream.
The logic that equates the Chinese dream with the “dream of constitutionalism” just as the American dream is associated with constitutionalism, says Yu, is “far too much of an oversimplification.”
Of course, he conveniently ignores the fact that few, if any, inside China who are talking about the issue of constitutionalism are talking about imitating the United States (Just read one of the articles originating the idea of “constitutionalism” and the Chinese dream this year and see for yourself.) Instead, they are talking about China living up to the constitution it already has.

It would be an act of kindness to say that Yu Zhong’s piece makes an argument. Here, for example, is one of several tasty morsels of nonsense he offers up:

The history of China over the past half-century has shown that “constitutionalism” is sometimes the “English dream” (英国梦), and sometimes the “Russian dream” (俄国梦), etcetera. This shows us that the patterns and experience of “constitutionalism” are pluralistic and diverse. In different ages, under different environments, different people have different “dreams of constitutionalism”. While they are all talking about “constitutionalism,” the constitutionalism you are dreaming about in a specific time and place is possibly different from the constitutionalism they are dreaming about in their own time and place. You can see that “the dream of constitutionalism” is not a uniform, clear and specific dream.

This isn’t an argument at all. It’s a common-sense platitude — like saying, “One size doesn’t fit all!” — thrown out as a rhetorical distraction. If this were logic, we could as easily use Yu’s “argument” to undue one of the CCP’s most unassailable political concepts, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”:

The history of China over the past half-century has shown that “socialism” is sometimes the “English dream” (英国梦), and sometimes the “Russian dream” (俄国梦), etcetera. This shows us that the patterns and experience of “socialism” are pluralistic and diverse. In different ages, under different environments, different people have different “dreams of socialism”. While they are all talking about “socialism,” the socialism you are dreaming about in a specific time and place is possibly different from the socialism they are dreaming about in their own time and space. You can see that “the dream of socialism” is not a uniform, clear and specific dream.

The core of Yu’s patronizing sally is the same irrational current of cultural subjectivity that underscores much of Chinese nationalism — the warm-breasted conviction that China is special and works by its own parallel universe of rules.
The notion of cultural subjectivity comes through clearly in this passage from Yu Zhong. Comb through the bluster and you realize he’s saying one thing only, that China is different and everyone needs to respect that. Admitting China’s uniqueness and its need to assert that uniqueness as a matter of cultural sovereignty, we have to admit that constitutionalism, a Western idea, is an assault on Chineseness:

In an age of pluralism, we must see that democracy and freedom have different meanings in different language environments. Under the banner of democracy, we have representative democracy, deliberative democracy, direct democracy, indirect democracy, and other forms of democracy. Under the banner of freedom, we have positive freedom, negative freedom, and also other types of freedom. These differences in freedoms and democracies remind us that we need to see our own process of the building of democratic politics (民主政治建设) and political reform through a different and compatible way of thinking. On this question, [the famous scholar] Fei Xiaotong (费孝通) said it best: “If people appreciate their own beauty and that of others, and work together to create beauty in the world, the world will live in harmony.”
Different countries have different dreams, and the dreams of different countries should “live in harmony.” In the current language environment, we can say more concretely and directly that the Chinese dream and the American dream should “appreciate the beauty of one another.” That kind of thinking that sees the American dream as representing the “dream of constitutionalism”, and then uses the “dream of constitutionalism” to represent the Chinese dream is a kind of cultural lack of confidence and a form of “lazy thinking” (懒汉思维).

This of course is “lazy thinking” at its most refined. Political conservatism — and ultimately the repression of rights and freedoms — is couched in the language of cultural preservation.
It’s not a surprise at all, then, that section three of Yu’s article leads us into a more detailed discussion of the “confidence” that must underlie the Chinese dream.

3. Where does confidence about the “Chinese dream” come from?
One necessary condition of understanding the Chinese dream is the emergence of cultural confidence. Without cultural confidence, there is no Chinese dream to speak of. So-called cultural confidence means establishing confidence about Chinese culture and its future. What is the premise of cultural confidence? Where does confidence in the Chinese dream come from? I believe the “great history” of Chinese culture can provide support for confidence in the Chinese dream.

Yu follows with a brief discussion of the history of Chinese culture, and the two major incursions of “Western culture,” in the form of Buddhism’s arrival from India in the 2nd century, and the arrival of Western Christian culture in the 19th century. He concludes with this affirmation of the future of Chinese culture:

At present, European and American culture may seem to have great attraction, and it may seem to represent a “conclusion” or “ultimate form” of human civilization. But change is the nature of things. Fundamentally speaking, while Chinese culture may assimilate European and American culture, Chinese culture will not become a replica of European and American culture. After Chinese culture has assimilated European and American culture, it will only become richer and more inclusive, and it will at the same time have greater vitality. This is the foundation of Chinese cultural confidence, and it is a precondition for our achievement of the Chinese dream.

This notion of “cultural subjectivity,” or wenhua zhutixing (文化主体性), is at work at the heart of Chinese nationalism — which in turn is the only tangible core meaning of Xi Jinping’s Chinese dream. The dream of national rejuvenation. The rise of China in all of its glorious uniqueness.
The problem, as I see it, is that the ideology of uniqueness is being advanced in order to repress the creative instincts of Chinese society and enforce a culture of unity. For all its rhetorical lightness and buoyancy, the Chinese dream has become a political colossus. How many native dreams will Xi Jinping crush to serve this tyranny of uniqueness?
Chinese historian Yuan Weishi perhaps summed up the pitfalls of “uniqueness” as a political value best when he wrote in 2007:

If we talk grandly about subjectivity, regardless of our ultimate designs, in the end we can only be of use to champions of nationalism and we will produce ideological trash.

[ABOVE: In this cartoon posted to the internet and Chinese social media, the artist depicts the Chinese Communist Party as a naked man sleeping sweetly and dreaming on a bed surrounded by the masses. The cartoon asks: whose dream is this exactly?]

The Snowden case has climbed the news charts rapidly in China over the past 72 hours. On Monday, June 10, there was just one story logged for the keyword “Snowden” (斯诺登) in mainland Chinese newspapers and newswires (WiseNews Database). That story, from China News Service — the country’s number two official newswire after Xinhua — ran under the headline, “American Intelligence Surveillance Case Whistleblower is Hiding in Hong Kong, Fears Capture.”
Today, June 13, there are 64 stories in China called up by the keyword “Snowden.” For those of you who need the simple visual, the four day news curve looks like this:

Looking at today’s coverage, it seems there is a mix of sources, although the major ones cited are still Xinhua News Agency, China News Service and People’s Daily Online (most of these based on foreign news coverage). Commercial newspapers seem to have been given a green light — or, at the very least, the light is stuck on yellow — and they are taking advantage, some using foreign news sources liberally.
China News Service has released 16 separate reports today on the case. Headlines include: “International View: Revelation of ‘Surveillance-Gate’ Puts the US Government in a Tight Spot”; “American ‘Surveillance-Gate’ Whistleblower: China and Hong Kong Have Long Been Targets of US Surveillance”; “Snowden Surfaces Again to Make Clear: He is Neither a Traitor Nor a Hero”; “Whistleblower Hiding in Hong Kong is a Test of US-China Relations: America Vexed By Whistleblower”; “Chinese Media Say America Has Extended the Hand of Anti-Terrorism Too Far.”
First Financial Daily (第一财经日报) appears to be the only newspaper that chose to put the Snowden story on its front page today [See right-hand column].

The news column, under the headline “Empire of Surveillance” (监视帝国), is written by Pan Yinru (潘寅茹), and summarizes many of the details in the Snowden case reported by international media over the past few days. The reporter, for example, introduces the NSA’s “boundless informant” program on the basis of “information this reporter obtained directly from the website of the Guardian newspaper.”
In an article on page A20 today, the Southern Metropolis Daily draws on numerous foreign news sources, including televised reports by ABC and CBS, to summarize the Snowden case and the “Prism” program. It reports also on the legal action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the US government.
The liberal use of American news sources by Chinese media adds perhaps a touch of irony to the case. Back in April, Chinese authorities tightened restrictions on the use of information from foreign media and websites. But here is the China News Service today in a report called, “US Whistle-blowing Hero Hiding in Hong Kong Becomes Problem in US-China Relations.” The report is based unashamedly on coverage by China’s Global Times newspaper that relies in turn on foreign news reporting:

America’s Wall Street Journal says that “the fate of the leaker of US surveillance programs may rest with Beijing” . . . Voice of America raised doubts on June 11th . . .
Voice of Russia said on June 11th that a number of American experts believe that Snowden could be a priceless secret informant if he was transfered to [the custody] of Beijing. The same day, America’s Foreign Policy journal said “Snowden would not become an intelligence asset for China” . . .
America’s Los Angeles Times on June 11th called Snowden “Hong Kong’s most famous refugee” . . .

On page 13 today, Shenzhen’s Daily Sunshine (晶报) runs a piece patched together from CNN’s interviews with Glenn Greenwald, the American journalist and Guardian columnist who has been central to the Snowden revelations, and the Guardian‘s Ewan MacAskill.
The Shenzhen Commercial News runs the Snowden story on page eight today with the headline, “Europe Seeks Explanation from America” (欧洲向美国讨说法). The story is sourced from Xinhua and People’s Daily Online. “Snowden is a Hero!” declares the image accompanying the report.

Whether or not Snowden is a hero, of course, is a matter of divided opinion. But as China New Service faithfully reports — relying, naturally, on a Reuters/Ipsos poll — one in three Americans see Snowden as a patriot.

China’s “urban management officers”, or chengguan (城管), a non-police force charged with keeping urban areas across the country orderly and clean (i.e, free of peddlers, migrant workers, illegal building structures), have a reputation for unruliness and viciousness. In a recent case of violent “management” by urban management officers that shook the whole country, officers viciously attacked the owner of a bicycle store in Yan’an, Shaanxi province, even jumping on his head. Following the incident, the official Global Times newspaper urged people to point the finger at individual violators, not at the entire urban management system. In this cartoon, posted by artist Lao Xiao (老肖) to Sina Weibo, viewers are presented with a mock quiz in which a blank is followed by the character for “management”, or guan (管) — visually rendered with striking fists, kicking feet and flying fruit (a clear reference to chengguan violence against street peddlers in China) — and viewers are asked to fill in the first character. Lao Xiao’s quiz underscores the absurdity of the idea that chengguan maintain order in the city at all. In many cases, indeed, they are a source of disorder..