Chinese media reported in mid June 2012 that the city of Hangzhou in Zhejiang province has issued new regulations on migrant workers demanding migrants hold a high school degree in order to obtain a residence permit, or juzhuzheng (居住证). Migrants must also be able to show that they have a stable work in the city and no criminal record. In the following cartoon, posted by artist Cao Yi (曹一) to Sina Weibo on June 18, a street cleaner sweeps the migrant rubbish (rural migrants who don’t meet the high school degree threshold) into the sea outside the city of Hangzhou with a broom made out of the cleaner’s own “high school degree”.

The following post sharing a quote and picture from well-known CCTV anchor and former China Media Project fellow Chai Jing (柴静) was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 12:35pm Hong Kong time today, June 22, 2012. The post was made by Zatan Wuwei (杂谈五味), a user with just over 10,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

The post reads:

[Tyranny must fall] “Why must authoritarian [regimes] necessarily fall? That’s because authoritarian system do not have the capacity to housekeep themselves, and the wicked will not withdraw of their own will. Authoritarian systems can only become more and more sordid, more and more bloated. Democracy, on the other hand, is a political form that does have the capacity to clean its own house and to root out the wicked. And so [democracy] can continue to develop” — Chai Jing, CCTV anchor

The original Chinese post follows:

【专制必然倒台】“专制为什么必然倒台？那是因为专制制度不具有自我清洁能力，恶人不会自己退出，专制体制只能越来越肮脏，越来越臃肿；而民主，是具有自我清洁能力的政治制度，淘汰恶人的制度。所以能够持续发展。”—中国中央电视台主持人 柴静

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.

The following post showing Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未) dressed up in a public security bureau uniform was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 7:05am Hong Kong time today, June 22, 2012. The post was made by Sunny Lee (李成贤), a journalist for The Korea Times. Lee currently has just over 10,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

The post reads:

Is he a good cop or a bad cop?

International media reported this week that Ai Weiwei, one of China’s most recognized artists and dissident thinkers, was barred by police from attending a court hearing concerning tax evasion charges against him that some say are politically motivated.

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.

China’s State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT), the government office charged with regulation and control of broadcast media and film, announced today that it was launching a three-month nationwide campaign to “combat news extortion and clean up paid-for news.” According to a news release posted to SARFT’s official website today, a notice on the campaign was sent out to broadcast authorities at the provincial level on June 13.
The news release on the action cites specifically the need to “create a favorable climate for the successful opening of the Party’s 18th National Congress” later this year. The action, which was apparently coordinated by the Central Propaganda Department, also involves the General Administration of Press and Publications, the office that controls and regulates print media — suggesting this is a unified national program affecting all media.
Both news extortion (in which media use the threat of supposed investigative reporting to pressure relevant parties to pay cash or take out advertising contracts) and paid-for news (in which soft content is placed for pay and not marked clearly as advertising) have become serious problems in China’s highly commercialized media environment.
But while official actions, like the present SARFT campaign, tend to focus on media corruption as an outcome of poor personal ethics and insufficient ideological training, some of the chief causes are institutional. Newspapers and broadcast media, most of which remain connected to official Party and government organs (through supervising institutions, for example), are often incentivized to cash in on the convenience of their official or quasi-official status, or “rent-seek” — particularly as the would-be rewards of real professional reporting are often erased by news and propaganda controls.
In the past, ostensible campaigns to combat “news extortion,” “fake news”, “paid-for news” and other forms of media corruption have also been used to target legitimate hard news or investigative reporting. The timing of this campaign ahead of the 18th National Congress of the CCP might suggest a general vigilance by the authorities over news content regarded as sensitive, and that might upset the CCP session.
The announcement from SARFT begins:

On June 13, the State Administration of Radio Film and Television sent out “Notice on the Carrying Out of a Special Campaign to ‘Combat News Extortion and Clean Up Paid-for News'” to broadcast authorities in the provinces, autonomous regions and centrally-administered municipalities . . . The notice said that, according to unified arrangements by the Central Propaganda Department, in order to further regulations the order of news collecting and editing, and preserve the credibility and authoritativeness of news work, creating a favorable climate for the successful opening of the Party’s 18th National Congress, the General Administration of Press and Publications and other relevant departments will effective immediately carry out a three-month campaign to “combat news extortion and clean up paid-for news”.

The full Chinese text of the notice follows:
关于开展“打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻”专项行动的通知
6月13日，广电总局向各省、自治区、直辖市广播影视局，新疆生产建设兵团广播电视局，中央三台、电影频道、中国教育电视台发出《关于开展“打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻”专项行动的通知》（广发〔2012〕46号），通知说，按照中宣部统一部署，为进一步规范新闻采编秩序，维护新闻工作公信力和权威性，为党的十八大胜利召开营造良好氛围，国家新闻出版总署等有关部门将从现在开始开展为期3个月的“打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻”的专项行动。专项行动的基本任务是：严厉打击假冒新闻机构和采编人员开展“新闻采访”活动及利用“新闻采访”活动敲诈勒索的行为。治理新闻采编人员利用采访活动谋取利益，或接受采访对象、单位、利益相关方和公关公司“红包”等不良现象。治理新闻机构及其工作人员以新闻报道形式发布广告，搞有偿新闻、有偿不闻的行为，规范新闻采访活动秩序，清除新闻工作中存在的不正之风。
近年来，全国广播电视系统认真组织“三项学习教育”和“走转改”活动，严格有关制度和规范，加强职业道德建设，树立了广播电视媒体的良好社会形象。但是，社会上不时出现一些不法分子利用或假借广播电视新闻采访活动进行敲诈牟利，损害了广播电视的良好声誉；个别广播电视从业人员违纪违规，成为队伍中的害群之马。全国广电系统要认真贯彻落实专项行动的有关部署要求，并结合自身行业特点，积极做好宣传报道、制度建设、内部管理等工作。具体事项通知如下。
一、深入宣传引导，为“打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻”专项行动提供有力舆论支持
（一）中央三台、各上星播出广播电台电视台频率频道和各省级广播电台电视台地面主频率（频道）要在重要时段节目突出宣传报道专项行动的重要意义、目标任务和工作安排，介绍新闻机构和采编人员开展新闻采访活动的有关管理规定，展示有关部门打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻、有偿不闻的有效做法和成效，树立主流媒体严格执行有关规定、遵守职业道德准则的正面形象，形成打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻的强大舆论声势。
（二）各电台电视台要积极宣传有关部门和新闻单位规范制度规定、强化有效管理，及时报道治理有偿新闻、有偿不闻等违规行为的新经验、新做法、新典型。
（三）中央人民广播电台、中央电视台要积极开展舆论监督，可组织记者深入调查采访，揭露社会上假媒体假记者行骗事例；对新闻单位个别媒体人员违法违规行为典型案例，可按统一安排部署予以曝光。
二、严格执行各项管理规定，严肃查处违法违规行为
各级广播电视播出机构要认真贯彻执行中宣部等四部门印发的《关于禁止有偿新闻的若干规定》（中宣发〔1997〕2号）和《中宣部、国家广电总局、新闻出版总署关于新闻采编人员从业管理的规定（试行）》（中宣发〔2005〕29号））等规范性文件。同时，要根据新形势和新问题，不断完善内部管理机制，切实采取有力措施坚决抵制有偿新闻、有偿不闻等违法违规行为。
（一）广播电视新闻类节目的采访、编辑、播出等任何环节，广播电视机构及其工作人员不得以任何方式向节目涉及任何方面、个人收取任何费用。
（二）广播电视新闻类节目工作人员不得从事或参与营利性活动，不得在企业或其他营利性组织中兼职取酬。
（三）新闻报道与广告必须严格区别，新闻报道不得收取任何费用，不得以新闻报道形式为企业或产品做广告。
（四）新闻报道与赞助必须严格区分，不得利用采访和新闻报道拉赞助。
（五）各级广播电台、电视台必须坚持新闻真实性原则，不准弄虚作假，不准以个人或小团体的利益决定新闻的取舍，不准利用工作之便或以新闻报道为条件搞交易。
（六）各级广播电台、电视台的编辑、记者在采访、编辑、制作、播出过程中，要廉洁自律、出以公心，不得利用职务之便牟取私利，不得接受宴请和馈赠，不得以新闻采访为名敲诈勒索，不得徇私隐匿应报道的新闻事实。
（七）舆论监督采编人员除正常采访活动外，应尽量避免单独同利益相关方接触，更不得以任何方式与任何方面进行幕后交易或谈判。
（八）各级广播电台、电视台的创收活动，由广告部门和经营部门统一经营管理，编辑、记者不得从事广告业务，从中牟利。
（九）对违反有关规定搞有偿新闻者，除追缴其违规所获钱物，还要视其数额大小和情节轻重依法给予直接责任人相应的行政和党纪处分；触犯刑律的，移送司法机关处理。
（十）对发生新闻敲诈、有偿新闻、有偿不闻等违法违规现象的播出机构，要依法依规追究直接责任人及其分管领导的责任。对多次出现新闻敲诈、有偿新闻、有偿不闻等违法违规现象，严重损害党和政府形象、损害公共利益或造成恶劣社会影响的，还要依法追究播出机构主要负责人责任。
三、建立打击新闻敲诈、治理有偿新闻的长效机制
（一）加强思想教育和制度建设。各级广播电视播出机构要以此次专项行动为契机，与深入开展“三项学习教育”活动相结合，普遍开展一次严肃宣传纪律、遵守职业道德、杜绝新闻行业不正之风的思想教育活动。各级广播电视播出机构要运用讲座、报告、培训班、研讨班、学习考察、经验交流、案例警示等形式，全面开展新闻宣传工作规章制度、新闻工作者从业规范和廉洁自律要求的学习，强化全体干部职工的责任意识和自律意识。各广电播出机构要完善相关制度和机制，如跑口记者参加企业组织的采访活动事先报批制度、记者采访经费保障制度等，从根本上消除有偿新闻滋生的土壤。
（二）接受社会监督。各广播电台、电视台要向社会公示所有持新闻记者证、有新闻采访权的人员名单、社会监督电话和联系电话，方便社会各界对采访活动进行监督，对新闻违法活动进行举报，对新闻采访人员身份进行核实。要设立并公布新闻违法活动的举报电话、邮箱，健全举报及投诉的受理、核实、处置和反馈等程序机制，安排专门部门和人员处理群众举报、投诉，及时反馈核查结果，及时发布处理新闻违法违规活动情况。
（三）开展自查自纠。各广播电视播出机构及干部职工要对照国家广电总局关于禁止有偿新闻的若干规定、关于新闻采编人员从业管理的规定等文件，认真开展自查自纠工作。自查自纠主要围绕以下几个方面进行：本单位及采编人员是否存在索要、收受采访、报道对象或相关利益人、公关公司财物的问题，本单位是否存在以新闻报道形式变相发布广告、利用新闻采访活动索取或收受采访报道对象财物的问题，本单位是否存在新闻报道与广告、发行经营活动未分离的问题，本单位采编人员是否从事或参与营利性活动，是否在企业或其他营利性组织中兼职取酬的问题等，查找存在问题的根源，提出改正的工作措施。
（四）及时沟通情况。中央三台和各省（区、市）广播影视行政部门要认真做好专项行动总结工作，并于专项行动结束后按要求上报。各单位如有采编人员因新闻违法违规受到刑事处罚、行政处罚处理，要及时单独报送相关情况。来源广电总局网站)

Several weeks ago, the Chinese-language Global Times drew widespread opprobrium on Chinese social media for an opinion piece arguing that the Chinese people should accept a “moderate level of corruption,” understanding that the country requires an attenuated period of gradual reform in which some corruption will be inevitable. CMP fellow Yang Hengjun (杨恒均), a former foreign ministry official, offered a rebuttal to that Global Times piece here.
Yesterday, the Global Times again stepped directly into online controversy by running a piece by Zheng Ruolin (郑若麟), the European correspondent for Shanghai’s Wenhui Bao, arguing that China is already “in the orbit of democratic nations.” Zheng argued essentially that while “a number of scholars” have completely overblown the role of elections in democracies, elevating elections to a kind of holy standard, elections are not the be all and the end all.
Fair enough?
What Zheng does not address is who exactly these “scholars” are who have simplistically cast elections as the international democratic gold standard. He sets up a fanatical straw man, which he then proceeds to knock down:

Former French Prime Minister Raffarin once said: “Elections cannot sweep away all of our problems.” Elections cannot erase France’s 1.71 trillion Euro debt. Elections cannot change France’s less than one percent annual GDP growth rate. Elections cannot lower France’s unemployment rate of close to 10 percent.

Yes, Zheng is certainly right. Elections can’t make my breakfast either. But who in the West, or anywhere I wonder, has ever argued such absurdities?

[ABOVE: Wenhui Bao correspondent Zheng Ruolin, author of yesterday’s Global Times piece, appears on a French talk show.]
Global Times editorials are often a treasure trove of grade-school fallacies. But here, at any rate, is another clip for the political reform file ahead of the 18th Party Congress.
Enjoy.

“China Long Ago Entered the Orbit of Democracy” (中国早已进入民主国家的范畴)
Zheng Ruolin (郑若麟)
June 20, 2012
Democracy has been broadly accepted [as an idea]. This is a fact. The core of democracy is “rule of the people, by the people” (以民执政、为民执政). But as there is no way for the people to govern directly, a system of representation become the only option. The way for representative government to emerge is then through elections. But in recent years, a number of scholars have overblown the role of “elections”. “Elections” have been dissimilated into a standard against which moral judgements are made about political legitimacy. This is absurd, and it is dangerous.
Consciously or unconsciously, the question of whether there are elections or not, particularly elections that the West has accepted as legitimate, has been applied as the only standard by which as country is judged to be democratic or not — which, moreover, constitutes a “moral” standard. Political power emerging through elections is democratic, and that which is not is autocratic (专制的). Thereupon, elections are the be all and the end all. National development owes to elections. Everything is good about a country with elections. One election erases a hundred blemishes. If social unrest occurs in a country where there are elections, this is because “elections are not sufficiently free.” If an economic crisis occurs, that is because “elections were not thorough enough.” If crimes occur [within the elected government], if corruption occurs, that is because “elections are not yet sufficiently fair.”
It seems that, beneath this absolutely correct thing that is democracy, these scholars also have an omnipotent thing called the election!
But history has already proven that elective systems are little more than a way for national leaders to emerge. As for any other problem that a country faces, elections are powerless to solve them. Presidential and parliamentary elections recently held in France offer us an enlightening example.
After these two important elections were concluded, a new president emerged in France, along with a new government and a new parliament. Everything changed hands, on both the executive and the legislative sides. These two elections were perhaps as thorough as the French Revolution. And still, aside from a number of details and limited changes — for example, a temporary 30 percent drop in remuneration for the president and his cabinet, a minimum wage increase of .46 Euros per hour, allowing 18 year olds to work, and those of age 60 working for 41 consecutive years to retire — on critical problems facing the country, the elections could not possibly give [President] Hollande a magic wand. Former French Prime Minister Raffarin once said: “Elections cannot sweep away all of our problems.”
Elections cannot erase France’s 1.71 trillion Euro debt. Elections cannot change France’s less than one percent annual GDP growth rate. Elections cannot lower France’s unemployment rate of close to 10 percent. Even less can elections fix the underlying cause of all of these problems — the fact that the “fictitious economy” that financial capital “created” hollowed out the real economy of industrial capitalism.
Nor can elections ensure that a good leader is selected. They can only ensure that a good candidate is selected. Western democracy has already been twisted into “election dissimilation.” Everything revolves around the election. The importance of election capacity far surpasses governing capacity. Hollande is a clear example of this. What makes Western scholars even more anxious is that domestic electorates are the core of elections, but what France and Western countries face are difficulties stemming from globalization. This contradiction has left a gap that is difficult to cross between elections and governing of the country. In this sense, elections have even obstructed the painful reforms that countries need in order to accommodate the global economy. Because voters are opposed [to these reforms]. Therefore, Sarkozy, who carried out some 931 different reforms, was elected out of office.
Some people believe that the most important advantage of elections is that they can keep tyrants from coming to power. Perhaps. But how should we understand the words of University of Paris philosophy professor Rang Salaimu (?), who writes in his book Elections: A Trap for Fools?: “Why would the people of Germany elect Hitler to power? Because what is the majority is not necessarily right!” [NOTE: I could not find the name of the French professor whose name directly rendered in pinyin would be Rang Salaimu (让·撒莱姆), but “Elections: A Trap for Fools” is a political essay written by Jean-Paul Sartre and published in the 1970s. More here.]
Of course, what must be criticized is not the election itself, but the fantasy that “elections are everything” or that “elections can solve everything.” Elections cannot solve the problem of corruption. They cannot solve the problem of high housing cost. They cannot solve the problem of traffic accidents on the expressway. . .
Elections can only help the ruling class find a mantle of legitimacy, and give those who are ruled the feeling of “freedom”, the idea that “my rulers were chosen by me.” This feeling is an extremely important one, and the reason why those who are ruled sometimes accept what can in some cases be extremely unfair rule or rulers. This is one of the important reasons why countries with elections are generally stable.
Therefore, the day will come when we too select our leaders through an elective process. It’s just that before that time we first need to resolve other issues that elections cannot address.
Elections are just the final attribute emerging from democracy, but they are not the principle attribute. Nor are they the ultimate goal of democracy. Once a countries leaders do not come to power by hereditary right, and once they must [as in the case of China] leave office after a set term, then this country is not only already a republic, it has entered the orbit of democratic systems. Because only under a democratic system will leaders leave their positions because their terms have expired. The lowest attribute of democracy is the way that leaders leave office. If we see how leaders come to office as the chief sign of whether or not there is democracy, well then how do we understand the fact that Mubarak [of Egypt] and Ben Ali [of Tunisia], who are continually elected and served in office, were overthrown?
And so, if that Western election standard is applied as determine whether or not [a country is democratic], then China is not a democratic country. But in fact, China already long ago entered the orbit of democratic countries.

The following post about Chinese President Hu Jintao appearing at the G20 summit in Mexico was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 3:42pm Hong Kong time yesterday, June 19, 2012. The post was made by Sichuan CPPCC delegate Fan Jianchuan (樊建川), who currently has just under 237,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].
Fan Jianchuan’s post is accompanied by the following photo of television coverage of the G20 summit in Mexico this week showing Chinese President Hu Jintao. The caption on the television coverage reads: “Hu Jintao meets with German leader: we continue to support the Eurozone.”

The post from Fan Jianchuan reads:

[We continue to support the Eurozone], but aren’t quite so sure how to support it?

The post was presumably removed not for the sensitivity of its remarks but because it contains an image of the Chinese president.
Fan Jianchuan’s original Chinese post follows:

「继续支持欧洲」，不太清楚怎么支持？

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.

On June 16, China’s fourth manned space mission, the Shenzhou-9 capsule, made a successful launch from the Jiuquan spaceport. The three-person crew of Shenzhou-9 included China’s first female astronaut, Liu Yang. The launch was hailed by Chinese media as an overwhelming success. Some Chinese on social media, however, questioned spending on prestige-building endeavors in space when China faces pressing inequalities on the ground. In the following cartoon by artist Ah Ping (阿平), shared widely on Sina Weibo this week, a bedraggled teacher in a clearly dilapidated rural school excitedly explains to his students that the successful launch of Shenzhou-9 is a victory for China, even as the students’ own condition tells the story of another China left behind. The teacher holds up a copy of People’s Daily and says: “With the successful launch of Shenzhou-9, our mother country’s space endeavors have taken a giant leap forward. I’d like all of you students to write a commentary about this!.”
A user from Shandong who shared the cartoon on Sina Weibo wrote: “This cartoon isn’t bad at all . . . What will the flight of Shenzhou-9 really give the ordinary people of China?”
Readers can follow more of the conversation HERE.

On June 11, 2012, China Central Television anchor Cui Yongyuan (崔永元) wrote angrily on his Sina Weibo account that the official response from education authorities in Hunan province to a training session for rural Hunan teachers organized by Cui Yongyuan’s charity fund was: “[We are] not opposed, not in support, and not participating.” In response to these “three No’s”, Cui gave his own furious assessment of education authorities in Hunan: “No effort, no principle, no face!” The story quickly became the focus of a debate over the relationship between the government and charity work. Some criticized Hunan authorities. Others criticized Cui Yongyuan, saying his criticism of authorities had gone too far — or that there was no sense in his seeking out the authorities in the first place.
By nature, I don’t like to jump into the fray. Seldom do I play the spectator when this or that debate rages. So when CCTV anchor Cui Yongyuan denounced the “three No’s” he received from Hunan education authorities in response to his proposed charity training program for teachers, I didn’t pay much attention. When I read subsequent pieces critical of Cui by Guo Yukuan (郭宇宽) and Bin Yingjie (魏英杰), however, I felt I had to make my views known.
First let me talk about the experiences I’ve had myself doing community teaching (支教) that are similar to those of Cui.
One event I took part in was called the “Candle Movement” (燃烛行动), and was organized by Southern Weekly, China Ping’an (中国平安), the Pingxing Charity (平行公益) and the website Healthy Life Ensures in March 2008. The goal of the project was to help substitute teachers who had been discharged before they were formally employed [by the government]. We offered assistance of 5,000 yuan to older teachers who had served in probationary roles for ten years or more and whose families were in a dire financial state. For younger teachers we offered basic professional training in areas like farming, forestry and animal husbandry, helping them find ways to transition their livelihoods.

[ABOVE: Celebrity CCTV anchor Cui Yongyuan, at the center of the latest debate over the role of charity in China — and how exactly citizens should engage with issues that concern them.]
Our limited resources could only be applied selectively. In 2008 and 2009 we focused on Weiyuan County (渭源县) in Guizhou province, and in 2010 we focused on the Guizhou county of Liping (黎平县). The “Candle Movement” went ahead smoothly and successfully.
Last year over Spring Festival, I took part in a “Candle Movement” event Shaanxi province. There were three of us [from Southern Weekend] along with another journalist from Shaanxi.
We went first to pay our respects to the head of the local county education office. Paying our respects was of course essential, otherwise we wouldn’t possibly have been able even to obtain the list of probationary teachers in the area that would allow us to begin our charity work. If we didn’t have the support of the authorities and instead went directly to the towns and villages (town and village education offices have already been disbanded, management happening directly through the principals of core local schools), no one would have had anything to do with us.
Even though prior to our trip we introduced ourselves to provincial education authorities and to local county-level China Red Cross representatives, stressing again and again that we wanted to help out, not to “cause trouble,” the education director remained wary. The fact that we had brought hundreds of thousands of yuan to dole out to dismissed teachers was no threat whatsoever to his political rank and standing. But he had once had a teacher petition at the provincial level, and even though that matter had long ago been settled, he feared inviting further potential trouble.
Getting nowhere with the education director, we made contact with two deputy directors of the local county China Red Cross (because our project had received the support of the China Red Cross) and prepared to visit an adjacent county. The deputy directors quickly contacted the director (typically the person in local areas across China who handles everything), and the director (also the county Party secretary, as it happened) directed education authorities and various departments to support our movement. The education director didn’t dare to obstruct us then, of course.
So next we chose a couple of towns in which to investigate the situation with respect to former substitute [or non-official hire] teachers. Former local education officials and teachers were very much in support of our efforts, and they assisted us in locating those in need of assistance.
We had to make sure the money made it into the hands of those who most needed it, so this process of confirmation was absolutely necessary, and we could not have done it without the cooperation of local authorities. In fact, not all those appearing on the list of substitute teachers provided by provincial education authorities were actually teachers, but had worked as cooks or in other positions. There were also some former teachers who had not been terminated but had left voluntarily for personal or family reasons.
Other Party and government departments in the county were all very much in support of the efforts of the “Candle Movement.” The local Party school offered free facilities for the conduct of training sessions. The agricultural office provided instructors for skills training. The former teachers who took part in our program were all very happy, and they had no intent to “cause trouble.” Never once did they voice their complaints to us.
Let’s move on then to Cui Yongyuan’s “rural teachers training” program (乡村教师培训). Cui’s plan was to select 100 teachers from Hunan to go to Beijing for training. This couldn’t possibly happen without the agreement of education authorities in Hunan province. If Cui’s program were to sidestep provincial education authorities and go directly to the counties, these lower-level officials would be in a tight spot. And without direct approval from local education authorities, few school principals would dare have their teachers attend. Finally, even if teachers were quite eager for the opportunity to go to Beijing and expand their horizons, they wouldn’t dare run off to Beijing without approval from their school principals — even though they’re on summer break.
For authorities, there is the added concern of what kind of place Beijing is. What if these teachers run amuck? There isn’t just the risk that teachers might take past grievances to petition officials in the capital — there is the additional risk that they might talk to journalists. In this day and age, what office at what level anywhere can say for certainty they don’t have ugly secrets hiding in their closets, just waiting to get out?
Clearly, education authorities in Hunan feel uneasy about Cui Yongyuan, a man with a reputation for telling it like it is. Cui says his project has been frustrated at every turn by local authorities in Hunan.
I believe in the words of Chinese poet Hu Shi (胡适), that the struggle for one’s own rights is struggle for the right of the whole nation. And I don’t think Cui Yongyuan was at all out of line when he accused Hunan education authorities of showing “no effort, no principle and no face” in their response to his training program.
What did they mean when they said they “don’t oppose” the training program? What reason could they have for opposing a program in which people pay to help train teachers in their area? They seem to suggest that they have the right to oppose it in the first place, as though Cui should be grateful for their restraint. When someone wants to do a good thing, on what basis would you “not support” it?
But some of the criticism of Cui Yongyuan has itself been a bit off base. Guo Yukuan suggested that if “education authorities take the lead in organizing teacher training, then it will definitely have a very thick official coloring to it.” When did Cui Yongyuan ever talk about having education authorities “take the lead in organizing” the training? What he’s looking for is the approval of the local authorities in carrying out the training to begin with.
Guo also suggested that he and some friends had done training a number of years back for teachers in [privately-run] schools for the children of migrant workers, and that they had never considered going to education authorities for approval. But for education authorities teachers at migrant schools aren’t even afforded the status of “temporary workers” (临时工) — they’re just languishing in obscurity. The comparison of Cui’s training program to Guo’s for migrant school teachers doesn’t stand. And to suggest Cui is just an “imperial envoy of charity” (公益钦差) is unfair.
Bin Yingjie’s views as expressed in his piece, “Cui Should Understand that the Government Not Participating is Encouragement for Non-Governmental Charity” (小崔要明白，政府不参与就是支持民间公益), are quite frankly impractical, completely divorced from the prevailing reality in China today.
Generally speaking, education authorities should “support” teacher training done on a charity basis, and they should be happy to provide assistance for such work. We cannot mistake ideals for reality. As everyone knows, the situation in China right now is “big government and a small society” (大政府、小社会), a “strong government and a weak society” (强政府，弱社会). Non-government organizations and charities are now in their infancy stage, and its not always true that they can effect change without the support and encouragement of the authorities.
Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that China already has a full-fledged civil society.
This is a translated and edited version of an opinion piece originally appearing in Chinese in the Southern Metropolis Daily.
[For more coverage of the recent Cui Yongyuan charity debate, see the June 16 special topic page at QQ.com]

The following post about a riot against alleged police violence in Heilongjiang province was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 5:29pm Hong Kong time yesterday, June 18, 2012. The post was made by writer and journalist Guan Jun (关军), who currently has just over 52,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].
Guan Jun’s post is accompanied by the following composite photo showing what appear to be scenes from a riot in Heilongjiang, in which thousands surrounded police officers allegedly assaulting a motorcycle driver who was not carrying his drivers license.

The post reads:

Heilongjiang has really been in the news lately. A) a derailed train, and then B) a police vehicle overturned and surrounded by thousands.

The first story refers to the derailing of a freight train in Heilongjiang on June 16.
Guan Jun’s original Chinese post follows:

黑龙江今成新闻热点。A，火车脱轨，B，警车被掀，围观者数千

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.

The following post criticizing censorship was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 5:32pm Hong Kong time today, June 4, 2012. The post was made by Zha Liangjun (查良钧), who currently has just over 13,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].
Zha Liangjun’s post, in which “all of you” refers to Chinese leaders, reads as follows:

Do all of you really believe that by plucking off every flower petal you can keep Spring from coming?

Zha’s original Chinese post follows:

你们以为掐掉所有绽放的花朵，春天就不会来么？

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.