王丹和司徒华

司徒华先生于2006年9月访问美国洛杉矶时，和1989年民主运动学生领袖王丹合影。

Imagine Yourself Being Well-Governed, by Bush or CCP

While reading in the library, I came across the following quotations of early anarchist thinkers. They are taken from "Anarchism" by David Miller, London: 1984.

Proudhon's denunciation of the State's intrusion of citizen's life as independent individuals:

“To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” [P.J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. J.B. Robinson (London, Freedom Press, 1923), p. 294. Quoted from Miller, p.6.]

And Bakunin's critique of a future socialist state [all below from Miller, p.10]:

“This government will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker – the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads ‘overflowing with brains’ in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority.” [S. Dolgoff(ed.), Bakunin on Anarchy (New York, Vintage Books, 1972), p. 319. ]

Moreover,

“. . . for the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented working men and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum . . .” [note: ibid., p. 284.]

现实分析与前景预测

黎安友在最近纽泽西的研讨会谈到美国对中国政治前景的观察。其实，这是西方的中国观察通常取的路数：以预测未来为目标，观察分析现状。政府智库的这样着手，学者也不例外，即使是公共知识分子，可以说无分左右，大家熟知的都是这种做法，其中的假设也因而常常忽略不提。所以，这是一种分析进路，无关立场。

更进一步说，这个分析进路其实并不只是应用在中国观察上，而且也是英美区域分析和政治观察普遍使用的方法。也因此，对圈内人来说，其中基本的操作假定已经无须说明，甚至有可能已经成为下意识，根本不去考虑了。不习惯这种分析进路的人，常常会感觉要先帮发言者确定一个政治立场，然后再考虑发言的具体内容，结果成了先划线再站队，很难把注意力集中在观察到的重要现象上。

具体到这次的发言，黎安友认为总体上中共政权的统治在趋于稳定，向制度化发展，这和他前几年的中共中央领导换代时的注重点是一脉相承的。有意思的是，他坦诚自己还不能解释为什么在统治趋于稳定的状况下，中国当局要收紧控制，对维权人士和维权律师大肆逮捕、判刑、迫害。最后，他自己的解释落在中共对颜色革命的恐惧上。从大多数相关评论来看，这确实是关键解释之一。

从这个解释角度来观察，不难看到，中共近两年来的一系列举措，已经更加“稳准狠“地把目标锁定在公民社会的萌芽中。比如说最近有系统地打压维权律师前后，内部还发了文件，要求以后律师接受有关维权性质的案件时，必须要和地方政府配合，在地方政府指导下进行有关办案的活动，否则就要对可能产生的影响社会“和谐“的后果负个人责任。这个文件，各地已经向律师事物所普遍传达。

也就是说，陈光诚、高智晟、郭飞雄等人的被抓被审被判，是静悄悄进行中的大规模控制维权空间战役的一个组成部分。

与此类似的，是新闻控制，这方面，中国政府更有关于控制2008年奥运会期间新闻自由度的考量。因此，在强行以莫须有罪名宣判赵岩、程翔等新闻工作者的同时，又宣布了对外国新闻机构加强控制的措施，引起国际舆论哗然。这个新规定宣布时，温家宝正在欧洲访问，在英国被问到这个问题时，温家宝大力劝说工商界不应为此担忧，保证信息流通绝不会受到影响云云。其中的信息格外明确：只要是经商和消费为重，人们完全不必担心信息流通会受影响。

只要不牵涉到中国境内群众的政治自觉性，再赤裸裸的商业牟利也没关系，中国政府都会上赶着为您服务，而且，在您遇到麻烦时，一定会站在你的一边，帮你把一切摆平，最近的富士康事件就是一个最好的例子。

最后，再比如说突发事件，去年前年，北京政府的公安部都曾特意公布高发统计数字，可是今年，虽然我们还是能够零零散散地得到一些受害平民的报告，而且有确切证据显示，发展到暴力冲突的突发事件还在各地发生，但最近八九个月却没有了这方面的消息。从比较长远的政策目标看，有理由相信，去年年初年底公布的数字，在很大程度上是中央政府与地方政府的博弈剧目之一，目的是让地方政府接受并分担一部分责任，同时帮助地方政府软硬兼施，更灵活地调整政策，防止这类突发事件成为地方上公民社会的雏形。

现在，中共又要允许地方选举了，如果上面的分析大致不错，那么，可以预料，这个姗姗来迟的政治“改革“，一定会伴随着最多也最不光明正大的威胁，直到当局能够成功地从地方选举中剥离出真正的政治参与的内核，同时又继续顶着一个参与的名声。如果说西方对现存民主制度的批判包括反对选民原子化的趋向，那么中共一定会如获至宝，费尽心机把尚未实行的选举办得越是能把选民原子化越好。

［转发］多维专稿：黎安友：美国关于中国政治前景几种看法

黎安友：美国关于中国政治前景几种看法──中美欧学者"问题、前景与选择研讨会"发言独家选登（4）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
多维新闻 2006年9月12日20:51:31(京港台时间)

8月26日、27日，哥伦比亚大学黎安友等中国问题专家，从中 国大陆，北美和欧洲邀请研究中国问题的学者，聚会美国新泽西，举行题为"全球化背景中的中国转型问题"研讨会。会上，具有不同专业领域、学派倾向和职业的 专家，探讨如何解读郎咸平现象，人大搁置物权法草案，西山会议以及风起云涌的所谓群体事件及其之间关联，进而分析中国改革的问题、动力机制、前景与应有的 选择。对于中国存在严重问题，专家高度共识；但对中国问题的动因，前景和解决途径，专家们则热烈讨论。以下是美国哥伦比亚大学政治系主任黎安友 （Andrew Nathan）教授的发言。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我最近在写一个有关裴敏欣即将出版的新书的书评，总结了美国学界关于中国前景的几种典型看法。(chinesenewsnet.com)



一 是Gordon Chang在他的有影响的书Coming Collapse of China（中国即将崩溃）中所表述的看法。按照这种观点，中国会在自身难以解决的问题中备受困扰后崩溃，共产党政权会垮台。Gordon Chang讨论的是加入WTO后的中国困境。类似他的结论还有其他的思路。这些看法被说成是"悲观论"。( chinesenewsnet.com)



二是 Bruce Gilley在他的书China's Democratic Future（中国民主的未来）中表述的观点，中国将在市场化和全球化中发育出一个强大的中产阶层，这个中产阶层要求和支持自由化和民主化；他不认为必须 推翻共产党才能实现民主化，相反他认为在关键时刻共产党内会有民主派出现，他提到赵紫阳、曾庆红、温家宝和吴官正。按照他的预期，中国会发生某种危机，精 英大规模表示不满，然后党内围绕如何解决危机而分裂，在新的舆论情势中所与党派都竞相摈弃威权政体，接受选举。类似Gilley但比他的观点简单的观点还 有许多；他们被称为"乐观论"。( chinesenewsnet.com)



三是我 在2003年表述的观点，现在共产党已经建立了一个有弹性或韧性的威权政体，可以控制问题对他们执政造成的威胁。这里要观察几个现象。首先，经济发展巩固 了现有政权的稳定，也并没有迹象培育出一个可以作为民主化的动力的中产阶级。第二，中国共产党的宣传或者控制宣传还是很有效；在一些重大事件上，你可以发 现中国人并不知道真相，其思考方式和结论虽然与官方宣传不完全一致但有利于官方的统治。第三，全民都在忙于自己个人的发展机会，找个人的谋生路子，一切都 在向钱看；即使有不满意，也可以到别处发展。第四，中国的经济与外交都成功地控制了问题。第五，许多人很不满，但除给基层制造麻烦外，还有些途径表达不 满，如信访、诉讼和控告，虽然不见得有效解决问题，但是提供了宣泄情绪的渠道。最后，这个政权镇压异议运动和声音还是成功的，他们有足够的技术设备和人去 监视和控制及管理外国记者、民运、维权和底层反抗运动。对于这样的政体，我们无法预测其短期命运：崩溃或者转型都还没有定论。( chinesenewsnet.com)



我的理 论无法解释一个现象：如果这个政体稳定，我不懂为什么要对陈光诚、赵岩、东洲民众、法轮功和宗教团体这样残酷地镇压。他们似乎应当有信心，因为这些反对他 们的力量在高层并没有支持者，也就不会对于政权稳定性构成实质性的威胁。根据政治学界的观察，如果没有高层分裂，崩溃和转型都很难发生。中国当局没有道理 在这些处理这些团体和个人时如此不理性和野蛮。( chinesenewsnet.com)



最近有 个动向也许可以解释我的困惑，即中国政府担心"颜色革命"。在中国政府看来，这些内部麻烦与美国的"颜色革命"企图相结合，会构成实质性政治威胁。在美国 确实有许多力量从事针对中国政府的活动，国家民主基金会和国务院对于大陆都有资助；民间也有大量资助；人权团体在舆论界活跃；法轮功和西藏流亡政府在美国 都有基地；热比亚到美国就公开批评中国政府。这些都得到美国民间的支持和政府的容许。但是，多数美国人认为，这样的想法很可笑。美国是多元国家，什么力量 都有；各种力量做什么也不受限制，但各种力量相互平衡，一种想法很难独自获得实现。我必须花很大气力，才能让这些美国人相信，中国当局的担心是认真的，而 不只是借口。然而，即使是认真的，也不是成熟理性的行为；因为这样的错误判断而采取的残暴措施会导致极坏的国际影响和后果。( chinesenewsnet.com)



裴敏欣 的新书与上述看法不同。他关注一些新的问题，或者执政的困境，例如国家能力弱、地方势力坐大等等。但他讨论的是现实困境，可以说是讨论一些暂时现象。从长 远眼光看，这些困境对于政体稳定性导致什么后果，他并没有明确的定论，可能会倒退，可能民主化，也可能是新的分化。( chinesenewsnet.com)



最 后，我要提一下James Mann的最新研究。他原是《洛杉矶时报》的记者。70年代写过北京纪行，后来写过一本从尼克松到布什的中美关系史，近年出版的一本书介绍布什的外交团 队，是美国非小说类的最畅销书之一。他明年有本新书，是关于美国对华政策的，对于上述提到的几种观点有些评价和分析。他说，华盛顿对华政策有两派，一是认 为北京政权肯定会因为自身问题而垮台，二是认为中国肯定会民主化。Mann认为，肯定民主化论和肯定崩溃论都是错的；不过是为美国对于中国的变化不要做任 何事情提供借口；既然都认为不做什么，其实从操作的角度看，也就没有太大的分歧。Mann认为，这样的想法不对；因为你可能早晚要面对一个既不是民主化也 没有崩溃的强大的北京政权。虽然Mann强烈地主张美国不应无所作为地等待，但他也没有说明美国该做什么。他只是在书的最后几页提出，美国应当讨论面对这 样的中国现在和今后该怎么办。他说，甚至断绝关系也应当作为选择之一加以讨论，虽然他认为不应当也不可能真这样做。( chinesenewsnet.com)



总之，美国关于中国的主要看法还是从外部观察的角度讨论问题，而且远没有稳定和明晰的共识

The iPod Case: Media's Relative Immunity and Labor Conditions

Since the London-based Sunday Mail published its feature story about iPod factory in China on June 13, 2006, and since Apple company issued its own investigation report on the situation on August 17, the case seems having lost its momentum in the English-speaking world (amid many other pressingly urgent issues). Not many people know there had been a drama playing out in China. That is, before September 3.



I take it as my duty to inform you that the case has not been concluded satisfactorily, at least not to those who care about labor condition more than about building up harmonious relations between business media and capital interest in China.



To make a long story short, it concerns the contracted manufacturer of Apple’s iPod in China, Foxccon International Holdings of Taiwanese capital. A Chinese newspaper ran a story entitled “Foxccon Employees: Machine Demand You Stand up 12 Hours [in a Row],” and another follow-up story.



Foxccon sued the penning reporter and an editor for libel, without suing at the same time the newspaper. The two had all their personal assets frozen, since Foxccon asked for up to 30 million yuan damage compensation, unheard of in libel cases in China.



A public uproar ensued. Indignation and anger poured upon Foxccon on the internet and printed media. Eventually, Foxccon backed down, lowering its quest from 30 million yuan to a symbolic one yuan on August 31, and three days later issued a joined statement with the newspaper, withdrawing the case completely.



Ironically, Foxccon is one of the first Taiwanese firms in Guangdong that had set up cells of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It has also encouraged member recruitment by the Party Committee active within its premises. Yet, no trade union has been set up. What are those Party members do for the labor class in their factory? Any task that is more ideologically “Communism” than merely supporting the nation, the State, and the government at various level? Oh, yeah, must be things more: they support the capital.



Many people in the West have been debating if China has become a capitalist economy or remained a socialist one. In my view, the best criterion to this question is to see to which side the government’s policy is leaning in conflicts between capital and labor. Applying this to the Foxccon case, it is crystal clear that capital has been favored.



In more than two months when the drama played itself out, the Labor Ministry in Beijing and the municipal Labor Bureau in Shenzhen were conspicuously silent. It’s true the official trade union office in the city spoke out publicly, urging Foxccon to allow its employees to set up trade union branches (not independent unions). However, this has been the only semi-governmental office speaking about the case.



In other words, both the Party and the government have learnt to hide themselves behind the cover of “legal channels” to solve labor disputes. The authorities would do all they could to avoid making public statements, lest they be mistaken as if supporting the not-so-obedient workers in making trouble to capital.



The court is not much better, for capital is capable to manipulate the laws and the court to its own advantage. To single out vulnerable individual for crashing financial cost is but one “innovative” approach capital has created.



And so the media. When capital backed down, to borrow a blogger’s words, the media did not step up its own demand for social justice. Instead, most of the involved rushed to express their self-criticism and praise of the boss of Foxccon. The original content of the published stories were all but forgotten. Similarly forgotten are the workers who have to stand for 12 hours in a row everyday.



This is to say, Foxccon has never formally complained against the title of the first report, though it has done so against the Sunday Mail’s claim of workers working 15 hours each day. Foxccon itself takes pride in running a huge “city of factory” of almost 200,000 employees.



Population of a medium-sized city, living together almost 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, without any civil relations between each other. They are simply “employees” of a gigantic manufacturer. How amazingly classic a picture of capitalist production, of human beings becoming no more than the extension of machines.



I am reminded a French film, whose title has slipped my memory. It starts with two prisoners who, extremely depressed by the strictly controlled life inside prison, attempt an escape, with success. But, the first one running out is not clear if the second one has done it as well. After various tries, this first guy lands himself into working by the assembly line in a huge factory with its own dorm and huge canteen, a setting even more depressing than inside prison, only to discover that its owner is none other than his former inmate.



Or, Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times.



You will not see films of this kind coming out of contemporary China. The government will ban such films before you could have learned any news about it, for such films would no question offend Capital, the best bedfellow of today’s CPC.




-------------------


To help my non-Chinese-speaking friends to grasp the fuller picture of the case, I compiled a document. It reads a bit dry, but with all the background information and a brief chronology in it you’ll be able to come to your own conclusion pretty clearly. The main source for the document is from the website run by China Business News (CBN), based in Shanghai, with its Chinese name literally meaning the “Number One [or, the First] Financial and Business News” (第一财经).



You’d get lost, however, if you try to google it. There are so many pages related to “China/Chinese business news” that it’s impossible to find the “right” one without opening hundreds or even thousands of pages containing something about economic news from China. It testifies to China’s growing importance in this globalizing world.



The good news is, if you know no Chinese, you don’t have to bother – the site is exclusively in Chinese. The bad news is, even if you know Chinese, all references to the case have been blocked, bringing out empty to search attempt through its search service. But the block is not yet absolute. You’d better check it through Google and select a “cached” link, then you can go back to the official – and very extensive and intensive – coverage of the case by the CBN (http://www.china-cbn.com). We can only hope it won’t be blocked completely in the future.




BACKGROUND OF THE TWO PARTIES:



1. The Taiwanese owned firm involved in the case has three layers in its structure: an operational company named Fushijin, wholly owned by Foxconn International Holdings, which is in turn an arm of Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry.


Hon Hai has grown into the largest manufacturing contractor in Taiwan, with its owner, a Mr. Kuo ranked the number one wealthiest Taiwanese, and number 198 in Forbes globally wealthiest list.



The company is still in an expanding process, at a time when some more established Taiwanese firms in electronics are planning to shed their manufacturing arms to concentrate on creating brand products.



2. In April 2004, Hon Hai sued a journalist in Taiwan for story about its pricing strategies, asking for 30 million Taiwan dollar for compensation. Hon Hai paid in advance court fees to have the court order personal assets of housing and bank accounts to be frozen.



Taiwan’s journalist association organized campaign on behalf of the journalist, collecting more than 1,000 signatures within four days and essentially forcing the journalist's employer, a business newspaper, to stand out to back the journalist.



Hon Hai dropped the case after negotiating an agreement (no details) with the newspaper in December 2004, and consequently withdrew the assets-frozen quest. The journalist did not take any legal action against Hon Hai subsequently.



After dropping the lawsuit case in late 2004, Mr. Kuo said in an interview that the lawsuit was aimed at seeking truth; it was designed with innovative approach, whose purpose was not for money; and all the money won from the case would have gone to charity completely. He also claimed "though this is the first time, it will definitely not be the last time." Presumably the reference is the “innovative” approach.



3. The mainland newspaper China Business News (CNB) or The Number One Business Daily was created by three established big media companies in Beijing (Beijing Youth Daily), Shanghai (a big one, don't know its English title), and Guangzhou (Guangzhou Daily News Group) in 2003. It is part of a big media group in Shanghai that includes major business channels in television and radio, transformed from previous official (governmental, state-owned) channels, with considerable government connections in Shanghai.




CHRONOLOGY (2006)



June 11, London-based Sunday Mail publishes a feature report on iPot’s producer, Hongfujin, in Shenzhen in China’s Guangdong Province, saying that women workers there work 15 hours per day for as little a salary as 300 yuan (less than US$40) per month.



Early June, more and more complaints about labor condition in Foxccon’s factories emerge in the Chinese internet.



The Shanghai-based "China Business News (CBN)" decides to run a story about it. Woman journalist Wang You is assigned the task.



June 14, China’s leading internet portal sina.com carries Chinese translation of the Sunday Mail report.



June 15, CBN carries Wang’s report, entitled "Foxccon Employees: Machines Demand You Stand for 12 Hours in a Row." For the report, Wang had on-line chat with a college graduate and checked main facts with a Miss He at Foxccon's PR office the previous day. It is the first independent report on Foxccon run by Chinese media.



Mid June, Chinese on-line and print media cover related news extensively. Most on-line media relay both the sina version and Wang's story.



Foxccon holds a press conference in Shenzhen, explaining the situation in their factory to the public.



June 20, instructed to write a follow-up story, Wang arrives at a Foxccon
factory in Kunshan County, Jiangsu Province, neighboring Shanghai to the



north. She talks for 50 minutes with a girl who just quitted her job there.



June 22, CBN carries the second story on Foxccon by Wang, entitled "Former Foxccon Woman Worker: Basic Pay Very Low, Welfare Pretty Good."




June 30, two Foxccon officials make appointment to see Wang and her editor (name unclear). The conservation was "pleasant and harmonious," according to Wang, when Foxccon side expressed hope that CBN should drop the topic, but did not question the truthfulness of the two published articles.



Later, Foxccon tries to arrange another meeting with Wang, which, "due to schedule conflicts on both sides, did never work out," Wang was quoted as saying by the Beijing News (Xin jing bao) in late August.



The CBN paper nonetheless runs no more coverage on Foxccon.



Early July, Foxccon sends out notification letters signed by its lawyers to a number of journalists nationwide, all of those who have covered the topic. Wang and Wong are the only two that eventually get the assets-frozen notice from a Shenzhen court.



[In late August, one journalist getting lawyer's letter from Foxccon asks to remain anonymous and confirms that the matter with him was "settled through mediation," without giving details.]



Foxccon launches lawsuit against Wang and Wong, but not their employer, CBN, who published stories. Foxccon asks for damage-compensation of 20 million yuan from Wang and 10 million yuan from Wong.



July 10, a court in Shenzhen issues notifications to Wang and Wong, upon quest by Foxccon, to put the two journalists’ personal assets frozen to safeguard potential compensation payments.



In the court document, Foxccon says that the two articles penned by Wang "make conclusive statements without checking facts, based merely on heresy or street talks," and using languages "apparently degenerating and insulting," "causing tremendous economic damages to the plaintiff."



Foxccon has not paid court fees and the order not taken effect yet. CBN starts (?) getting involved, contacting Guangdong’s Provincial Taiwan Office, seeking negotiation channels to settle the case outside court.



According to the Taiwan Office, Foxccon in Shenzhen is among the first that established CCP’s Party cells on its premise. It has also encouraged the party committee to recruit new members among its employees.



However, it has not allowed the set up of trade union organizations inside the firm. Since the case became focus of public attention, the Shenzhen municipal office of China's official trade union has announced Foxccon is one of 30 firms being targeted to set up trade union branched before the end of 2006.



July 17, Foxccon pays more than 170,000 yuan in total of court fees to the Shenzhen court. Assets frozen order goes into effect.



July 24, Wang and Wong issue their appeal separately to the court, asking for release of their assets, on the ground that Wong claims he does not have any connection with stories about Foxccon to be qualified as a defendant, and Wang says she has not received any court documents concerning her defendant status, except the asset-frozen order.



Aug. 18, Apple Company publishes its investigation report, saying that the situation is not as bad as the Sunday Mail's story claims. Excerpt of the report:



"The manufacturing facility supports over 200,000 employees (Apple uses less than 15% of that capacity) and has the services you'd expect in a medium city. The campus includes factories, employee housing, banks, a post office, a hospital, supermarkets, and a variety of recreational facilities including soccer fields, a swimming pool, TV lounges and Internet cafes. Ten cafeterias are also located throughout the campus offering a variety of menu choices such as fresh vegetables, beef, seafood, rice, poultry, and stir-fry noodles. In addition, employees have access to 13 different restaurants on campus. Employees were pleased with the variety and quality of food offerings.



"The supplier owns and leases dormitories that are offered at no charge to employees, provided they help in cleaning common areas to maintain the facility. Workers are not required to live in these dormitories, although the majority do. Our team randomly selected and inspected a wide range of dormitories (both supplier-owned on-campus and off-site leased facilities) that collectively house over 32,000 people. Buildings are separated by gender, with female dorms containing a private bathroom/shower for each room and male dorm rooms typically sharing bathroom/shower facilities. The dorms have TV rooms, potable water, private lockers, free laundry service, and public telephones. Many also have ping-pong and snooker tables, and sitting/reading areas. All of the on-campus dorms have air conditioning. Visitors are permitted in the dorms, although a sign-in process is used for security purposes."



(Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/
Report on iPod Manufacturing, August 17, 2006)



The Report admits that, on average during the investigation period, Foxccon employees worked overtime more than 35% each week and up to one fourth of its employees likely worked continuously for more than six days per week.




Late Aug. [apparently after Apple's report is out], Wang and Wong start a joined blog focusing on the case.



Aug. 26, full coverage of the lawsuit appears in Beijing News and Southern Daily (Guangzhou). English media start to cover the story.



The case starts to draw public attention. The joined blog had more than two million hits in ten days, with thousands of viewer comments. Survey shows overwhelming public support to the journalists. People also began to donate money. Wang thanks the public but declines to accept donation.



Taiwanese media come to cover the story intensively.



Aug. 28, CBN issues its first statement on the case, announcing its position to stand firmly with the two journalists. It says Wong has nothing to do with the case and it reserves its rights to sue Foxccon on Wong's behalf for libel. On Wang, it says it is part of her job’s duty at CBN to write the two stories.



CBN publishes editorial comments, calling journalists nationwide to support the two. Wong says it's a "9/11"-like shock for journalism in China, with potentially serious consequences.



National Journalist Association and other national organizations speak out to support the two. Public opinions focus on the social duty of news media, particularly business and financial news media to monitor companies on behalf of the society.



Aug. 29-30, the Shenzhen court decline to accept any interview. A court official asks not to be named and says everything have strictly followed appropriate laws and proper legal procedures.



Foxccon spokesperson says the same - everything is legal; the amount being asked is based on careful calculation of the company’s stock loss; Apple report confirms the Sunday Mail made mistakes in its story. Foxccon is fighting to protect its own rights, its reputation as a responsible company. "It is not easy to manage more than 100,000 workers." And, if it wins, the money will be strictly for charity purpose.



Aug. 30, public opinions begin to question the silence of government branches, Labor Bureau in particular.



Aug. 30, evening, CBN issues second statement backing its journalists. A "golden team" of lawyers and legal consultants is assembled.



Aug. 30, late night, Hon Hai announces in Taiwan decision to change compensation demand from 30 million yuan to one yuan, saying that the purpose is to direct public attention back to its damaged reputation from money figures. It also adds CBN to the two journalists to be sued in the case.




Foxccon singles out one specific sentence in Wang’s report as untrue, which says "of 1000 new recruits [to Foxccon], 500 are unhealthy from the beginning." Foxccon says "claims like this in the stories by Wang and Wong distort facts, damage the good reputation of our company, and caused serious consequences."




Wong has kept contact with Hon Hai. He says there were already new moves in the morning. He learns Foxccon’s changes from his Taiwanese friends. In an interview, He expresses relief, saying that, even if this is only one step forward, it is a victory for all journalists in China. Wong repeatedly expresses willingness of reconciliation with the Hon Hai boss Mr. Kuo, and his wish to meet Kuo in person soon, etc.



Wang shows defiance, saying she'd fight to the end even if it's for one cent only.



Aug. 31, one o'clock in the night, CBN issues its third public statement over the case, reiterate its determination to fight to the end.



Aug. 31, more public opinion pieces coming out on-line and in print. The absence of voice from the government in general is questioned.



Wong's changing attitude is questioned, too. People are asking what the big capital had done to our media.



Aug. 31, Shenzhen municipal branch of the official trade union accepted interview, demanding Foxccon to set up a trade union by the end of 2006.



Sep. 1, the Shenzhen court announces date of court hearing on the case, which is set to be on October 23. Guangdong Supreme Court and the Shenzhen court both say the case will be given top priority. Shenzhen court had not received document of changing demands from Foxccon.



Sep. 3, CBN and Foxccon issue a joined statement of five items, expressing explicit respect to each other (for contribution to building up a harmonious society and to the growth of economic development; Both sides would like to do its best to support the other in the future, etc.



Xinhua News Agency reports the joined statement, saying the two sides agree to work together to protect workers’ rights in the future.




Sep. 4, The London-based Financial Times reports the final settlement has brought Hon Hai's shares to record high at Taiwan’s stock market.

不被软禁或骚扰的权利

曾金燕在她的博客上邀请网友们公开辩论，国保和国安人员有没有权力在法律许可范围以外干扰普通公民的生活。



参与讨论的，多半还是同情曾金燕和胡佳的，有争议的大约可以归作三点，一是被干扰的人是否违反法律在先，引来了相应的干扰；一是如果国家安全（在网友心目中也许还包括社会稳定）确实有问题， 国保是否应当有超出一般警察和执法人员的权力，也就是说，特殊地位，不受（或不完全受）现存法律制约；还有一项是在实际执法以外，这个问题是否也关涉到立法，现有的法律是谁、又是如何建立的。



我以为，第一点已经不在原有问题的范围之内了，要讨论的是国保这样做的合法合理性，而第一点的出发点就建立在完全错误的逻辑推论上。假设被干扰者自己触犯法律在先，那就直接拿来问罪好了，完全可以通过正常的公检法机关，或拘押或起诉，国家又不是没有刑法和刑事诉讼法等等相关法律。假定讨论中的干扰是违法的，那么，如果因为被干扰者触犯法律在先，属于国家权力专政机器的国保就可以得着自己不必循法的借口，那这个国家的法治也未免太儿戏了。难道国保要和遭到控制的社会成员竞争谁更能破坏法律吗？



就第二点来说，我认为真正的问题在于对普通公民权利侵犯到什么程度，国家的宪法和一系列法律对公民权利又保护到什么程度。如果国家规定公民财产和自由权利不能随意侵犯，同时又规定政府认为国家安全受到威胁时，政府有权利和权力为保护国家安全采取必要措施，那在这种模糊状况下，很可能已经为政府提供了在一定程度上侵犯民权的法理基础和活动空间。



重要的是，即使我们承认并接受这个既有的法理现实，目前国安部和各级国保机构的实践仍然是极大的滥权。国家安全的考量，最多只可能为继续调查侦办过程提供有限的合理合法支持，让国保为假设中的未来立案搜集必要的证据和情报。而目前发生的情况却不是这样，国保人员在跟踪软禁控制例如陈光诚和高智晟家属以及曾金燕胡佳夫妇这样的人时，并非是以收集信息情报为中心任务。相反，他们的手段，包括近距离贴身跟踪，大量人员同时上，在最没有秘密活动可能的公众场合大张旗鼓全程逼近的录象，数十人轮班公开住到当事人家里，白天夜晚在居民区制造噪音或开大灯搅扰平民生活，总之，这数不胜数而且总能花样翻新的扰人措施，无论怎么看，最主要的目的都只能是要扰人，完全看不出有什么搜集信息情报保障国家安全的工作质量。



对于这样的骚扰，持续施加在并无犯罪嫌疑也并未受到拘留起诉的妇孺老病身上，还要打着国家安全的名义，挥霍纳税人的钱，我想，借用英国美国反战运动的口号，每一个公民都有权利而且也完全可以站出来说一句：不要用我的名义！



至于第三点，我想可以说是这次小小的网络讨论中提出的相当尖锐的一个问题。由于政党私利的长期把持和控制，立法机关和人民不发生直接的授权关系，宪法本身存在重大的内在矛盾都无法解决，别的许许多多（而且越来越多）的法律之间的从属辖制关系也还存在重大的缺陷，都为社会生活中希望通过法律途径寻求公平与正义的人们投下巨大阴影。在政治被强权垄断的情况下，人们本来就只有求助于法律渠道了，可当政者仍然要处处寻找可以超越法律的权力，用来控制普通公民的生活，这是中国的法制建设永远残缺不全的根本原因。



法律在规范社会生活上决不是万能的，法律必须有政治和其他社会基本道义原则的支撑，才能获得有效的社会权威，也同时获得自己的旺盛生命力。

Dirty Hands Upon Women and Children

I posted my second blog entry in Chinese the day before yesterday, which is about the Beijing government's dirty hand in dealing with the family members of civil activists.

The words came out most strikingly by Zeng Jinyan's blog , whose husband, Hu Jia, is a veteran AIDS activist. And the most chilling cases are against family members of the blind peasant activist Chen Guangcheng, whom I wrote about earlier, and the activist lawyer Gao Zhisheng, about whom I would like to write sometime maybe next week.

Zeng Jinyan is a young woman in her early twenties. When she got married with Hu Jia a couple years earlier she was as compassionate and interested in helping AIDS affected poor people just as she is today. However, at that time, according to Hu Jia's account, she and her family were not very content with Hu Jia about his activist "approach." The evidence? He had been followed around and harassed by the State Security's secret police all the time. Why weren't all the other people? There must be something wrong with him, something *he* himself to be blamed for bringing inconvenience to his wife and their family.

Now she is thinking so no more. The secret police have taught her a good lesson how coercive, arbitrarily bullying they are and how impossible to communicate with them based on some most basic sense of decency, politeness and moral justice. One can act based on these principles. But in China, the secret police would not listen to your reasoning of these. No way.

When her husband was kidnapped - yes, kidnapped in its full sense, with no document or evidence shown - and kept away, incommunicado for more than a month last March, Zeng Jinyan finally realized how futile to appeal to or argue with the police with reason. When she saw this through in the government, that it does not recognize her and her husband as dignified citizens, she took it to herself to speak out as a respectable individual, a self-recognized citizen, and a dignified human being.

Since then, she has herself been followed around the clock by groups of secret police. When she was harassed, she rang the public emergency number, with no avail. Police would follow her to her company, her English class, sit in the same bus and have a car following the bus where she's on board. Her vivid account of living under police survelliance can be found at the International Herald Tribute's website. Or, go to her blog you'll find the English version there.

Luckily for her, she's - at least so far - still able to move around town in Beijing. Not so for her husband. And not so for some other women and children, who have never breached any Chinese laws. Some of them are so young that it's impossible to speak of any crime of them.

Chen Guangcheng, the blind peasant activist who's been sentenced to four years and three months in prison for a "crime" at a place and time that he did not have the access to commit. Now being locked away, he probably does not know his family members have been under the worst house arrest taking place in China since the Cultural Revolution years (1966-1976), when the then President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Liu Shaoqi, was tortured to death in secret; and Mr. Deng Xiaoping, who would be credited as the architect of China's economic reform in the past quarter of a century, was sent to a small town in a remote mountainous area, using a code name to disguise his true identity, to work in a badly equipped factory.

Chen Guangcheng's wife has been confined to their family house for the past weeks, together with Chen's mother and an infant boy. Both the old lady and the baby have fallen ill at one point or another. However, no matter how high a fever they might have got, no hospital visit has been permitted.

In Beijing, a similar drama has been played out in the apartment of Lawyer Gao Zhisheng's home. Gao himself has been taken, again in strictly kidnapping fashion by a group of secret police from his sister's home in the east Shandong Province, more than two weeks ago. At about the same time, his home in Beijing was forced open by another group, probably as many as a few dozen members.

These intruders moved into the apartment, confiscated all the money and records of bank account they could find, together with computers, discs, notebooks and many documents. Since then, Gao's wife and their two children have to wait for meal being brought back to them by the police.

The police are divided into groups, taking turns by group, they are eating and sleeping in the Gao's apartment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Telephone line has been cut off and cell phone sets being taken away.

The Gaos' have two children. A two-year-old boy, like the baby boy of Chen and his wife, fell ill with high fever but was denied hospital visit.

Their elder child is a 12-year-old girl. At this time when schools throughout the country just started their new term, she needs to go to school and was indeed allowed to go, including her music lesson, except that she's followed by police wherever she went. They even sat next to her in her classroom. These adults, are they enjoying the surprised looks from other children, the girl's classmates? Do they know this is a crime of deliberately tramatizing a minor's existence? - All sanctioned by the State, with tax-payers' money!

The girl ran away once successfully. She was with her cell phone at the time and able to contact some of her father's friends. However, as her news was spreading on the Internet, her mother got tremendous pressure from the police and by the end she had to "voluntarily" go back to that occupied apartment.

"Occupied," "voluntary" and "involuntary" movement of individuals, somehow these days words like these always bring me images in the Middle East and in the plan the Bush administration has in regard to army reserves. As for China, attention in the West has been dominated by economic interest: trade, currency, manufacturing, financial sector, and so forth.

I am seriously worried.

Where the rule of law is supposedly being perfected for better business and greater economic growth, the laws have been abused in the name of national interest, against the socially vulnerable - women and children, who themselves have no formal legal liability in any crime.

Is the world watching, or have people learned to habitually shut their eyes in front of such inconvenience?