热风冷眼

"Soft Detention" of Yuan Weijing Continues: Journalist Beaten, Barred from Meeting

2009-03-13T23:20:00.000-07:00

作者：CHRD 文章来源：CHRD 更新时间：2009-3-11 2:26:22
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200903/20090311022622_14209.html

(Chinese Human Rights Defenders, March 10, 2009) -Yuan Weijing (袁伟静), the wife of imprisoned rights activist Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚), remains confined to her home and surrounded by guards. On March 8, a prominent investigative journalist and his student were threatened and attacked as they tried to visit her.

"While China marked International Women's Day with official ceremonies, Ms. Yuan and her family enjoyed no respite from the relentless restriction of movement and the ban on contacting the outside world to which they have been subjected. Why is a government which enjoys 'world power' status so afraid of a woman taking care of her small children and an elderly mother, while her husband, who is blind, languishes in jail?" asked Renee Xia, CHRD's international director.

On the afternoon of March 8, Wang Keqin (王克勤), journalist for Economy Daily (经济时报), his student Zhou Fuzhi (周福志), along with a driver and a local friend, travelled to Yuan's home in Dongshigu Village, Yinan County, Shandong Province, to speak with her and bring her, Chen's mother, and Yuan's two children some food and gifts. When they reached the entrance to the village, they were met by an unidentified man who questioned them aggressively about the purpose of their visit and then followed them as they made their way through the village. Once Wang's car reached the gate of Yuan's house, he and Zhou were accosted by a group of guards which later grew to more than 10 men, who forbade them from seeing Yuan, ordered them to leave the village, and threatened violence if they would not comply. The men would not say who they were or why Wang and Zhou could not visit Yuan. As Wang, refusing to be bullied, insisted on delivering the food and gifts, the men grew violent and pushed Wang and Zhou back towards their car, kicking and striking them as they got into their vehicle. As Wang and his group fled the village, they were pursued by two men on motorcycles, and only when they left Shandong province later that evening were they sure that their pursuers were out of sight.

Wang was able to reach Yuan by phone shortly after they had left the village to let her know of the situation. Yuan said that the men guarding her kept her and her family under 24-hour surveillance, rotating in shifts of 11 guards. Yuan expressed relief that Wang and Zhou were not injured, stating that friends who had come to visit her last year were seriously beaten by the same group of guards. She added that she has now lived under continuous surveillance by these men for more than one year, and that the guards monitor her family's conversations as well as restricting their freedom to work, shop, or even leave their own house. She has only been allowed one visit with her imprisoned husband in the past 12 months.

"The attack on journalists attempting to visit Ms. Yuan and the year-long illegal detention of the family make a mockery of China's 'rule of law' reforms highlighted in Premier Wen Jiabao's speech this week during the annual session of the National People's Congress in Beijing," said Renee Xia.

Background

Yuan, an English teacher and wife of imprisoned human rights defender Chen Guangcheng, became the victim of retaliation by local authorities after helping her husband reveal the use of violence in a local birth control campaign and publicly opposing the illegal imprisonment of her husband. Since September 2005, she has been under intermittent residential surveillance.

Chen, a human rights activist, self-taught legal advisor, and "barefoot lawyer" from Linyi City, Shandong Province, was convicted of "intentionally damaging property and gathering crowds to disturb transport order" and sentenced to four years and three months imprisonment on March 11, 2006. It is believed that Chen was imprisoned for exposing extensive violence in the implementation of the government's population policy in Linyi City. Chen also worked for years to protect the rights of farmers and the disabled.

Media contacts for this press release:

Renee Xia, International Director (English and Mandarin): +852 8191 6937

Wang Songlian, Research Coordinator and English Editor (English, Mandarin and Cantonese): +85281911660

For more information:

"Investigative Journalist Wang Keqin Beaten for Visiting Chen Guangcheng's Family" (调查记者王克勤探望陈光诚家人被打) (March 10, 2009)
/Article/Class18/Class51/200903/20090310140814_14196.html

Imprisoned Human Rights Defender Chen Guangcheng Denied Medical Care (January 14, 2009)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200901/20090115134520_13092.html

Shandong Officials Continue Harassing Wife of Jailed Human Rights Defender (November 24, 2007)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class15/200711/20071124042658_6495.html

Wife of Jailed Human Rights Defender Barred from Seeking Medical Treatment (October 31, 2007)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200710/20071031120202_6177.html

Yuan Weijing, activist, under residential surveillance, house arrest (May 31, 2007)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class48/Class62/200705/20070531232542_4508.html

China vs. a Blind Human Rights Defender: A Report on the Case of Imprisoned Chen Guangcheng (February 20, 2007)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=3485 (Part 1)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class48/Class62/200702/20070222210628_7953.html (Part 2)

Shao Jiang: Speech at the Tibetan Rally

2009-03-09T18:38:00.000-07:00

http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2762
================================================

Shao Jiang: Speech at the Tibetan Rally on 7th of March 2009

Thank you. It is my great honor to speak at this important historical moment.

I’m here today to express Chinese solidarity with Tibetans, to let you know that there are many Chinese who support the right to the self-determination of the Tibetan people.

2009 marks a series of important anniversaries. It is 50 years since the Tibetan Uprising, 20 years since the Tiananmen Massacre, and the Chinese Communist Party will have wielded power for 60 years. Over this time, more than one million Tibetans and 50 million Chinese died under the tyrannical rule of the Communist Party.

How has the Communist Party succeeded in oppressing such a huge population? Not only by lies and tanks, but also by turning different groups of people against each other. And now they are trying to provoke racial hatred between the Tibetan people and the Chinese people. That’s why it is very important that we stand together in solidarity against the same dictator.

The determination and persistence of the Tibetan people over so many years have moved and inspired many Chinese to fight for our own freedom. In Mainland China, there are more and more people who practice grassroots self-determination and civil resistance. They are setting up independent trade unions, independent peasant associations, fighting for freedom of expression.

Last week, a Chinese blogger published an apology to Tibetans, which I’d like to read out here:

‘I am a Han Chinese. I want to apologize to all Tibetans, for the atrocities committed by Chinese against Tibetans, and for my inability to stop the evil deeds. Although I have not been directly involved in those criminal atrocities, the crimes that have been committed in the name of my ethnic group and the shame that this has brought about must belong to me, because I was not able to stop them.

‘Yes, those Chinese who have whipped knives and uttered curses against Tibetans, have also whipped their knives and uttered their curses against Chinese, as well as other ethnic groups. Nonetheless each knife whipped and each curse uttered have added to my shame. I must apologize, out of shame, to Tibetans.

‘I must also examine myself more carefully, working harder to expose more truths. More truths, which at least may reduce the occurrence of crimes.’

This apology from the Chinese blogger expresses the feelings of many Chinese. This sense of shame will drive more and more Chinese to stand with the Tibetan people and fight for our freedom together.

Yes, Tibet will be free. China will be free.

==============================================================

Five Detained for Organizing Factory Sit-in

2009-03-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

Five Detained for Organizing Factory Sit-in in Chongqing;
Six Injured during Workers Demonstration in Sichuan Province

作者：CHRD 文章来源：CHRD 更新时间：2009-2-25 20:26:36
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200902/20090225202636_13905.html

Five Detained for Organizing Factory Sit-in in Chongqing; Six Injured during Workers Demonstration in Sichuan Province (Chinese Human Rights Defenders, February 25, 2009) - CHRD learned today that five workers at a silk factory, Tongliang County, Chongqing Municipality, have been detained for organizing a factory sit-in. The workers are representatives of about 800 dismissed workers who have been seeking pensions and medical insurance following the factory's closure. CHRD also learned today that six have been injured by the police during a workers' demonstration in Sichuan Province.

Factory Sit-in in Chongqing

On February 15, Tongliang County Public Security Bureau (PSB) asked the five representatives, Tang Aimin (唐爱民), Hu Weimin (胡卫民), Li Taiyuan (李太元), Ou Hongyong (欧红勇) and Wang Yu (汪宇), to meet with the authorities to "discuss the problem of the plant". The five were then taken into police custody.Tang and Hu have been criminally detained on suspicion of "gathering crowds to disturb social order" but it is unclear where they are currently being held. Li, Ou and Wang have been administratively detained on suspicion of "gathering crowds to disturb social order" in Tongliang PSB Detention Center. Other workers involved have been summoned or "invited for chats" by the local police. Police warned the workers that if they continue to "stir up trouble", they would be arrested as well, and these workers are being closely monitored and followed by the police. According to workers, the police have said that Tang and Hu will be sentenced to between three and seven years of imprisonment.

The silk factory announced its bankruptcy in 1996 and was sold in 1998. At the time of the sale, the workers were not notified of the fate of the factory and were dismissed after being given between RMB 5,000 and 6,000. The workers suspected that the factory was sold at a massive discount and they suspected that the sale was a result of corrupt dealings involving local officials. After studying national regulations regarding workers dismissed due to factory bankruptcy and re-structuring, the workers believe that they are entitled to pensions, medical insurance, or at least compensation appropriate to the number of years they have worked in the factory. The workers have repeatedly complained to the relevant government offices s but have received no response.

In 2008, the factory's equipment was sold. The factory itself is set to be demolished and the land sold for property development. In the beginning of 2008, the dismissed workers decided to occupy the factory and resist the demolition as an act of protest. In the latter half of 2008, in response to the workers' sit-in, Tongliang County government asked the workers to elect representatives for negotiation with the government.

On February 16, the day after these five representatives were detained, about 2,000 government workers surrounded the silk factory and ordered those workers at the factory to leave. The workers refused to budge. Four hours later, the authorities ordered a group to enter the factory. The authorities had to withdraw after the occupying workers threatened with explosive oxygen containers. This is the first time a direct confrontation occurred since the workers occupied the factory.

Workers' Protest in Sichuan Province

Between February 20 and 23, police clashed with about 1,000 workers from a textile factory in Zigong City, Sichuan Province, who have been demonstrating outside of the Zigong City government building. Six protestors were beaten and injured by the police. Liu Zhengyou (刘正有), a human rights activist documenting the protest, was interrogated for four hours and had his camera confiscated. It is believed that the workers are still demonstrating. However, much remains unclear about the protest. CHRD will closely monitor its development.

Recommendations

CHRD believes that Tang Aimin, Hu Weimin, Li Taiyuan, Ou Hongyong and Wang Yu have been detained solely for the peaceful activities of organizing fellow workers. The right to freedom of association is guaranteed in Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution.

CHRD calls on the Tongliang County government to immediately release the detained workers and negotiate with their representatives.

CHRD is concerned that by detaining the workers and entering the factory by force, the Tongliang County authorities might turn a peaceful sit-in into a violent confrontation.

Yuan Xianchen Sentenced to Four Years in Prison for "Inciting Subversion of State Power"

2009-03-09T18:15:00.000-07:00

作者：CHRD 文章来源：CHRD 更新时间：2009-3-6 13:34:05
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200903/20090306133405_14109.html
Yuan Xianchen Sentenced to Four Years in Prison for "Inciting Subversion of State Power"

(Chinese Human Rights Defenders- March 6, 2009) - Human rights activist and "barefoot lawyer" Yuan Xianchen (袁显臣), of Jixi City, Heilongjiang Province, was found guilty on March 4 of "inciting subversion of state power" and sentenced to four years in prison and five years' deprivation of political rights. This verdict comes nearly two months after Yuan was tried by the Jixi City Intermediate People's Court on January 12.

"This verdict is grossly unjust. The trial should have been declared invalid because the Jixi court admitted evidence extracted by torture against Yuan. The court never called for an investigation of torture alleged by the defendant, as requested by his lawyers," said Renee Xia, CHRD's international director. Yuan told his lawyers prior to his trial that he had been severely tortured in detention and coerced to confess. For more information, please see CHRD's press release "After Torture in Detention, Legal Activist Yuan Xianchen Goes on Trial."

Yuan protested the verdict and vowed to appeal the decision. Yuan's wife, Ms. Zhang, received a written verdict from the Jixi City Intermediate People's Court on March 5.

The crime of "inciting subversion of state power" is stipulated under Article 105(2) of the Chinese Criminal Code, and since its adoption in 1997 has been a powerful tool for Chinese authorities seeking to criminalize freedom of expression in China. CHRD has documented dozens of cases of dissidents and free-speech activists persecuted under this law in recent years, including 2008 Sakharov Prize winner Hu Jia (胡佳), who is currently serving a sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in prison. For more information, please see CHRD's January 2008 report, "'Inciting Subversion of State Power': A Legal Tool for Prosecuting Free Speech in China."

In this case, the charge of "inciting subversion of state power" against Yuan hinged on four main accusations: first, that he distributed an article entitled "Save China, Implement Constitutional Democracy" to petitioners and representatives attending the National People's Congress in Beijing in 2005; second, that he gave interviews to the Epoch Times and other foreign media; third, that he received funds from domestic and overseas organizations; and finally, that he drafted over twenty articles "attacking" socialism. These actions provided the "evidence" necessary for authorities to punish Yuan, whose legal aid work in Jixi City since 1998 on behalf of farmers, miners, displaced persons, and other impoverished or exploited citizens earned him the ire of local government officials.

Additionally, though it was not mentioned in the charges or at his trial, it is believed that Yuan was also arrested in part for helping Yang Chunlin (杨春林), a Heilongjiang farmers' representative, collect signatures endorsing an open letter entitled "We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics" in early 2008, ahead of the Beijing Games. Yang was also charged with "inciting subversion of state power", and sentenced to five years in prison on March 24, 2008. For more information, please see CHRD's press release "'Olympics Prisoner' Yang Chunlin Sentenced to Five Years in Prison."

"The use of 'inciting subversion' to persecute a local human rights activist is a stern warning to others who work at the grassroots providing legal assistance and organize workers! While Premier Wen Jiabao talked about opening up channels for the distressed to vent on the first day of the National People's Congress, authorities continued to suppress local activism with iron fists. This is a particularly volatile time both socially and politically, as 40-45 million migrant laborers have already lost or will lose their jobs this year and the urban unemployment rate may reach 10%," said Renee Xia.

CHRD demands the immediate release of Yuan Xianchen.

CHRD believes not only that Yuan has been punished simply for exercising his right to freedom of speech but that he was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment while in detention. Yuan's right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution, and his right to be protected against cruel and inhuman punishment is guaranteed by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Background:

Yuan, 44, self-studied law and is best known for his work as a legal advisor to workers at the Didao Mine in Jixi City. The miners have been seeking compensation from the local government and the mine management since the former state-owned business was re-structured and became a private enterprise.

Yuan was taken into police custody in Beijing on May 24, 2008 and formally arrested on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power" on June 30.

Media contacts for this press release:

Renee Xia, International Director (English and Mandarin): +852 8191 6937

Wang Songlian, Research Coordinator and English Editor (English, Mandarin and Cantonese): +85281911660

Open Letter by the Tiananmen Mothers

2009-03-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

Please Show Your Courage, Break the Taboo, Face "June 4" Head On

Open Letter by the Tiananmen Mothers
February 26, 2009

The Eleventh Session of the Second Plenary of the National People's Congress
The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference

Honorary Deputies and Conference Members,

This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the "June Fourth" Massacre.

In the last century, on June 4, 1989, the Chinese authorities launched a massacre against peaceful demonstrators and civilians in the capital, seriously violating our country's constitution and breaching their duty, as leaders of a sovereign state, to protect the people. This was an unconscionable atrocity that grew from a longstanding contempt for human rights and civil rights.

Over this long stretch of time, government authorities deliberately played down "June Fourth," forbade discussion among our people of "June Fourth," and prohibited the media from touching on "June Fourth." China has become like an airtight "iron chamber," and all the demands of the people about "June Fourth," all the anguish, lament, and moaning of the victims' relatives and the wounded of "June Fourth," have been sealed off from this "iron chamber." Today, as the deputies and committee members of these "Two Meetings" are stately seated in this assembly hall, can you hear the cry from “June Fourth"? Can you hear the painful sighs of the families of the victims of "June Fourth"? But now, the bloodstains of that time have long been washed away and the bullet marks rubbed out, and the site of the massacre is now decorated with exotic plants and flowers and has become a scene of peace and prosperity.

But can all this conceal the sins of that time? Can it erase the sorrow of the relatives of the victims that deepens year after year?

No! It absolutely cannot. The "June Fourth" massacre has long secured its place in history's hall of shame. It absolutely cannot be diminished as a "political disturbance" or even a "serious political disturbance." It was nothing short of an unconscionable atrocity. No amount of force can negate the bitter reality of the hundreds and thousands of lives snatched away by guns and tanks twenty years ago.

Twenty years are not a short time; they are enough for a whole new generation to emerge. This new generation never experienced the bloodshed of that time, nor has it ever felt the desolate calm that settled on a killing field. It has passed; it seems that everything has passed. "Play not the songs of former dynasties; listen instead to the new tune of the 'Willow Branch.'"* In these 20 years, generations of our country's leaders have succeeded the one before, from the second generation to the third, and then the fourth. You deputies and committee members of the "Two Meetings" have also changed from session to session. The passage of time and the shift of circumstances seem to have given the party and country leaders a kind of opportunity to minimize "June Fourth" and push it to a distant corner of history.

Even so, China's Tiananmen Mothers cannot consent. On the question of defining "June Fourth" we feel that we cannot afford to be the least bit vague. Whether to adhere to the initial interpretation or to change it, we must base it on facts and let the truth do the talking. If Deng Xiaoping, then Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China, was wrong in "suppressing the counterrevolutionary rebellion," then we must overturn it and correct it through established legal procedures and publicly announce it to the whole society, and should not explain it away with the vague term of "political disturbances."

The Tiananmen Mothers have always held one belief, and that is: act and speak according to the facts; accept no lies. From the start of our inquiry activities, we would repeatedly check and verify our data regarding the person of interest. As of now, not a single one of the 194 dead that we have examined had any history of violence. They are all among the innocent victims of that massacre. They gave their lives for the sake of justice and all we can do is return justice to them, to pursue the justice that comes late to them. Otherwise, we would not be able to face the spirit of the dead.

Since 1995, our group of "June Fourth" victims and loved ones return here every year to write to the "Two Meetings" with three requests for officially acknowledging "June Fourth." They are: start new investigations on the "June Fourth" incident, publicly announce death tolls, release a list of the names of the dead; clarify each case to the family members of the dead and compensate them according to law; investigate "June Fourth" cases to determine those responsible and punish them. To summarize, our three requests are: "Truth, Compensation, Responsibility."

We have always upheld the principles of peace and reason. We appeal to the two committees and government authorities to utilize the methods of democracy and open dialogue to come to a just resolution. Yet our requests have not been discussed in the "Two Meetings."

In 2006, we suggested the following in order to end the stalemate over "June Fourth" and ensure that the situation can develop along a steady path: use the principle of tackling the simpler problems first. The divisive issues that cannot be resolved or agreed upon easily can be set aside temporarily. Instead, first solve the issues that involve the basic rights of the victims and their personal interests. These issues include: 1) remove all monitoring of and restrictions on the movements of “June Fourth” victims and their families; 2) allow families of the dead to openly mourn their loved ones; 3) stop intercepting and confiscating both domestic and international humanitarian aid contributions, and return all the aid money that was previously frozen; 4) relevant government departments should, in humanitarian spirit, help the victims who are facing hard times to find employment and guarantee them a basic livelihood, without any political conditions; 5) remove political biases against the disabled victims of "June Fourth" such that they are treated as all other disabled persons in regards to communal participation and treatment by society, etc.

In 2008, we again proposed to the deputies of the "Two Meetings": in the world today, dialogue has replaced confrontation. The Chinese government advocates using dialogue to resolve differences and conflicts on international issues. Thus we have an even stronger basis to ask that the government authorities resolve the internal differences and conflicts in the same way. If we are able to use dialogue to replace confrontation on the problem of "June Fourth," it would benefit the whole country and be a blessing for all our people. The more dialogue we have, the more civility and law and order, and the less ignorance and tyranny. Dialogue does not lead society towards opposition and hatred, but rather, towards tolerance and reconciliation. Using dialogue to solve the problem of "June Fourth" is an imperative path toward societal reconciliation.

Another year has passed now, yet we have heard nothing.

We note that President Hu Jintao said the following in public not long ago: In determining every single policy, we start and end with whether the people endorse it or not, agree with it or not, are happy with it or not, and consent to it or not. We welcome these words. If this is so, then we suggest to the National People's Congress and CPPCC: why not eliminate the taboo of "June Fourth" and conduct a broad survey of the people's attitudes towards "June Fourth" countrywide, especially in Beijing, to find out what exactly the people endorse? What they agree with? What they are happy with? Consent to? We believe this should not be difficult to do.

But the people of China know very well that the tragic case of "June Fourth" is an "ironclad case" created single-handedly by the second generation leader, Deng Xiaoping. As long as Deng Xiaoping enjoys any lingering prestige in our country from top to bottom and in future history, it would be an extremely formidable task to overturn the conclusion that has "already been decided on by the Party and government," and to discard the new "Whatever" policy.** Even if "suppressing the counterrevolutionary rebellion" is relabeled as a "serious political disturbance," the judgment, in essence, still has not changed.

This then will require each deputy to demonstrate extraordinary courage and resourcefulness, political courage and wisdom, to break the taboo and face head-on the unspeakable tragedy that took place 20 years ago and resolve "June Fourth" with the truth. If this should happen, you will have brought a great blessing upon our people and your achievement will go down in history.

* A quote from the first song in a collection of nine titled "Willow Branch" by Tang poet, Liu Yuxi.

** A reference to the "Two Whatevers" policy articulated by Hua Guofeng, who succeeded Mao Zedong as the chairman of the Communist Party of China upon Mao's death: "We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave."

Signed by:

丁子霖 Ding Zilin 张先玲 Zhang Xianling 周淑庄 Zhou Shuzhuang
李雪文 Li Xuewen 徐珏 Xu Jue 尹敏 Yin Min 杜东旭 Du Dongxu
宋秀玲 Song Xiuling 于清 Yu Qing 郭丽英 Guo Liying 蒋培坤 Jiang Peikun
王范地 Wang Fandi 段宏炳 Duan Hongbing 袁可志 Yuan Kezhi
赵廷杰 Zhao Tingjie 吴定富 Wu Dingfu 钱普泰 Qian Putai
孙承康 Sun Chengkang 尤维洁 You Weijie 黄金平 Huang Jinping
贺田凤 He Tianfeng 孟淑英 Meng Shuying 袁淑敏 Yuan Shumin
刘梅花 Liu Meihua 谢京花 Xie Jinghua 马雪琴 Ma Xueqin
邝瑞荣 Kuang Ruirong 张艳秋 Zhang Yanqiu 张树森 Zhang Shulin
杨大榕 Yang Darong 刘秀臣 Liu Xiuchen 沈桂芳 Shen Guifang
谢京荣 Xie Jingrong 孙宁 Sun Ning 王文华 Wang Wenhua
金贞玉 Jin Zhenyu 要福荣 Yao Furong 孟淑珍 Meng Shuzhen
田淑玲 Tian Shuling 邵秋风 Shao Qiufeng 王桂荣 Wang Guirong
谭汉凤 Tan Hanfeng 孙恒尧 Sun Hengyao 陈梅 Chen Mei 周燕 Zhou Yan
李桂英 Li Guiying 徐宝艳 Xu Baoyan 刘春林 Liu Chunlin 狄孟奇 Di Mengqi
杨银山 Yang Yinshan 管卫东 Guan Weidong 高婕 Gao Jie 索秀女 Suo Xiunv
刘淑琴 Liu Shuqin 王培靖 Wang Peijing 王双兰 Wang Shuanglan
张振霞 Zhang Zhenxia 祝枝弟 Zhu Zhidi 刘天媛 Liu Tianyuan
潘木治 Pan Muzhi 黄定英 Huang Dingying 何瑞田 He Ruitian
程淑珍 Cheng Shuzhen 张耀祖 Zhang Yaosu 轧伟林 Ya Weilin
郝义传 Hao Yichuan 萧昌宜 Xiao Changyi 任金宝 Ren Jinbao
田维炎 Tian Weiyan 杨志玉 Yang Zhiyu 齐国香 Qi Guoxiang
李显远 Li Xianyuan 张彩凤 Zhang Caifeng 王玉芹 Wang Yuqin
韩淑香 Han Shuxiang 曹长先 Cao Changxian 方政 Fang Zheng
齐志勇 Qi Zhiyong 冯友祥 Feng Youxiang 何兴才 He Xingcai
刘仁安 Liu Renan 李淑娟 Li Shujuan 熊辉 Xiong Hui 韩国刚 Han Guogang
石峰 Shi Feng 庞梅清 Pang Meiqing 黄宁 Huang Ning
王伯冬 Wang Bodong 张志强 Zhang Zhiqiang 赵金锁 Zhao Jinsuo
孔维真 Kong Weizhen 刘保东 Liu Baodong 陆玉宝 Lu Yubao
陆马生 Lu Masheng 齐志英 Qi Zhiying 方桂珍 Fang Guizhen
肖书兰 Xiao Shulan 葛桂荣 Ge Guirong 郑秀村 Zheng Qiuchun
王惠蓉 Wang Huirong 邢承礼 Xing Chengli 桂德兰 Gui Delan
王运启 Wang Yunqi 黄雪芬 Huang Xuefen 王琳 Wang Lin
刘乾 Liu Qian 朱镜蓉 Zhu Jingrong 金亚喜 Jin Yaxi 周国林 Zhou Guolin
杨子明 Yang Ziming 王争强 Wang Zhengqiang 吴立虹 Wu Lihong
宁书平 Ning Shuping 郭达显 Guo Daxian 曹云兰 Cao Yunlan
隋立松 Shui Lisong 王广明 Wang Guangming 冯淑兰 Feng Shulan
穆怀兰 Mu Huailan 付媛媛 Fu Yuanyuan 孙淑芳 Sun Shufang
刘建兰 Liu Jianlan 王连 Wang Lian 李春山 Li Chunshan
蒋艳琴 Jiang Yanqin 何凤亭 He Fengting 谭淑琴 Tan Shuqin
(127 names)

In accordance with suggestions by our friends, we're also including the following names of our fellow signers from previous years who have passed away as to respect their wishes.

吴学汉 Wu Xuehan 苏冰娴 Su Bingxian 姚瑞生 Yao Ruisheng
杨世鈺 Yang Shiyu 袁长录 Yuan Changlu 周淑珍 Zhou Shuzhen
王国先 Wang Guoxian 包玉田 Bao Yutian 林景培 Lin Jingpei
寇玉生 Kou Yusheng 孟金秀 Meng Jinxiu 张俊生 Zhang Junsheng
吴守琴 Wu Shouqin 周治刚 Zhou Zhigang 孙秀芝 Sun Xiuzhi
罗让 Luo Rang 严光汉 Yan Guanghan 李贞英 Li Zhenying
邝涤清 Kuang Diqing (19 names)

This translation is taken from http://sfchoi.wordpress.com

China Human Rights Briefing January II Edition

2009-02-06T07:01:00.000-08:00

2009-2-3 2:20:01

http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200902/20090203022001_13408.html

China Human Rights Briefing
Reporting human rights development from the grassroots
January 15-31, 2009

1. Persecution of Rights Activists

Charter 08 Update

· On January 16, 2009, administrators at Beijing University Law School sent out an email to students, demanding that they "firmly resist and stay far away from" Charter 08, and that they "don't follow others blindly or… spread harmful information." This email comes despite the fact that Beijing University law professor He Weifang (贺卫方) and Zhu Suren (朱苏人), the elder brother of Beijing University law school dean Zhu Suli (朱苏力), have already signed the Charter. (CHRD)

· Despite continued harassment and intimidation from police and local authorities, Support for Charter 08 continues to grow, with over 8,100 signatories at last count.

· Authorities continue to use Charter 08 as a pretext to intimidate activists and dissidents domestically. Human Rights Lawyer Li Xiongbing (黎雄兵), previously questioned by police about his involvement with Charter 08, was summoned (chuanhan) by police in the pre-dawn hours of January 15 and interrogated about the Charter for more than three hours. (CHRD)

Beijing Blogger Placed under House Arrest

On the eve of Chinese New Year's, January 25, several policemen from the National Security Unit of the Beijing PSB Chaoyang District Sub-division summoned Beijing activist Liu Di (刘荻, who writes under the name "stainless steel rat", buxiugang laoshu) to interrogate her about a posting she had written entitled "10 suggestions for Charter 08" on the "Free China Forum" as well as a picture she posted of a t-shirt featuring Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波) and other related figures from Charter 08. At the conclusion of the interrogation, the policemen announced that she was being placed under residential surveillance. The next day Liu discovered a police car parked downstairs from her apartment and her freedom to leave her home restricted. She now must travel by police car or in a taxi arranged by police, if she is given permission to leave. (CHRD)

Activist Promoting Democracy at Grassroots Abducted by Authorities

Yao Lifa (姚立法), an activist promoting local democratic elections from Qianjiang City, Hubei Province, disappeared on January 18, 2009. Yao had been scheduled to return to Hubei on January 19 to attend the celebration of the inauguration of the US president at the US Consulate in Wuhan City, Hubei Province. After three days without contact, Yao was released on January 21, 2009, at which point he confirmed that he had been abducted by the Qianjiang police. Yao has suffered illegal kidnappings and detention at the hands of Qianjiang authorities on a number of previous occasions. (CHRD)

Released Tiananmen Prisoner Incarcerated in Psychiatric Hospital since Olympics

CHRD learned on January 22, 2009, that Wang Lianxi (王连喜), a former worker who was released from prison in 2007 following 18 years of incarceration for his role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, was being incarcerated at a Beijing mental institution. Wang, believed to be hospitalized involuntarily, was detained ahead of the Olympics to prevent him from "making trouble" during the Games. CHRD has not found any evidence suggesting that Wang or his family consented to the hospitalization or that any independent mental health evaluation was conducted to determine whether Wang's mental condition was serious enough to pose any real danger to society such that he needed to be hospitalized. (CHRD)

Wife of Imprisoned Activist Placed under Surveillance, Detained

CHRD learned from imprisoned Hebei activist Guo Qizhen (郭起真) that his wife, Zhao Changqin (赵长芹) has been harassed by local police since the beginning of August, 2008, when she was placed under residential surveillance and followed whenever she left the house. Zhao was then illegally detained, first in a number of "black jails" in Cangzhou City, Hebei, and later in a local military dormitory. Zhao was finally released from detention on September 23, but remains under surveillance to this day, especially with regard to her communications, which are monitored and often disrupted. Guo, who was imprisoned in October of 2006 for "inciting subversion of state power," also reports that his health in prison is very poor, and that he suffers from necrosis of the femur, needing crutches to walk and large amounts of medicine which must be brought in by Zhao when she visits him. (CRLW)

Imprisoned China Democratic Party Member Denied Parole

CHRD learned on January 31, 2009, that Wu Yilong (吴义龙), activist and organizer for the China Democratic Party (CDP) and spokesperson for the CDP's Zhejiang Provincial Preparatory Committee, has been denied parole for refusing to admit guilt to prison officials. Wu was sentenced to 11 years in prison in October of 1999 for "subversion of state power" for his role as a CDP member, and was originally eligible for release in November of 2008. According to Wu's brother, Wu Yiyun (吴义云), Wu Yilong will likely have to serve his full term in prison, as he steadfastly refuses to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit. (CHRD)

Activist Detained in Forced Labor Camp Nears Release

Heilongjiang petitioner turned human rights activist Liu Jie (刘杰), who has been tortured repeatedly while detained in Re-education through Labor (RTL) camps, is scheduled to be released on April 12, 2009, according to her son, Fu Weifeng (傅伟丰). Fu, who visited his mother on January 22 and received a phone call from her on January 29, reports that concerns about his mother's health, especially her vision, which has been significantly damaged during her detention, remain serious. (CHRD)

2. Right to Vote

Beijing Lawyers Press on in Quest for Direct Elections

During the Beijing Lawyers Association Film Festival, held from January 13th to January 18th at the National Library and attended by an estimated 30% of Beijing's lawyers, a group of 35 Beijing lawyers defied official pressure and distributed information about direct elections for officials of the Lawyers Association. This comes on the heels of the same group's petition, written in late 2008, calling for direct elections of officers of the Association, an act that cost at least seven lawyers their jobs. Some, like lawyer Yang Huiwen (杨慧文), announced their candidacies for various offices and handed out articles summarizing their positions on various questions. Official response remains to be seen. (CHRD)

3. Freedom of Association

Shandong Authorities Detain Teachers' Representatives before Chinese New Year

On December 29, 2008, four representatives of "community-run school" (minban xuexiao) teachers from Shandong traveled to Beijing to submit an application to stage a demonstration on January 12, 2009, in Jinan City, Shandong Province. The request was verbally rejected (without a written reply), and two of the representatives, Chen Zengfu (陈增夫, also known as Chen Ming [陈明]) and Wang Diangang (王殿冈) were later detained by Shandong authorities on the charges of "disrupting social order". Chen, detained on January 14, and Wang, detained on the 22, have yet to be released. Others involved in the case believe that Chen and Wang are being punished for petitioning along with thousands of other community-run school teachers during the Shandong Provincial Party Meeting on November 26, 2008. (CRLW)

Wuhan Resident Arbitrarily Detained for "Plotting to Demonstrate"

Wuhan citizen Xiao Changhai (肖昌海), a representative of activists whose property was expropriated by the state in earlier periods and are now disputing ownership with the government, was seized on December 16, 2008 in Yichang City, Hubei Province, by members of the National Security Unit of the Wuhan City PSB and forcibly taken to a "law education class" in the Wuchang District, Wuhan City, where he was detained for more than one month. On January 18, 2009, Xiao was moved to the Wuchang Detention Center, where he was administratively detained for five days. His family, who never received any formal written notice of his detention, was told by police that he was detained for "plotting to travel to Beijing to apply to demonstrate along with Wuhan petitioners Zhang Jianmin (张建民) and Zhou Xinbao (周新宝)." (CRLW)

4. Harassment and Abuse of Petitioners

Hubei Petitioner Disappears in Beijing, Feared Detained

On January 19, 2009, Li Dejie (李德接), from Shashi District, Jingzhou City, Hubei Province , travelled to the National Letters and Visits Office in Beijing to petition, and has not been heard from since. In 2001, she and her family were forcibly evicted from their home in Jingzhou by local courts acting in collusion with developers. Li was previously detained incommunicado by local authorities for 88 days during the 2008 Olympics, during which time no one, including her family, had any knowledge of her whereabouts. (CHRD)

Shanghai Petitioner Summoned, Beaten for Seeking Aid

On January 23, 2009, Fan Shiming (范诗铭) of Shanghai, was summoned (chuanhan) by police from Shanghai's Wuliqiao PSB Station, where, upon arrival, he was bound and beaten for more than three hours. On January 22, Fan had visited the Wuliqiao Police Station to seek humanitarian aid and demand authorities pay for his mother's hospitalization for gall bladder inflammation in late 2008, which was triggered by the stress of protracted surveillance by police during the Olympic Games. Fan was ignored by section chief Huang Chongmu (黄崇慕) and barred from meeting with other officials, at which point he left the station angrily after writing a series of messages on the wall of a stairway. Fan has been detained, beaten, and placed under surveillance on numerous occasions by local authorities for petitioning the government about the illegal destruction of his bicycle repair shop on July 31, 2005, by local police and developers. (CHRD)

5. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment

Factory Workers Beaten For Requesting Salaries

Shortly after learning of the impending bankruptcy of their employer on January 15, 2009, workers at the Dongwanhumenlu (东莞虎门露) Silk Clothing Manufacturing Plant in Guangdong Province approached factory officials to beg for back wages due to them. The officials, claiming that the factory was already bankrupt, refused to pay and workers and demanded that the workers leave the factory grounds. The workers refused, and that evening, between 40 and 50 local policemen, along with between 20 and 30 hired thugs, arrived at the factory and attacked the between 60 and 70 workers who remained on site. Three workers were treated at a nearby hospital for injuries sustained in the attack and released the next day. (CRLW)

Tianjin Citizen Beaten for Attempting to Register to Petition

On January 12, 2009, petitioner Xu Zhen(徐珍) from Hedong District, Tianjin City, arrived at the Letters and Visits Office outside the venue for the Tianjin "Two Meetings" (People's Congress and People's Political Consultative Conference) and submitted her petition. She was pulled aside by an employee of the Hedong District Construction Committee, and while the latter questioned Xu why she came to petition again, the Hedong District PSB Letters and Visits Office Director Xu ([许], no relation) suddenly appeared and struck her from behind. Director Xu continued to strike Xu Zhen while threatening her, saying "if you come again, I'll beat you to death!" Xu Zhen went to a local hospital where she was treated for injuries to her arms and head. (CRLW)

6. Freedom of Expression

Writer Sues Sina.com over the Closure of Blog

Wang Zhaojun (汪兆钧), an entrepreneur and member of the Standing Committee of the Anhui Provincial People's Political Consultative Committee, had his blog shut down by Chinese web portal Sina.com after he posted an article entitled "A Report on The People of China, 2009- The Year Chinese Society Began to Change." After consulting with lawyers, Tang Jitian (唐吉田) and Lan Zhixue (兰志学), Wang went to the Supreme People's Court in Beijing on January 19, 2009 to file a lawsuit challenging this infringement of his right to freedom of expression. According to regulations, the Court has seven days to decide whether or not to hear the case. (CHRD)

7. Citizens Action

Chinese Scholars Call for a Boycott of CCTV "Brainwashing"

On January 12, 2009, 22 Chinese scholars and lawyers published an open letter online calling for a boycott of CCTV's "brainwashing." Called "Boycott CCTV, Reject Brainwashing," the letter protested the monopolization of information dissemination and news broadcasting by the state-run TV station, and listed seven major problems, including: releasing propaganda claiming the Sanlu milk powder had passed 1100 quality tests while the scandal was unfolding, selectively reporting on social contradictions and incidents during China's transformative era, and not reporting breaking news or mass incidents, or watering down coverage of such events. (CHRD)

Fujian Farmers File Lawsuit against State Council

On January 13, 2009, Huang Weizhong (黄维忠), representative of 3000 farmers from Putian County, Fujian, travelled to the Supreme Peoples' Court in Beijing to file a lawsuit against the State Council. According to Huang, the lawsuit on behalf of the farmers sought to redress years of mistreatment at the hands of local authorities without oversight from the State Council. Previous attempts by farmers to petition the government had come to nothing, and often resulted in persecution against petitioners. Huang previously filed suit on behalf of the farmers with the Beijing Higher Court, which did not respond to his December 2008 lawsuit within the allotted seven days. Huang, who has worked for years to defend the rights of farmers who have lost their land, has been harassed and imprisoned in the past for his activism. (CHRD)

8. Law and Policy Watch

Officials Issue Standards to Regulate "Vulgar Content" on Internet

On January 9, 2009, government departments, including the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and others, jointly issued a set of thirteen regulations designed to target "vulgar content" on the internet. The regulations, while principally concerned with pornographic or explicit content, also contain regulations purporting to protect individuals' rights to privacy. However, in the wake of the closing of popular Chinese blog portal bullog.cn and similar sites earlier this month, netizens and activists fear that the new regulations are simply a pretext for cracking down on open spaces for free expression online.

Xuzhou City Enacts Personal Information Privacy Legislation

According to a January 20, 2009 Legal Daily report, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, became the first city to enact legislation preventing the arbitrary dissemination of others' personal information. The "Xuzhou City Computer Information System Security Protection Guidelines", passed a few days ago by the Standing Committee of Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress, will go into effect on June 1. The regulation will provide management for computer security, measures to safeguard information, outline legal responsibility of companies and individuals, and provide detailed guidelines for implementation. This legislation was created in part to address the phenomenon of the "human flesh search engine" (renrou sousuo, 人肉搜索) the combined efforts of netizens to track down personal information about individuals in the real world and online. According to these new regulations, providing personal information using this method would be an illegal violation of an individual's privacy. The maximum fine for netizens who provide or spread personal information is set at 5000 RMB (roughly 730 USD), and netizens may be banned from internet use for up to half a year. Companies found to be in violation of the regulations risk having their management licenses revoked or losing their network privileges.

As with the regulations on "vulgar content," the true impact of these regulations remains to be seen. While on the surface the guidelines offer a guarantee of protection for individuals' rights, they may just as easily be used to shield official malfeasance or restrict the free flow of information among citizens. (Legal Daily)

Chongqing Testing Death Row Visitation Regulations

According to a January 16, 2009 Xinhua report, the Chongqing Municipal Higher People's Court, Municipal Procuratorate, Public Security Bureau, and Municipal Bureau of Justice jointly announced the trial of newly drafted "Regulations Concerning Family Visits for Death Row Inmates". According to the regulations, inmates on death row in Chongqing and their families will now be able to apply for visits, and have these applications examined by courts, which will be in charge of arranging the visits. Chongqing joins Xian City, Beijing, Qingdao City, Jiangsu Province, Xiamen City, Guangzhou City, and Shantou City in allowing visitation rights for death row inmates. (Xinhua)

State Council Passes 850 Billion Yuan Medical Reform Plan

In a step towards providing universal health care for all Chinese citizens, China's State Council announced on January 21st the passing of a reform plan pledging 850 billion RMB (123 billion USD) towards medical reform by the year 2011. The plan, which had been in deliberations since 2006, seeks to address mounting public criticism of exorbitant medical fees, lack of access to services in rural areas, and low medical insurance rates. The plan pledges to cover 90% of all citizens by basic medical insurance or a new rural co-operative medical system by 2011, as well as providing an increase in the annual medical subsidy received by citizens. Particular attention is set to be paid to rural areas, whose health care facilities lag far behind their urban counterparts. How officials will implement this plan remains to be seen. (Xinhua)

Editors: Wang Songlian and David Smalls

Chinese Who Could not Enjoy This Chinese New Year

2009-01-25T13:19:00.000-08:00

It is already the lunar New Year Day in China. Presumably, more than a billion people have managed some kind of New Year Eve, in the past 24 hours. The majority did so with their family members - this has been the foremost important family reunion annual festival in China for centuries. However, some people have not been able to spent the day as they and their beloved ones have wishes.

---
Hu Jia, the human rights activist, 2008 winner of the European Saharov Prize for Freedom of Speech, is held in prison, charged for "subsersion of state power" because of his online writings. He has severe liver illness that requires constant care and the prison has not provided him adequate medical care. His health has been deteriorating.

His wife, Zeng Jinyan, herself actively involved in human rights and civil rights activities, had wished to see him in a long-planned prison visit. She carefully chose a red colored jacket to cheer him up. However, at last minute, she was notified by the State Security Police that her prison visit permission had been revoked. Only Hu Jia's mother was allowed to visit him. He was said visibly disappointed at missing the opportunity to greet his wife for the Chinese New Year.

If you can read Chinese, please visit Zeng Jinyan's blog and learn more about the heroic couple. Their daughter has just had her first birthday in November. Since her born, she has spent only a few weeks with her father.

---
Chen Guangchen, the blind legal activist and winner of the 2007 Prize, is, too, staying behind the bar, for his actions to help poor peasants in his home town. He is blind and constantly in need of both medical care and routine help in his daily life. Instead of providing necessary facilities to Chen, prison guards have frequently abused him physically and mentally.

Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing, has received constant abuses at home, too. She is not allowed to travel, followed by police and local thugs whenever she goes out. The couple's two young children have been harassed repeatedly as well.

In the past years, Hu Jia's wife Zeng Jinyan and Chen Guangcheng's wife Yuan Weijing have formed very strong bond to support each other. However, with each of the women being confined to their home locale at the moment, their mutual support is constrained severely. We learn about Yuan Weijing mainly from Zeng Jinyan's blog.

---
Liu Xiaobo, arguably the most well-known Chinese dissident in the past ten years, has been in and out of China's prison system - including formal prison and the notorious "reeducation through labor" (lao jiao) system - for many times since June 1989. He is under house arrest at the moment.

In early December 2008, Liu joined 300 others in China to issue the political campaign, Charter 08. The charter was formally released online on the 60th anniversary of the World Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008. Hours earlier, Liu was already taken away by secret police for his role in organizing the charter. It was not until days later that his wife, Liu Xia, was allowed to see him in an undisclosed location outside Beijing.

Since then, it has been understood that the Lius are under house arrest. The authorities censored all information, online or via other media, about Charter 08 and about Liu Xiaobo. He has not been allowed to get back to his normal way of contacting the outside world - by the Internet.

----
There are many others inside China who, due to political persecution, cannot reunited with their beloved ones for this Chinese New Year.

Let us send our warmest greetings to all of them. Remembering them, praying in your own chosen manner for them, joining hands together to support them.

Today is the New Year Day of the Chinese lunar calendar. It is the beginning of the year of Ox.

Released Tiananmen Prisoner Incarcerated in Psychiatric Institution since Olympics

2009-01-25T13:13:00.000-08:00

http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200901/20090123063047_13237.html

(Chinese Human Rights Defenders, January 22, 2009) - CHRD learned today that Wang Lianxi (王连喜), a former worker who was released from prison in 2007 following 18 years of incarceration for his role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, is incarcerated at a Beijing mental institution. Wang, believed to be hospitalized involuntarily, was detained ahead of the Olympics to prevent him from "making trouble" during the Games.

Arrested during the government crackdown on pro-democracy protestors shortly after June 4, 1989, Wang was swiftly sentenced to death along with seven co-defendants accused of setting fire to military vehicles. He was not executed, however; citing his mental disabilities, his sentence was commuted to life in prison. In July 2007, after serving 18 years in prison, Wang was set free. But by the time he was released, his parents had passed away and his home in Beijing had been demolished. With nowhere to go, Wang was given accommodation in a couple of locations with the help of his Neighborhood Committee.

On the eve of the Olympics, however, Wang was caught in the sweep of "undesirables" across Beijing as authorities labored to remove those who might make trouble or might not present a positive image of China to the world. Wang was taken to the Pingan Psychiatric Hospital in Xizhimenwai District, Beijing. On January 19, 2009, Gao Hongming (高洪明), a friend of Wang's, discovered that Wang was still incarcerated in the hospital. According to Gao, who visited his friend the same day, Wang's reaction speed was diminished, and his mind not particularly agile, but otherwise he showed no signs of serious mental disability.

The practice of using psychiatric institutions to confine "undesirable" citizens such as dissidents and petitioners by authorities in China is a well-documented and continuing problem. The Chinese legal framework for involuntary hospitalization is vague and ill-defined. The relevant law, Article 18 of the PRC Criminal Code, includes no concrete details as to the circumstances under which individuals should be subjected to compulsory medical treatment.

CHRD suspects that Wang was committed to a mental institution, and continues to be held within, not for the purpose of treatment but because authorities were concerned about the public image of Beijing during the Olympics. CHRD has not found any evidence suggesting that Wang or his family consented to the hospitalization or that any independent mental health evaluation was conducted to determine whether Wang's mental condition was serious enough to
pose any real danger to society such that he needed to be hospitalized.

The UN Committee against Torture, in its "Concluding Observations" CAT/C/CHN/CO/421 November 2008, paragraph 26) recommended that China "take measures to ensure that no one is involuntarily placed in psychiatric institutions for reasons other than medical. Where hospitalization is required for medical reasons, the State party should ensure that it is decided only upon the advice of independent psychiatric experts and that such decisions can be
appealed."

CHRD calls on the Beijing authorities to conduct an evaluation of Wang's mental health by independent psychiatric experts. If there is no evidence to suggest that he has any mental conditions that would pose any serious danger to society, he should be immediately and unconditionally released.

For more information on involuntary hospitalization, please see:

Persistent Torture, Unaccountable Torturers: A Report on China's Implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (November 11, 2008)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class11/200811/20081105101541_11571.html

Dancing in Shackles: A Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in China, 2007 (May 1, 2008)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class11/200805/20080501034205_8531.html

For more information on Tiananmen protestors, please see:

Nineteen Years on, Tiananmen Protesters Still Languish in Prison (June 3, 2008)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class15/200806/20080603213920_8884.html

After Torture in Detention, Legal Activist Yuan Xianchen Goes on Trial

2009-01-22T00:11:00.000-08:00

CHRD 2009-1-15 1:18:07

After Torture in Detention, Legal Activist Yuan Xianchen Goes on Trial (Chinese Human Rights Defenders- January 14, 2009) – On January 12, Yuan Xianchen (袁显臣), a human rights activist and "legal worker" (falu gongzuozhe) based in Jixi City, Heilongjiang Province, was tried for "inciting subversion of state power" by Jixi City Intermediate People's Court. Yuan also told his lawyers that he was beaten and coerced to confession.

According to Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch (CRLW), Yuan's lawyers, Li Fangping (李方平) and Li Xiongbing (黎雄兵), attended the trial. Yuan's wife and other family members and supporters were originally barred from attending the trial on the grounds that it involved "state secrets". However, the lawyers were able to persuade court officials that the trial be held publicly.

According to the Jixi Procuratorate, Yuan "incited subversion of state power" because he distributed an article entitled "Save China, Implement Constitutional Democracy" to petitioners and representatives attending the National People's Congress in Beijing in 2005; that he gave interviews to the Epoch Times and other foreign media; that he received funds from domestic and overseas human rights organizations; and that he drafted over twenty articles "attacking" socialism.

Furthermore, though it was not formally mentioned at the trial, it is believed that Yuan was also arrested in part for helping Yang Chunlin (杨春林), a Heilongjiang farmers' representative, collect signatures endorsing an open letter entitled "We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics". Yang was sentenced to five years in prison for "inciting subversion of state power" on March 24, 2008.

Yuan pleaded not guilty. The court did not issue a verdict.

CHRD learned from Yuan's lawyers that, between Yuan's apprehension in Beijing on May 24, 2008, and his formal detention on May 29, he was repeatedly tortured to extract confession in Beijing Municipal State Security Bureau Detention Center. A guard hit Yuan's head with handcuffs, which left more than ten bald spots and visible scars on his head. During those five days, Yuan was not informed of his suspected crime, the state organ holding him or the location of his detention. When Yuan was later transferred to the Jixi City Detention Center, the beatings continued but were less frequent.

CHRD calls for Yuan's immediate and unconditional release.

CHRD demands the Chinese authorities to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged torture of Yuan and, if the allegation is confirmed, such "evidence" obtained through torture should not be admissible in court.

The torture suffered by Yuan violates his right to be protected against cruel and inhuman punishment as guaranteed by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed but not yet ratified, as well as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which China ratified in 1988. CHRD demands that those responsible for torture be punished to the full extent of the law.

Furthermore, CHRD believes that Yuan has been incarcerated solely for the peaceful activities of drafting articles and assisting miners to seek compensation legally. The Chinese government has violated Yuan's rights to freedom of expression and association guaranteed in, respectively, Articles 19 and 22 of the ICCPR. The rights are also guaranteed in Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution.

Background:

Yuan, 44, is best known for his work as a legal advisor to workers at the Didao Mine in Jixi City. The miners have been seeking compensation from the local government and the mine management since the former state-owned business was re-structured and became a private enterprise.

Yuan was taken into police custody in Beijing on May 24, 2008. He was transferred to Jixi City Detention Center and formally detained on May 29. On June 30, Yuan was formally arrested on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power", a crime often used to prosecute free speech and restrict the human rights of Chinese citizens.

Yuan was previously detained for 37 days, in 2005, for investigating the death of a petitioner from Inner Mongolia who was killed by a train while fleeing pursuers outside the Beijing South Train Station.

For more information, please see:

Persistent Torture, Unaccountable Torturers: A Report on China's Implementation of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
November 5, 2008
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class11/200811/20081105101541_11571.html

"Olympics Prisoner" Yang Chunlin Sentenced to Five Years in Prison
March 24, 2008
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200803/20080326054123_8200.html

Inciting Subversion of State Power": A Legal Tool for Prosecuting Free Speech in China
January 8, 2008
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class11/200801/20080108225721_7032.html

Imprisoned Human Rights Defender Chen Guangcheng Denied Medical Care

2009-01-22T00:05:00.000-08:00

CHRD 2009-1-15 13:45:20
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200901/20090115134520_13092.html

(Chinese Human Rights Defenders- January 14, 2009) - CHRD has learned that imprisoned human rights defender Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚) has been denied appropriate medical care and is in very poor health following months of digestive affliction.

Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing (袁伟静), who visited her husband at the Linyi Prison in Shandong Province in late December 2008, reports that Chen has been suffering from diarrhea daily since July 2008. Seeing her husband for the first time in more than a year, Yuan discovered that Chen's skin had become sallow and he appeared emaciated and frail. According to the prison doctor, who has examined him three times since the beginning of his illness in July of 2008, Chen has blood in his stool and suffers from chronic gastroenteritis; however, the doctor has not performed bacterial cultures necessary to properly diagnose Chen, and prison officials refuse to allow further medical examination without provincial-level approval. Chen's condition is being exacerbated by a lack of access to clean water inside the jail, and a diet restricted to thin rice gruel.

Chen, who is blind, is eligible both for parole and for release on bail for medical treatment, according to relevant Chinese laws and regulations. However, since submitting his applications for parole in September 2008 and for release on bail for medical treatment more than a year ago, he has received no official response.

Furthermore, he has been prevented from receiving regular visits from his wife, as a group of twenty local officials and guards keep her under constant surveillance at home, and have intercepted and restrained her as she tried to travel to the prison on numerous occasions.

CHRD reiterates the call for the immediate and unconditional release of Chen Guangcheng as well as an end to the prolonged harassment of his wife.

We believe that the deprivation of Chen's liberty results from the exercise of his rights or freedoms (including the rights to free opinion, speech, expression, press, assembly, association, and demonstration) guaranteed by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed, though not yet ratified. Chen was incarcerated in retaliation for his work in defending human rights and for exercising his rights to free expression and opinion and criticizing government policy.

CHRD calls for the Chinese government to honor the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which it signed and ratified, to ensure that Chen is protected from cruel and inhuman treatment. CHRD demands that, while he remains in custody, Chen be granted adequate medical treatment without delay.

Background

Chen Guangcheng is a human rights activist, self-taught legal advisor, and "barefoot lawyer" who has worked for years to protect the rights of farmers and the disabled. As a result of his work to challenge the use of violence in enforcing China's population control policy, including providing legal aid to villagers seeking to file lawsuits, Chen was targeted by the authorities and subjected to illegal arrest and detention on three separate occasions.

On August 24, 2006, after more than eight months of house arrest and illegal detention, Chen was sentenced to four years in prison for "inciting destruction of property" and "intentional obstruction of traffic." Despite flagrant instances of non-compliance with international standards for a fair trial- including the torture of key witnesses, the cruel and inhumane treatment of the defendant and his family, and intimidation and violent attacks on his lawyers- during his trials and appeals, the verdict has been upheld and he has remained in prison until today.

For more information, please see:

Shandong Officials Continue Harassing Wife of Jailed Human Rights Defender
November 24, 2007
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class15/200711/20071124042658_6495.html

Officials Ignored Requests for Medical Parole and for Filing Complaints to Higher Court about Verdict
March 23, 2007
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class15/200703/20070325012934_3757.html

China vs. a Blind Human Rights Defender: A Report on the Case of Imprisoned Chen Guangcheng
February 20, 2007
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=3485 (Part 1)

http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class48/Class62/200702/20070222210628_7953.html(Part 2)

Over One Hundred Signatories Harassed Since Launch of Charter 08

2009-01-16T20:44:00.000-08:00

CHRD, 2009-1-8 14:11:40

http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200901/20090108141140_12945.html

Over One Hundred Signatories Harassed Since Launch of Charter 08 (Chinese Human Rights Defenders, January 9, 2009) - One month after it was issued on December 9, 2008, Charter 08 continues to vex the Chinese authorities, who have continued to pressure signatories of the Charter. CHRD has documented one- hundred-and-one cases of individuals who have been harassed, called in for questioning, or summoned (chuanhuan) by police across seventeen provinces and three municipalities. It is very likely that the actual number is higher as CHRD is aware that some individuals do not wish to make their harassment public. Over 7,200 people have signed the Charter.

A full list of the one-hundred-and-one signatories harassed is available below. Some of them are scholars who have been questioned and warned by superiors at their academic institutions regarding their support for Charter 08.

CHRD has learned from those called in by the police that the questioning seems designed to determine the authors of the Charter as well as to identify their methods for disseminating information. Interrogations often end with the authorities demanding an individual publicly renounce his or her support for the Charter. If this request is not met, police have accused signatories of joining "an illegal association", being "suspected of plotting to overthrow the regime" or otherwise intimidated or threatened them.

One signatory, the prominent dissident writer Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波), has been held in custody since December 8, 2008, and is now subjected to "residential surveillance" (jianshi juzhu) at an undisclosed location in Beijing.

Efforts by officials to stifle freedom of expression and repress the Charter have increased online. Beginning the evening of December 26, 2008, searches for "Charter 08" on Baidu, Google.cn and Yahoo, three main search engines in China have returned no relevant results. However, the Charter continues to spread. Chinese netizens are still signing the Charter, debating it on the internet and circulating the text on blogs, message boards, and through instant messaging devices.

Chinese Human Rights Defenders reiterates its protest against the intimidation and harassment of Charter 08 signatories, who are being targeted solely for the peaceful activities of expressing their views about democratic reform and human rights in China. The Chinese government is willfully and blatantly violating the rights to freedom of expression and association guaranteed in both its own constitution and international treaties of which it is a signatory. China is also acting in contradiction to its own interest in building a good international reputation, as it will soon face international scrutiny on its human rights records during the UN Human Rights Council "Universal Periodical Review" in February 2009.

Full list of Charter 08 signatories subjected to detention, interrogation and/or intimidation:

Beijing Municipality:
Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波)
Zhang Zuhua (张祖桦)
Pu Zhiqiang (浦志强)
Jiang Qisheng (江棋生)
Gao Yu (高瑜)
Liu Di (刘荻)
Teng Biao (滕彪)
Yu Jie (余杰)
Li Hai (李海)
Zeng Jinyan (曾金燕)
Zhou Hongling (周鸿陵)
Li Zhiying (李智英)
Yu Haocheng (于浩成)
Xia Yeliang (夏业良)
Xu Youyu (徐友渔)
Cui Weiping (崔卫平)
Li Xianting (栗宪庭)
Mo Zhixu (莫之许)
Chen Yongmiao (陈永苗)
Wang Junxiu (王俊秀)
Liu Junning (刘军宁)
He Weifang (贺卫方)
Liang Xiaoyan (梁晓燕)
Xu Xiao (徐晓)
Zhu Jiuhu (朱久虎)
Guo Yushan (郭玉闪)
Jiang Tianyong (江天勇)

Chongqing Municipality:
Yang Yunhong (杨远宏)

Shanghai Municipality:
Zheng Enchong (郑恩宠)
Jiang Danwen (蒋亶文)
Feng Zhenghu (冯正虎)
Duan Chunfang (段春芳)
Dong Guojing (董国菁)
Jing Yuehua (金月花)
Ma Yalian (马亚莲)
Zhang Junling (张君令)

Liaoning Province:
Huang Dachuan (黄大川)

Zhejiang Province:
Wu Baojian (吴报建)
Zou Wei (邹巍)
Wang Xue'e (汪雪娥)
Gao Haibing (高海兵)
Zhuang Daohe (庄道鹤)
Wen Kejian (温克坚)
Zan Aizong (昝爱宗)
Mao Qingxiang (毛庆祥)
Xu Guang (徐光)
Guo Weidong (郭卫东）
Yang Jianmin (杨建民)
Liu Jincheng (刘进成)

Fujian Province:
Fan Yanqiong (范燕琼)
Lin Huanhui (林焕辉)
Hainan Province:
Qin Geng (秦耕)

Guangdong Province:
Ye Du (野渡)
Zhao Dagong (赵达功)
Guo Yongfeng （郭永丰)
Tang Jingling (唐荆陵)
Ye Huo (野火)
Zhang Jinjun (张津郡)
Li Tie (李铁)
Chen Shaohua (陈少华)
Ai Xiaoming (艾晓明)

Guangxi Province:
Jing Chu (荆楚)
Li Xiaolong (黎小龙)

Yunnan Province:
Wei Wanying (魏文英)
Zhang Zhengxiang (张正祥)
Liu Zhengshan (刘正善)
Wang Yuwen (王玉文)

Guizhou Province:
Chen Xi (陈西)
Du Heping (杜和平)
Liao Shuangyuan (廖双元)
Xu Guoqing (徐国庆)
Chen Defu (陈德富)
Zhang Zhongfa (张重发)
Wang Yuwen (王玉文)
Shen Youlian (申有连)
Han Xin (汉心)

Hunan Province:
Xie Fulin (谢福林)
Li Dongzhuo (李东卓)
Zhang Shanguang (张善光)
Li Deming (李德铭)
Wang Fengzhi (万凤芝)
Liu Jianan (刘建安)
Chen Zuoyong (陈作勇)

Hubei Province:
Liu Yiming (刘逸明)
Su Zuxiang (苏祖祥)
Yao Lifa (姚立法)

Shaanxi Province:
Du Yilong (杜义龙)
Zhang Jiankang (张鉴康)
Yang Hai (杨海)
Zhao Changqing (赵常青)
Wu Qi (吴起)
Yang Hai (杨海)

Jiangxi Province:
Xu Gaojin (徐高金)

Jiangsu Province:
Lu Wen (陆文)

Hebei Province:
Li Jinfang (李金芳)

Shandong Province:
Li Changyu (李昌玉)

Sichuan Province:
Liu Zhengyou (刘正有)
Liu Xianbin (刘贤斌)
Chen Wei (陈卫)

Heilongjiang Province:
Zhao Jingzhou (赵景洲)
Chen Huijuan (陈惠娟)

For more information, please see:

Liu Xiaobo under Residential Surveillance at Undisclosed Location (January 2, 2009)
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200901/20090102142014_12798.html

Police Summon Beijing Intellectual Zhang Zuhua, China Continues Crackdown on Charter 08 (December 29, 2008),
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200812/20081229092309_12717.html

Crackdown on Charter 08 Widens as More Activists are Interrogated and Intimidated (December 16, 2008),
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200812/20081216212554_12417.html

Chinese Government Responds with a Crackdown on Activists for Commemorating 60th Anniversary of UDHR (December 10, 2008),
http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200812/20081210085443_12282.html

CHRD: China Human Rights Briefing

2009-01-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

2008-12-31 11:35:56
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200812/20081231113556_12767.html

Reporting human rights development from the grassroots

December 1-15, 2008

HIGHLIGHTS

On December 9, a group of 303 Chinese citizens launched Charter 08, a declaration that outlines a vision for a democratic China and establishes a platform for citizen action. More than 5,000 people have since added their names to the Charter. The Charter and discussions about it have spread over China's internet faster than cyber-censors' attempts to squelch them.

A day before the launch of Charter 08, police took into custody Liu Xiaobo and Zhang Zuhua, two Beijing-based dissident intellectuals the authorities believe to be the Charter's organizers. Although Zhang was later released, Liu remains in custody on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power".

As of December 18, CHRD has documented official harassment of at least 48 other Charter signatories. Authorities in Guizhou illegally and secretly detained three activists, now released, to prevent them from publicly commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, in direct contradiction of the government's claim in November that "the accusation that China was obstructing NGOs from publicizing human rights instruments 'is groundless".

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

* Freedom of Expression

o China's Censors Block or Delete Charter 08

* Right to Participate in Government

o Hubei Villagers Protest Appointment of Unelected Village Secretary

* Harassment and Persecution of Rights Activists

o Prominent Dissident Intellectual Liu Xiaobo Remains in Police Custody

o Crackdown on Charter 08 Widens as More Activists are Interrogated and Intimidated

o Guizhou Human Rights Activists Released

o Olympics Protest Applicant Held Incommunicado in Fujian Province

o Exiled Tiananmen Student Leader Detained during Family Visit to China

* Harassment and Persecution of Petitioners

o Petitioners Detained for Walking around Tiananmen Square Wearing Complaint T-shirts

o Petitioners Intercepted in Beijing and Forcibly Returned to Wuhan

* Right to Fair Trial

o Falun Gong Practitioner Convicted Without Access to Legal Counsel

* Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment

o Petitioner and Activist Liu Jie's Application for Release for Medical Treatment Denied

o Olympics Prisoner Yang Chunlin Forced to Perform 14 Hours of Daily Labor

o Member of Pan-Blue Alliance of Chinese Nationalists Tortured in Prison

o Hubei Villagers Seriously Injured in Violent Land Seizure

* Regulation and Policy Watch

o Wuhan Passes Regulations to Protect Rights of Mentally Ill

o Zhejiang to Protect Migrant Children's Right to Education

* Citizens' Actions to Defend Human Rights

o Chinese Citizens Launch Charter 08

o CHRD Calls on the Government to Ratify International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

* Notable CHRD Publications

o CHRD's Latest Report Finds No Decrease in Media Censorship in China

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

VACLAV HAVEL: China's Human-Rights Activists Need Support

2008-12-26T13:31:00.000-08:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122964944665820499.html

* DECEMBER 19, 2008

China's Human-Rights Activists Need Support
The signatories of Charter 08 face the wrath of the state.

By VACLAV HAVEL
Prague

In January 1977, a group of Czechoslovak citizens, of which I was privileged to be one, released Charter 77. That document was our call for the better protection of basic civil and political rights by the state. It was also the articulation of our belief that, as citizens, we had a certain responsibility to work with the Czechoslovak government to ensure through our vigilance that basic rights would be protected.

With the release of Charter 77, we wanted to create not a membership organization, but instead, as I wrote then, "a free, informal open community of people of different convictions, different faiths, and different professions united by the will to strive, individually and collectively, for the respect of civic and human rights in our own country and throughout the world."

More than three decades later, in December 2008, a group of Chinese citizens has taken our modest effort as their model. They have made a similar call -- for human rights, good governance and respect for the responsibility of citizens to keep watch over their government -- to ensure that their state plays by the rules of a modern open society.

The document they have issued is an impressive one. In it, the authors of Charter 08 call for protection of basic rights, increased judicial independence, and legislative democracy. But they do not stop there. With the passage of time, we have come to realize that a free and open society means more than the protection of basic rights. To that end, the signatories of Charter 08 also wisely call for better environmental protection, a bridging of the rural-urban divide, better provision of social security, and a serious effort to reconcile with human-rights abuses committed in decades past.

The original signatories, who number more than 300, come from all walks of life, and from across China -- a testament to the broad appeal of the ideas put forward in Charter 08. Among the signatories are China's top minds from law, political science, economics, the arts and culture. Their decision to sign onto such a document was surely not taken lightly, and their words should not be so brusquely brushed aside. Since the Charter was released, more than 5,000 men and women have added their names to it.

China in 2008 is not Czechoslovakia in 1977. In many ways, China today is freer and more open than my own country of 30 years ago. And yet, the response of the Chinese authorities to Charter 08 in many ways parallels the Czechoslovak government's response to Charter 77.

Rather than respond to our offer of engagement with dialogue and debate, the Czechoslovak government instead chose repression. It arrested some of the signatories, interrogated and harassed others, and spread disinformation about our movement and its aims.

So too has the Chinese government declined the invitation to discuss with the signatories of Charter 08 the merits of their proposal. Instead, it has detained two signatories, Liu Xiaobo and Zhang Zuhua, both of whom the government has identified as lead actors in its creation. Mr. Zhang has been released, but Mr. Liu, a prominent writer and intellectual, is still being held incommunicado without charge.

Dozens of others have been interrogated, and an unknowable number are being watched by state security agents as they make phone calls and type email messages on behalf of their jailed comrades. Soon after Charter 77 was issued, I was arrested for the commission of "serious crimes against the basic principles of the Republic." It is feared that Mr. Liu will be charged with "incitement to subvert state power," a similarly arbitrary crime.

I am saddened by this turn of events, and my thoughts are with Liu Xiaobo's wife, Liu Xia, who has yet to be given the opportunity to speak with her husband. The Chinese government should learn well the lesson of the Charter 77 movement: that intimidation, propaganda campaigns, and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. Only the immediate and unconditional release of Liu Xiaobo will demonstrate that, for Beijing, that lesson has been learned.

Mr. Havel is the former president of the Czech Republic.

ZENG Jinyan: On HU Jia's behalf for Acceptance of the Sakharov Award

2008-12-18T09:09:00.000-08:00

Dear friends, Hello,

I am Hu Jia's wife, Zeng Jinyan. Hu Jia is currently in prison and so is unable to come to the ceremony to receive his Sakharov Prize.

I don't have a passport so I cannot come to Europe either to attend the ceremony for the Sakharov Prize's 20th anniversary. We are deeply sorry about this.

The good news is that Hu Jia was transferred on 10 October 2008 from Chaobai prison in Tianjin to the Beijing municipal prison, and that the conditions in which he is being held have improved. As for his health, he is looking a little better. He seems to be in slightly better shape than he was in Chaobai prison.

However, he had two blood tests in the space of a month and we don't know what the results were. Although we asked for them, the results of the tests have not been given to the family. This behaviour worries us. It makes us fear that his cirrhosis has got worse.

I visited Hu Jia in the Beijing municipal prison on 21 November 2008. Before our meeting, we were both warned separately by the prison authorities that we were forbidden to talk about the fact that he had been awarded the Sakharov Prize.

So, during my visit, neither of us was able to talk about the prize. We weren't able to discuss it by letter either, as all our correspondence is inspected. Even if all we do is express a view about social phenomena or if Hu Jia talks about the prison, when the prison authorities are not happy with it, our letters are confiscated or Hu Jia's letters are returned to him. We very much hope to be able to communicate more normally, but for the time being it is very hard.

At the end of October 2008 or beginning of November, I am not exactly sure which, State Security police officers told Hu Jia he had won the Sakharov Prize.

And when I saw him on 21 November, I could sense that he was very happy about it. I know that Hu Jia spoke to his mother and to the policemen about it. These are more or less his words:

"Perhaps the European Parliament was thinking of the work I did in the areas of AIDS and the environment, because what I did in terms of human rights was very far from sufficient and I will need to redouble my efforts."

He also said this Sakharov Prize was very important for China and he was confident that the future would prove him right. Obviously, from my personal viewpoint, I hope he comes home as soon as possible. Hu Jia said one day that he hoped to be China's last prisoner of conscience but the reality is very different. Since the day of his trial, on 3 April, there have been others such as Huang Qi, Zeng Honglin and Chen Daojun who have been arrested by the authorities because their expressed their views publicly. And some of them have been tried and given prison sentences.

This shows that the situation of freedom of opinion is still absolutely appalling and that there is no reason for optimism.

But even in these circumstances, there are now a great many exceptional people and people of goodwill in Chinese society who are going to great lengths to find ways to make the real situation in China known, and to express deeply-felt views, and the Internet is providing them with a very interesting platform. But unfortunately there is sometimes a very high price to be paid for this.

If the truth be told, sometimes one's courage is not enough. Sometimes the price to be paid is very, very high. There have been cases in which, after human rights activists, writers and others have used their freedom of thought, their relatives have also been harassed by the police, have lost their jobs or have been put under house arrest. And more serious still, some have even been tried and convicted.

Hu Jia had himself been illegally kidnapped several times by the police since 2004, without any form of legal procedure. He was constantly followed and in the end he was given a prison sentence. And I, who am his wife, I am often harassed by the police.

Others are in the same situation, such as Chen Guangchen and his wife, Guo Feixiong and his wife, and even their child, who has been denied his right to education. Thanks to many appeals from different quarters, Guo Feixiong's children were later able to go back to school although in circumstances that are not very satisfactory.

For all these reasons, I would like to respect the desire that Hu Jia has expressed on many occasions. He has often said he would like to set up a support network to help the families of human rights activists. To provide moral support for the families, to ease their mental and life pressure to which they are subjected. So that they can be strong enough to face the pressure of the authorities in a more active and optimistic manner, and to discourage cruel revenge-taking on families.

I cannot at the moment do very much but I would like to use the 50,000 euros of Hu Jia's Sakharov Prize as start-up money, to establish a foundation to support the families of human rights activists and to finally realise what Hu Jia had always wanted.

Why is the human rights work done by Hu Jia so difficult?

I think this is mainly because China's legal system is not satisfactory. There are laws, there are all sorts of articles and regulations, some are well written, but they are not applied.

In reality, the situation of the rule of law is disastrous. The judicial system has no independence. Until 2004, Hu Jia devoted most of his activity to the problems of AIDS and the environment. He spent a lot of the time in the field, on campaigns, where people needed him to take concrete action.

Then, from 2004 onwards, the police regularly denied him his freedom of movement and he had no other choice but to participate in human rights movements from his home, writing articles and publishing reports from the field.

I think that during all these years, the most important and most interesting thing he did was to have constantly persisted in saying the truth. He never stopped writing about the phenomena he observed. He never stopped describing, one by one, all the realities that the Chinese media cannot say. He never stopped publishing all this on websites so that the public could learn about the reality of China and understand it.

In my view, this has been his greatest contribution.

If you look at China now, you see everyone talking, but lying is very widespread. Nonetheless, there are people who continue their quest for the truth. Because the school textbooks our children study, our newspapers and broadcast media, our libraries and all these documents and files, they all resemble what you find in the novel 1984. They are written in another language to describe a fictitious reality.

What is the real situation, the real China? We do not know.

That is why there is a group of thinking people, like Hu Jia, in China who have never abandoned their quest for the truth. But Hu Jia has paid a very heavy price.

Our child is now just one year old. This is a key period in her life but Hu Jia is not able to be at her side. It is very difficult for me to talk about this, but I think…

And then Hu Jia has also always been very optimistic. He said he thought China was experiencing the most open period of its history, that you had to seize the opportunity to more effectively promote a fairer, freer and more democratic society in China.

We can indeed see this in our daily life, although the government still has very tight control over the media and over freedom of association, and perhaps even tighter control with the use of new technology. But on the other hand, civil society also uses the new technology and the platform that the Internet provides to actively promote a fairer judicial system and a more just society, and to investigate and expose the real China.

And to carry out citizen education, to educate citizens about human rights. It is a real hope: whether the government wants it or not, and whether leading figures inside or outside China recognise it or not, China is moving at great speed towards an open and democratic society.

I would finally like to say that, whatever happens, we must maintain an active and optimist attitude and pursue our efforts to promote the rule of law in China, to promote democracy and freedom in China.

We are full of hope of soon being able to hail the arrival of an open China. We are full of energy for China to become a country at peace.

I would like to thank our European Parliament friends from the bottom of my heart. The European Parliament has from the outset taken an interest in Hu Jia's case and has deployed considerable efforts on behalf of freedom for Hu Jia and other Chinese human rights activists, efforts that demand respect.

It has also never stopped drawing attention to the need for freedom to become a reality for the people of China. Thank you, thank you very much.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those friends who I have never seen. If you had not supported us for so long, if you had not taken an interest in our fate, if you had not constantly encouraged us, I think we would never have found the courage to confront such a difficult social reality.

It helps us to keep hope and to continue our efforts.

I thank you. Thank you for all the efforts you have undertaken for Hu Jia, for me and for our family. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of human rights activists and you contribution to the progress of Chinese society.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you. And goodbye.

(based on subtitles of the videoed speech; source: China News Digest)

Amnesty International: Taiwan Police against Protesters

2008-12-18T05:23:00.000-08:00

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
AI Index No: ASA 38/001/2008
3 December 2008

Taiwan: Police should avoid using excessive force at upcoming protests

Amnesty International has urged Taiwan's police force to comply with international guidelines on the use of force and crowd control at the planned student protests on Sunday 7 December. The organization also joins calls for the Control Yuan, the body mandated by the Taiwan Constitution with supervisory power over the Executive branch, to conduct an independent inquiry into alleged excessive police force during November's protests.

The Wild Strawberry Student Movement has staged sit-ins since 6 November to protest against what they consider the use of excessive force during the Taiwan visit of Chen Yunlin, chairman of the China-based Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait. Civil society groups in Taiwan are investigating multiple claims that individuals suffered head injuries and broken fingers at the hands of police during the protests.

According to police reports on 8 November, approximately 10,000 police officers had been deployed during Chen's visit; 149 police officers and 200-300 individuals were injured; 18 were arrested.

Taiwanese civil society groups claim that police have applied the Assembly and Parade Law arbitrarily to silence dissent. According to the students’ spokesperson, they will not seek police approval, as required by the law, but will only “report” their plans to law enforcement authorities, in line with amendments advocated by the Movement.

The Movement is organizing the protest on Sunday 7 December to criticize the government’s failure to amend the Assembly and Parade Law.

Amnesty International said Taiwan’s Control Yuan should address the serious concerns raised by civil society in Taiwan and the government should cease the practice of using the Assembly and Parade Law to deny freedom of assembly and allow individuals to protest peacefully. Amnesty International also called on Taiwanese police and judicial authorities to ensure that they investigate any protesters accused of engaging in violence in a fair, transparent, and timely manner in compliance with international standards.

Background

On 3-7 November 2008, Chen Yunlin, chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, led a 60-member delegation from the People’s Republic of China to visit Taiwan and meet with President Ma Ying-jeou.

The police barred protesters displaying Taiwanese and Tibetan flags and anti-China slogans along the routes taken by the envoy and confiscated or damaged some of these items. The police also closed a shop near the hotel where Chen Yunlin had dinner with Kuomintang honorary chairman Lien Chan when the shop loudly broadcast music from an album titled 'Songs of Taiwan'.

There were additional reports of arbitrary detention and police brutality, some of which, according to the police, were in response to the violence of protesters.

Following the visit, hundreds of students have staged sit-ins across Taiwan protesting the police’s handling of the protests and demanding amendments to the Assembly and Parade Law, which has been misused to prevent protests.

On 6 November the students started their sit-ins outside the offices of the Executive Yuan or (Executive branch), where they were eventually removed by police on the grounds of illegal assembly. They continued the sit-ins at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall and organized a daily demonstration calling for immediate amendments to the Assembly and Parade Law, apologies from the president and head of government and the resignations of the heads of the police and national security.

On 18 November Taipei police announced a list of 66 “troublemakers”, who had allegedly thrown gas bombs and stones at the police and spat at the Taichung mayor. There were also reports that the police had pressured journalists and their supervisors to hand over video tapes to identify suspects who allegedly took part in the violence.

END/
Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20
7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK
www.amnesty.org

Charter '08 Signatories: Liu Xiaobo Is Indivisible from Us

2008-12-16T10:19:00.000-08:00

-- A Statement by Signatories of Charter 08

15 December 2008

On the night of 8 December 2008, Mr. Liu Xiaobo was taken away from his home by the police and he has not yet returned. We have learned that Mr. Liu Xiaobo is being detained for initiating and signing Charter 08. We are deeply concerned and worried about his detention and insistently call for his immediate release.

We co-signed Charter 08 with Xiaobo because we share the same understanding of the current reality in China and the same feeling of urgency, the same sense of responsibility for the future and destiny of our motherland, and the common ideals of freedom and equality which our nation has been fighting to pursue.

Because we share these views and values, we have got an indivisible relationship with Mr. Liu Xiaobo. The Charter 08 is regarded as our soul, and everyone of us is its body, which has made us as a whole. If Mr. Liu Xiaobo is hurt for his signing of the Charter, then it is hurting each of us. if Mr. Liu Xiaobo cannot be freed, then all of us are being imprisoned together.

Every one of us is an initiator of Charter 08. What we want to express has been reflected in this well-known public document, and we have nothing else to hide.

There is therefore no need for Mr. Liu Xiaobo to take responsibility for us. This case is different from anything that has come before. Every one of us is ready to take responsibility for the statement. Mr. Liu Xiaobo's current situation will not deter us. As long as each of the signatories adheres to this, our conviction will never die, and that the spirit of Charter 08 will never die.

Therefore, we strongly appeal for Mr. Liu Xiaobo to be able to return home as soon as possible. His freedom is our freedom.

Signatories of Charter 08:

SHA Yexin, ZHANG Zhuhua, XU Youyu,

HU Fayun, CUI Weiping, AI Xiaoming,

LIU Junning, HE Weifang, LIANG Xiaoyan,

ZHA Jianying, JIANG Qisheng, ZHAO Cheng,

LI Gongming, HAO Jian, Woeser (Tsering Woeser),

JIANG Danwen, LI Hai, FU Guoyong,

YU Shicun, LU Xuesong, ZHAO Dagong,

QIN Gen, FAN Yafeng, MA Shaofang,

WANG Xiaoshan, LI Jianhong, WANG Debang,

YE Du, TIAN Deyong, ZHANG Hui,

WANG Junxiu, ZAN Aizong, LIU Lu,

YAO Bo, TENG Biao, WEN Kejian,

ZHANG Dajun, GUO Yushan, ZOU Wei,

LIU Di, MO Zhixu
(more to sign)

Human Rights Watch: China: Retaliation for Signatories of Rights Charter

2008-12-16T10:15:00.000-08:00

Source: Human Rights Watch (12/10/08):
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/10/china-retaliation-signatories-rights-charter

For Immediate Release

China: Retaliation for Signatories of Rights Charter
Critic Liu Xiaobo Remains in Police Custody

(New York, December 10, 2008) The drafters and signatories of an historic public appeal for human rights and democracy in China are facing unprecedented retaliation by the government, Human Rights Watch said today. Several prominent signatories of the document, "Charter 08," have been detained by the police, and at least 10 other people have been questioned in connection with the document. The Charter was published on December 10 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"To commemorate human rights day by harassing signatories of a petition and arresting leading dissidents suggests that the Chinese government remains hostile to fundamental rights including expression and association," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "Indeed, it calls into question the government¹s intention to draft a national human rights action plan, when the exercise of such basic rights is curtailed."

Concern is mounting over the case of Liu Xiaobo, one of China¹s most well-known dissidents, who remained in police custody 48 hours after he was taken away from his home on December 8. According to Zhang Zuhua, a co-signatory detained at the same time and released after 12 hours, Liu may have been placed under formal criminal detention on suspicion of "incitement to subvert state power." Liu, a writer, a former teacher at Beijing Normal University, and the director of the independent Chinese PEN Center, is a veteran of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. He has repeatedly been subject to various forms of incarceration, including house arrest.

The Charter, which urges putting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law at the core of the Chinese political system, was signed by more than 300 people from a cross-section of society, and by several prominent figures including retired party officials, former newspaper editors, members of the legal profession, and human rights defenders.

[Please read the Charter in English at New York Review of Books, translated by Perry Link]

Human Rights Watch called for the Chinese government to immediately and unconditionally release Liu Xiaobo and other signatories detained or questioned in connection with the Charter. Human Rights Watch urged foreign governments to convey to the Chinese government their expectation that none of the signatories would be punished for simply exercising their right to free expression, including in criticizing China¹s political system. Although China¹s Constitution recognizes the right to free expression, this right is vitiated by provisions that preclude criticisms of the Communist Party of China.

"By affixing their names to the Charter the signatories knew they would face official retribution," Richardson said. "Their courage must be recognized, and their actions defended."

For profiles of Chinese human rights advocates in jail, under house arrest, or under police surveillance, please visit:

http://china.hrw.org/hu_jia_and_chinas_rights_defenders

For more information, please contact:

In Hong Kong, Nicholas Bequelin (English, French, Mandarin): +852-8198-1040 (mobile)

In Washington, DC, Sophie Richardson (English, Mandarin): +1-202-612-4341; or +1-917-721-7473 (mobile)

In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-20-7713-2767; or +44-790-872-8333 (mobile)

Ran Yunfei: Liu Xiaobo Must be Freed

2008-12-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

Source: The Guardian (12/12/08):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/12/human-rights-liu-xiaobo

Reclaiming China's Rights

Liu Xiaobo, an author of the '08 Charter calling for constitutional reform in China, has been detained. He must be freed

By Ran Yunfei

The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights witnesses more human rights violations in China. A couple of days ago, police in Shanghai detained Liu Xiaobo, an intellectual and human rights activist, who had been in and out of prison in the last two decades because of his activism.

The reason this time is the '08 Charter, a document calling for constitutional reform in China, initiated by Liu Xiaobo and his colleagues, and signed by more than 300 people, including me. Hearing the news, I felt not only angry, but also pity towards the authorities whose fierce reaction can't disguise the fear underneath. One will always claim and protect one's rights. No authority can stop that.

As ordinary people, we just want to live a normal and peaceful life. But we want to live it with dignity. The coming economic crisis has made many people more alert to their rights, or lack of them. In China, the current crisis is not only the consequence of a global economic crisis, but also the result of a corrupt and authoritarian one-party system. Many people live a hard life not because of the downturn of the world economy, but because their rights have been taken away by the authorities. I know many intellectuals like Liu Xiabo who champion a peaceful and non-violence approach to achieve political reform. However, others may not be so patient. There have already been numerous instances of social unrest in China recently. To make things worse, the authorities seem to know only one response: to suppress any incident, which inevitably worsens the crisis.

This critical social situation is the circumstance under which Liu Xiaobo and his colleagues produced the '08 Charter. It is moderate, reasonable, pragmatic, dedicated to reaching reconciliation after revealing the truth. People's rights and society's interests are at its heart. It is not perfect. But among all the documents I have ever signed, it is the most important one.

For the last century, Chinese people have sacrificed life and blood in the hope of achieving a constitutional republic. What we eventually got was more brutal rule. We can't blame it all on tradition or culture. It also has something to do with the shortsightedness of many people, who ignored the bottom line to chase immediate gains, and sacrificed the future for short-term compromises. We understand that we have to compromise, which is part of democracy, but we must insist upon certain principles, such as respect for human beings and protection of basic rights.

The '08 Charter is a non-partisan document. Efforts were made to reach a compromise. Our aim is to save, not to destroy, the society we are in a society that is highly volatile, increasingly divided and threatened by deepening economic crisis. But the authorities, who are so used to controlling society using inflexible and violent means, won't even tolerate the existence of a document that calls for sensible, moderate, pragmatic approaches. Arresting Liu Xiaobo and interrogating many other signatories shows that the authorities are now descending to the threat of violence. Such a threat will only ignite more resistance.

I am calling on the Chinese authorities to recognise the will of the people, to gradually implement political reforms, to give hope back to the people. We know hope will give people extraordinary motivation to live their life and to change their behavior. A community with no hope will only release destructive energy. People within the establishment can't detach themselves if the communities around them collapse. In other words, if the authorities fail to protect people's rights, they won't be able to protect themselves later on. Some may believe money and power can save them. They can't.

Chinese people still don't have the human rights they deserve. For 60 years, people of this land have been waiting for the day of freedom and democracy. In the last 20 years, people like Liu Xiaobo have fought for human rights on our behalf. Today in China, when we enjoy some freedom and rights, we shouldn't forget what people like him have done for us. I urge the authorities to release Liu Xiaobo as soon as possible. I also call on the government to start to reform the political system so that it can effectively protect people's rights.

This blog originally appeared in Chinese
http://www.bullog.cn/blogs/ranyunfei/archives/239385.aspx

The Times: Wei Jingsheng's cry for democracy in China echoes down 30 years

2008-12-15T11:51:00.000-08:00

Jane Macartney in Beijing, December 5, 2008

On a bitterly cold winter night 30 years ago, an electrician from Beijing Zoo took the step that would cost him decades of freedom and create China's most defiant prisoner of conscience.

Wei Jingsheng was 28, invigorated by the tide of optimism and unprecedented freedom of expression that followed the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, but angry at signals that Deng Xiaoping wanted public discussion to end. He made his way to the focus of the debate, a brick wall dubbed "Democracy Wall", beside a bus station just west of Tiananmen Square on the Boulevard of Eternal Peace.

There he pasted up a paper demanding an addition to Deng's drive to bring Four Modernisations to China after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. Mr Wei called for a "Fifth Modernisation": democracy.

Three decades later, speaking from Prague, where he is attending a ceremony to honour his action, Mr Wei has no regrets. "My years in prison were tough, but I was happy. It was worth it, and I would do it again."

In the winter of 1978 Democracy Wall had become the most exciting spot in Beijing. Hundreds of people would gather there each evening and into the night to read the latest essays posted by usually anonymous writers discussing freedom, democracy and the future of China as it broke free of the straitjacket of orthodox Marxism.

About 300 people were huddled against the cold on the night that Mr Wei went public with his ideas. A small square backed by a gleaming shopping centre now marks the spot.

China's most famous dissident told The Times: "At the time I was so determined that I was ready to die. To speak ill of the Communist Party then was to sign your own death warrant, so it was a surprise for me to remain alive. I felt it was essential for someone to speak out."

Mr Wei was arrested in March 1979, accused of selling military secrets to foreign journalists and sentenced to 15 years in prison, mostly in solitary confinement. He was released on medical parole in 1993 - just as China was applying to stage the 2000 Olympics - and vowed to revive the democracy movement. He was rearrested the next year and sentenced to 14 years for subversion. He was sent forcibly into exile in the United States in 1997.

Now an advocate for greater democracy and human rights in China, Mr Wei believes that the Communist Party has sown the seeds of its own demise by failing to implement political reforms as well as economic change. "This path will bring serious consequences," he said. "The Communist Party and the people are at a crossroads and there are only two choices: the Communist Party can push political reforms or the people will lose patience and overthrow the party."

He also predicted violence as a consequence of a rapidly widening gap between rich and poor. "This makes me very worried: worried about social chaos and that people are ready for revenge. So I think violence is getting closer and the chance of a will for peace is drawing further away."
__ __ __

Speaking out

- Hu Jia, a prominent dissident serving a three-year jail sentence for subversion, won the EU Sakharov prize for human rights this year.

- Shi Tao, was jailed for ten years after being convicted in 2005 for divulging state secrets by posting on the internet a Chinese government order banning media groups marking the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

- Bao Tong, a former member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, fell out of favour in 1989 and spent seven years in solitary confinement. He is now under house arrest in Beijing.

original link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5289472.ece

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a message from: www.weijingsheng.org

Charter 08 - 303 Chinese citizens

2008-12-10T15:04:00.000-08:00

Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

The document below, signed by over three hundred prominent Chinese citizens, was conceived and written in conscious admiration of the founding of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, where, in January 1977, more than two hundred Czech and Slovak intellectuals formed a loose, informal, and open association of people... united by the will to strive individually and collectively for respect for human and civil rights in our country and throughout the world.

The Chinese document calls not for ameliorative reform of the current political system but for an end to some of its essential features, including one-party rule, and their replacement with a system based on human rights and democracy.

The prominent citizens who have signed the document are from both outside and inside the government, and include not only well-known dissidents and intellectuals, but also middle-level officials and rural leaders. They have chosen December 10, the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the day on which to express their political ideas and to outline
their vision of a constitutional, democratic China. They intend "Charter 08" to serve as a blueprint for fundamental political change in China in the years to come. The signers of the document will form an informal group, open-ended in size but united by a determination to promote democratization and protection of human rights in China and beyond.

On December 8 two prominent signers of the Charter, Zhang Zuhua and Liu Xiaobo, were detained by the police. Zhang Zuhua has since been released; as of December 9, Liu Xiabo remains in custody.

---Perry Link

Charter 08

I. Foreword

A hundred years have passed since the writing of China¹s first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China¹s signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.

By departing from these values, the Chinese government's approach to "modernization" has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with "modernization" under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.

The shock of the Western impact upon China in the nineteenth century laid bare a decadent authoritarian system and marked the beginning of what is often called "the greatest changes in thousands of years" for China. A "self-strengthening movement" followed, but this aimed simply at appropriating the technology to build gunboats and other Western material objects. China¹s humiliating naval defeat at the hands of Japan in 1895 only confirmed the obsolescence of China¹s system of government. The first attempts at modern political change came with the ill-fated summer of reforms in 1898, but these were cruelly crushed by ultraconservatives at China¹s imperial court. With the revolution of 1911, which inaugurated Asia¹s first republic, the authoritarian imperial system that had lasted for centuries was finally supposed to have been laid to rest. But social conflict inside our country and external pressures were to prevent it; China fell into a patchwork of warlord fiefdoms and the new republic became a fleeting dream.

The failure of both "self-strengthening" and political renovation caused many of our forebears to reflect deeply on whether a "cultural illness" was afflicting our country. This mood gave rise, during the May Fourth Movement of the late 1910s, to the championing of "science and democracy." Yet that effort, too, foundered as warlord chaos persisted and the Japanese invasion [beginning in Manchuria in 1931] brought national crisis.

Victory over Japan in 1945 offered one more chance for China to move toward modern government, but the Communist defeat of the Nationalists in the civil war thrust the nation into the abyss of totalitarianism. The "new China" that emerged in 1949 proclaimed that "the people are sovereign" but in fact set up a system in which "the Party is all-powerful." The Communist Party of China seized control of all organs of the state and all political, economic, and social resources, and, using these, has produced a long trail of human rights disasters, including, among many others, the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (19581960), the Cultural Revolution (19661969), the June Fourth (Tiananmen Square) Massacre (1989), and the current repression of all unauthorized religions and the suppression of the weiquan rights movement [a movement that aims to defend citizens' rights promulgated in the Chinese Constitution and to fight for human rights recognized by international conventions that the Chinese government has signed]. During all this, the Chinese people have paid a gargantuan price. Tens of millions have lost their lives, and several generations have seen their freedom, their happiness, and their human dignity cruelly trampled.

During the last two decades of the twentieth century the government policy of "Reform and Opening" gave the Chinese people relief from the pervasive poverty and totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era and brought substantial increases in the wealth and living standards of many Chinese as well as a partial restoration of economic freedom and economic rights. Civil society
began to grow, and popular calls for more rights and more political freedom have grown apace. As the ruling elite itself moved toward private ownership and the market economy, it began to shift from an outright rejection of "rights" to a partial acknowledgment of them.

In 1998 the Chinese government signed two important international human rights conventions; in 2004 it amended its constitution to include the phrase "respect and protect human rights"; and this year, 2008, it has promised to promote a "national human rights action plan." Unfortunately most of this political progress has extended no further than the paper on which it is written. The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.

The stultifying results are endemic official corruption, an undermining of the rule of law, weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor, pillage of the natural environment as well as of the human and historical environments, and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts, especially, in recent times, a sharpening animosity between officials and ordinary people.

As these conflicts and crises grow ever more intense, and as the ruling elite continues with impunity to crush and to strip away the rights of citizens to freedom, to property, and to the pursuit of happiness, we see the powerless in our society‹the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas‹becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.

II. Our Fundamental Principles

This is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:

Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.

Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China's recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime's
disregard for human rights.

Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person‹regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief‹are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.

Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of ³fairness in all under heaven.² It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.

Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected.

In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.

III. What We Advocate

Authoritarianism is in general decline throughout the world; in China, too, the era of emperors and overlords is on the way out. The time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states. For China the path that leads out of our current predicament is to divest ourselves of the authoritarian notion of reliance on an "enlightened overlord" or an "honest official" and to turn instead toward a system of liberties, democracy, and the rule of law, and toward fostering the consciousness of modern citizens who see rights as fundamental and participation as a duty. Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens' rights, and social development:

1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China¹s democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.

2. Separation of powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.

3. Legislative democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election, and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.

4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible, we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically-sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.

5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government, not to a political party, and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations shall be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans, and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.

6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There shall be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee, responsible to the highest legislative body, that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal
freedom of citizens. No one shall suffer illegal arrest, detention, arraignment, interrogation, or punishment. The system of "Reeducation through Labor" must be abolished.

7. Election of Public Officials. There shall be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on "one person, one vote." The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county, city, province, and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.

8. Rural-Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.

9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be "approved," should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.

10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.

11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to "the crime of incitement to subvert state power" must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.

12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws, regulations, or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups (and their places of worship) to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and, for those who choose to register, automatic.

13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens' rights, fosters civic consciousness, and promotes civic virtues that serve society.

14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property, reporting to the national legislature, that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair, competitive, and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land, guarantees the right to buy and sell land, and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.

15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government‹central, provincial, county or local‹are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes, simplify the tax system, and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes, or institute new ones, without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.

16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education, health care, retirement security, and employment.

17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendents and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals, but also accept the supervision and participation of non-governmental organizations.

18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao, we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan, we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then, negotiating as equals, and ready to compromise, seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind, seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.

19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people, including their family members, who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought, speech, or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities, determining responsibility for them, upholding justice, and, on these bases, seeking social reconciliation.

China, as a major nation of the world, as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and as a member of the UN Council on Human Rights, should be contributing to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Unfortunately, we stand today as the only country among the major nations that remains mired in authoritarian politics. Our political system continues to produce human rights disasters and social crises, thereby not only constricting China¹s own development but also limiting the progress of all of human civilization. This must change, truly it must. The democratization of Chinese politics can be put off no longer.

Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens¹ movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.

Initiated and signed by 303 Chinese citizens, officially released on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the 10th of December, 2008.

Source: NY Review of Books (v. 56, no. 1 · January 15, 2009):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22210

Signed by:

于浩成（北京，法学家）Yu Haocheng （Beijing， Jurist）

张思之（北京，律师）Zhang Sizhi （Beijing， Lawyer）

茅于轼（北京，经济学家）Mao Yushi （Beijing， Economist）

杜光（北京，政治学家）Du Guang （Beijing， Political Scientist）

李普（北京，老记者）Li Pu （Beijing， Senior Journalist）

沙叶新（上海，剧作家）Sha Yexin （Shanghai， Dramatist）

流沙河（四川，诗人）Liu Shahe （Sichuan， Poet）

吴茂华（四川，作家）Wu Maohua （Sichuan， Writer）

张显扬（北京，思想家）Zhang Xianyang （Beijing， Thinker）

孙文广（山东，教授）Sun Wenguang （Shandong， Professor）

鲍彤（北京，公民）Bao Tong （Beijing， Citizen）

丁子霖（北京，教授）Ding Zilin （Beijing， Professor）

张先玲（北京，工程师）Zhang Xianling （Beijing， Engineer）

徐珏（北京，研究员）Xu Jue （Beijing， Researcher）

蒋培坤（北京，教授）Jiang Peikun （ Beijing， Professor）

刘晓波（北京，作家）Liu Xiaobo （Beijing， Writer）

张祖桦（北京，宪政学者）Zhang Zuhua （Beijing， Scholar）

高瑜（北京，记者）Gao Yu （Beijing， Journalist）

戴晴（北京，作家）Dai Qing （Beijing， Writer）

江棋生（北京，学者）Jiang Qisheng （Beijing， Scholar）

艾晓明（广东，教授）Ai Xiaoming （Guangzhou， Professor）

刘军宁（北京，政治学家）Liu Junning （Beijing， Political Scientist）

张旭昆（浙江，教授）Zhang Xukun （Zhejiang， Professor）

徐友渔（北京，哲学家）Xu Youyu （Beijing， Philosopher）

贺卫方（北京，法学家）He Weifang （ Beijing， Jurist）

莫少平（北京，律师）Mo Shaoping （Beijing， Lawyer）

陈子明（北京，学者）Chen Ziming （Beijing， Scholar）

张博树（北京，政治学家）Zhang Boshu （Beijing， Political Scientist）

崔卫平（北京，学者）Cui Weiping （Beijing， Scholar）

何光沪（宗教学专家）He Guanghu （Beijing， Religion Scholar）

郝建（北京，学者）Hao Jian （Beijing， Scholar）

沈敏骅（浙江，教授）Shen Minhua （ Zhejiang， Professor）

李大同（北京，记者）Li Datong （Beijing， Journalist）

栗宪庭（北京，艺术评论家）Su Xianting （Beijing， Art Critic）

张鸣（北京，教授）Zhang Ming （Beijing， Professor）

余杰（北京，作家）Yu Jie （Beijing， Writer）

余世存（北京，作家）Yu Shicun （Beijing， Writer）

秦耕（海南，作家）Qin Geng （Hainan， Writer）

周舵（北京，学者）Zhou Duo （Beijing， Scholar）

浦志强（北京，律师）Pu Zhiqiang （Beijing， Lawyer）

赵达功（深圳，作家）Zhao Dagong （Beijing， Writer）

姚立法（湖北，选举专家）Yao Lifa （ Hubei， Election expert）

冯正虎（上海，学者）Feng Zhenghu （Shanghai， Scholar）

周勍（北京，作家）Zhou Qing （Beijing， Writer）

杨恒均（广州，作家）Yang Hengjun （Guangzhou， Writer）

滕彪（北京，法学博士）Teng Biao （ Beijing， LLD）

蒋亶文（上海，作家）Jiang Danwen （Shanghai， Writer）

唯色（西藏，作家）Wei Se（Tibet， Writer）

马波（北京，作家）Ma Bo （ Beijing， Writer）

查建英（北京，作家）Cha Jianying （Beijing， Writer）

胡发云（湖北，作家）Hu Fayun （Hubei， Writer）

焦国标（北京，学者）Jiao Guobiao （Beijing， Scholar）

李公明（广东，教授）Li Gongming （Guangdong， Professor）

赵晖（北京，评论家）Zhao Hui （Beijing， Critic）

李柏光（北京，法学博士）Li Baiguang （Beijing， LLD）

傅国涌（浙江，作家）Fu Guoyong （Zhejiang， Writer）

马少方（广东，商人）Ma Shaofang （Guangdong， Businessman）

张闳（上海，教授）Zhang Hong （Shanghai， Professor）

夏业良（北京，经济学家）Xia Yeliang （Beijing， Economist）

冉云飞（四川，学者）Ran Yunfei （Sichuan， Scholar）

廖亦武（四川，作家）Liao Yiwu （Sichuan， Writer）

王怡（四川，学者）Wang Yi （ Sichuan， Scholar）

王晓渔（上海，学者）Wang Xiaoyu （Shanghai， Scholar）

苏元真（浙江，教授）Su Yuanzhen （Zhejiang， Professor）

强剑衷（南京，老报人）Qiang Jianzhong （Nanjing， Senior Journalist）

欧阳小戎（云南，诗人）Ouyang Xiaorong （Yunnan， Poet）

刘荻（北京，自由职业者）Liu Di （Beijing， Self-empolyed）

昝爱宗（浙江，记者）Zan Aizong （Zhejiang， Journalist）

周鸿陵（北京，社会活动家）Zhou Hongling （Beijing， Social Activist）

冯刚（浙江教授）Feng Gang （Zhejiang， Professor）

陈林（广州学者）Chen Lin （Guangzhou， Scholar）

尹贤（甘肃，诗人）Yin Xian （Gansu， Poet）

周明（浙江，教授）Zhou Ming （Zhejiang， Professor）

凌沧洲（北京，新闻人）Ling Cangzhou （Beijing， Journalist）

铁流（北京，作家）Tie Liu （Beijing， Writer）

陈奉孝（山东，北大右派学生）Chen Fengxiao （Shandong， Rightist ）

姚博（北京，评论家）Yao Bo （ Beijing， Critic）

张津郡（广东，职业经理人）Zhang Jinjun （Guangdong， Professional manager）

李剑虹（上海，作家）Li Jianhong （Shanghai， Writer）

张善光（湖南，人权捍卫者）Zhang Shanguang （Hunan， Human rights Defender）

李德铭（湖南，新闻工作者）Li Deming （Hunan， Media Worker）

刘建安（湖南，教师）Liu Jian'an （Hunan， Teacher）

王小山（北京，媒体人）Wang Xiaoshan （Beijing， Media worker）

范亚峰（北京，法学博士）Fan Yafeng （Beijing， Scholar）

周明初（浙江，教授）Zhou Mingchu （Zhejiang， Professor）

梁晓燕（北京，环保志愿者）Liang Xiaoyan （Beijing， Enviromental Volunteer）

徐晓（北京，作家）、Xu Xiao （Beijing， Writer）

陈西（贵州，人权捍卫者）Chen Xi （Guizhou， Human rights Defender）

赵诚（山西，学者）Zhao Cheng （Shanxi， Scholar）

李元龙（贵州，自由撰稿人）Li Yuanlong （Guizhou， Freelance Writer）

申有连（贵州，人权捍卫者）Shen Youlian （Guizhou， Human rights Defender）

蒋绥敏（北京，工程师）Jiang Suimin （Beijing， Engineer）

陆中明（陕西，学者）Lu Zhongming （Shan'xi， Scholar）

孟煌（北京，画家）Meng Huang （Beijing， Painter）

林福武（福建，人权捍卫者）Lin Fuwu （Fujian， Human rights defender）

廖双元（贵州，人权捍卫者）Liao Shuangyuan （Guizhou， Human rights defender）

卢雪松（吉林，教师）Lu Xuesong （Jilin， Teacher）

郭玉闪（北京，学者）Guo Yushan （Beijing， Scholar）

陈焕辉（福建，人权捍卫者）Chen Huanhui （Fujian， Human rights defender）

朱久虎（北京，律师）Zhu Jiuhu （Beijing， Lawyer）

金光鸿（北京，律师）Jin GuangHong （Beijing， Lawyer）

高超群（北京，编辑）Gao Chaoqun （Beijing， Editor）

柏风（吉林，诗人）Bai Feng （Jilin， Poet）

郑旭光（北京，学者）Zheng Xuguang （Beijing， Scholar）

曾金燕（北京维权人士）Zeng Jinyan （Beijing， Human rights defender）

吴玉琴（贵州，人权捍卫者）Wu Yuqin （Guizhou， Human rights defender）

杜义龙（陕西，作家）Du Yilong （Shan'xi， Writer）

李海（北京，人权捍卫者）Li Hai （Beijing， Human rights defender）

张辉（山西，民主人士）Zhang Hui （Shanxi， Democratic Activist）

江山（广东，业主维权者）Jiangshan （Guangdong， Rights Defender）

徐国庆（贵州，民主人士）Xu Guoqing （Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

吴郁（贵州，民主人士）Wu Yu （Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

张明珍（贵州，民主人士）Zhang Mingzhen （Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

曾宁（贵州，民主人士）Zeng Ning （Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

全林志（贵州，民主人士）Quan Linzhi （Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

叶航（浙江，教授）Ye Hang （Zhejiang， Professor）

马云龙（河南，资深媒体人）Ma Yunlong（Henan， Scholar）

朱健国（广东，自由撰稿人）Zhu Jianguo （Guangdong， Writer）

李铁（广东，社会活动人士）Li Tie （Guangdong， Democratic Activist）

莫建刚（贵州，自由撰稿人）Mo Jiangang （Guizhou， Freelance writer）

张耀杰（北京，学者）Zhang Yaojie （Beijing， Scholar）

吴报建（浙江，律师）Wu Baojian （Zhejiang， Lawyer）

杨光（广西，学者）Yang Guang （Guangxi， Scholar）

俞梅荪（北京，法律人）Yu Meisun （Beijing，Legal worker）

行健（北京，法律人）Xing Jian （Beijing， Legal Worker）

王光泽（北京，社会活动家）Wang Guangze （Beijing， Social Activist）

陈绍华（广东，设计师）Chen Shaohua （Guangdong， Designer）

刘逸明（湖北，自由撰稿人）Liu Yiming （Hubei， Freelance Writer）

吴祚来（北京，研究员）Wu Zuolai （Beijing， Researcher）

高兟（山东，艺术家）Gao Zhen （Shandong， Artist）

高强（山东，艺术家）Gao Qiang （Shandong， Artist）

唐荆陵（广东，律师）Tang Jingling （Guangdong， Lawyer）

黎小龙（广西，维权人士）Li Xiaolong （Guangxi， Rights Defender）

荆楚（广西，自由撰稿人）Jing Chu （Guangxi， Freelance Writer）

李彪（安徽，商人）Li Biao （Anhui， Businessman）

郭艳（广东，律师）Guo Yan （Guangdong， Lawyer）

杨世元（浙江，退休人员）Yang Shiyuan（Zhejiang， Rightist）

杨宽兴（山东，作家）Yang Kuanxing（Shandong， Writer）

李金芳（河北，民主人士）Li Jinfang（Hebei， Democratic Activist）

王玉文（贵州，诗人）Wang Yuwen（Guizhou， Poet）

杨中义（安徽，工人）Yang Zhongyi（Anhui， Worker）

武辛源（河北农民）Wu Xinyuan （Hebei， Farmer）

杜和平（贵州，民主人士）Du Heping（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

冯玲（湖北，宪政义工）Feng Ling（Hubei， Democratic Activist）

张先忠（湖北，企业家）Zhang Xianzhong（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

蔡敬忠（广东农民） Cai Jingzhong（Guangdong， Farmer）

王典斌（湖北，企业主）Wang Dianbin（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

蔡金才（广东农民） Cai Jincai（Guangdong， Farmer）

高爱国（湖北，企业主）Gao Aiguo（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

陈湛尧（广东农民）Chen Zhanyao（Guangdong，Farmer）

何文凯（湖北，企业主）He Wenkai（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

吴党英（上海，维权人士）Wu Dangying（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

曾庆彬（广东工人）Zeng Qingbin（Guangdong，Worker）

毛海秀（上海，维权人士）Mao Haixiu（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

庄道鹤（杭州，律师）Zhuang Daohe（Hangzhou， Lawyer）

黎雄兵（北京，律师）Li Xiongbing （Beijing， Lawyer）

李任科（贵州，民主人士）Li Renke（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

左力（河北律师）Zuo Li （Hebei， Lawyer）

董德筑（贵州，民主人士）Dong Dez（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

陶玉平（贵州，民主人士）Tao Yuping（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

王俊秀（北京，IT从业者）Wang Junxiu（Beijing， IT Professional）

黄晓敏（四川，维权人士）Huang Xiaomin（Sichuan， Rights Defender）

郑恩宠（上海，法律人）Zheng Enchong（Shanghai，Lawyer）

张君令（上海，维权人士）Zhang Junling（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

杨海（陕西，学者）Yang Hai（ Shan'xi， Scholar）

艾福荣（上海，维权人士）Ai Furong（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

杨华仁（湖北，法律工作者）Yang Huaren（Hubei， Legal Worker）

魏勤（上海，维权人士）Wei Qin（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

苏祖祥（湖北，教师）Su Zuxiang（Hubei， Teacher）

沈玉莲（上海，维权人士）Shen Yulian（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

关洪山（湖北，人权捍卫者）Guan Hongshan（Hubei， Human Rights Defender）

宋先科（广东，商人）Song Xianke（Guangdong， Businessman）

汪国强（湖北，人权捍卫者）Wang Guoqiang（Hubei， Human Rights Defender）

陈恩娟（上海，维权人士）Chen Enjuan（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

李勇（北京，媒体人）Li Yong（Beijing， Media worker）

常雄发（上海，维权人士）Chang Xiongfa（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

王京龙（北京，管理学者）Wang Jinglong（Beijing， Scholar）

许正清（上海，维权人士）Xu Zhengqing（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

高军生（陕西，编辑）、Gao Junsheng（Shan'xi， Editor）

郑蓓蓓（上海，维权人士）Zheng Beibei（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

王定华（湖北，律师）Wang Dinghua（Hubei， Lawyer）

谈兰英（上海，维权人士）Tan Lanying（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

范燕琼（福建，人权捍卫者）Fan Yanqiong（Fujian， Human Rights Defender）

林辉（浙江，诗人）Lin Hui（Zhejiang， Poet）

吴华英（福建，人权捍卫者）Wu Huaying（Fujian， Human Rights Defender）

薛振标（浙江，民主人士）Xue Zhenbiao（Zhejiang， Democratic Activist）

董国菁（上海，人权捍卫者）Dong Guoqing（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

陈玉峰（湖北，法律工作者）Chen Yufeng（Hubei， Legal Worker）

段若飞（上海，人权捍卫者）Duan Ruofei（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

王中陵（陕西，教师）Wang Zhongling（Shan'xi， Teacher）

董春华（上海，人权捍卫者）Dong Chunhua（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

陈修琴（上海，人权捍卫者）Chen Xiuqin（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

刘正有（四川，人权捍卫者）Liu Zhengyou（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

马萧（北京，作家）Ma Xiao（Beijing， Writer）

万延海（北京，公共卫生专家）Wan Yanhai（Beijing， Public Health Expert）

沈佩兰（上海，维权人士）Shen Peilan（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

叶孝刚（浙江，大学退休教师）Ye Xiaogang（Zhejiang， retired Lecturer）

张劲松（安徽，工人）Zhang Jingsong（Anhui， Worker）

章锦发（浙江，退休人员）Zhang Jinfa（Zhejiang， Rightist）

王丽卿（上海，维权人士）Wang liqing（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

赵常青（陕西，作家）Zhao Changqing（ Shan'xi， Writer）

金月花（上海，维权人士）Jin Yuehua（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

余樟法（广西，作家）Yu Zhangfa（Guangxi， Writer）

陈启勇（上海，维权人士）Chen Qiyong（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

刘贤斌（四川，民主人士）Liu Xianbin（Sichuan， Democratic Activist）

欧阳懿（四川，人权捍卫者）Ouyang Yi （Sichuan， Human Rights Defender）

邓焕武（重庆，商人）Deng Huanwu（Chongqing， Businessman）

贺伟华（湖南，民主人士）He Weihua（Hunan， Democratic Activist）

李东卓（湖南，IT从业者）Li Dongzhuo（Hunan， IT professional）

田永德（内蒙，人权捍卫者）Tian Yongde（Inner Mongolia， Human Rights Defender）

智效民（山西，学者）Zhi Xiaomin（Shanxi， Scholar）

李昌玉（山东，教师）Li Changyu（Shandong， Teacher）

郭卫东（浙江，职员）Guo Weidong（Zhejiang， Clerk）

陈卫（四川，民主人士）Chen Wei（Sichuan， Democratic Activist）

王金安（湖北，企业主）Wang Jin'an（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

察文君（上海，维权人士）Cha Wenjun（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

侯述明（湖北，企业主）Hou Shuming（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

刘汉南（湖北，人权捍卫者）Liu Hannan（Hubei， Human Rights Defender）

史若平（山东，教授）Shi Ruoping（Shandong， Professor）

张忍祥（湖北，人权捍卫者）Zhang renxiang（Hubei， Human Rights Defender）

野渡（广东，编辑）Ye Du（Guangdong， Editor）

夏刚（湖北，人权捍卫者）Xia Gang（Hubei， Human Rights Defender）

赵国良（湖南，民主人士）Zhao Guoliang（Hunan，Democratic Activist）

李智英（北京，学者）Li Zhiying（Beijing， Scholar）

张重发（贵州，民主人士）Zhang Chongfa（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

陈永苗（北京，学者）Chen Yongmiao（Beijing， Scholar）

江婴（天津，诗人）Jiang Ying（Tianjin， Poet）

田祖湘（贵州，民主人士）Tian Zuxiang（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

黄志佳（湖北，公务员）Huang Zhijia（Hubei，Public Servant）

关业波（湖北，公务员）Guan Yebo（Hubei， Public Servant）

王望明（湖北，企业主）Wang Wangming（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

高新瑞（湖北，企业家）Gao Xinrui（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

宋水泉（湖北，法律工作者）Song Shuiquan（Hubei， Legal Worker）

赵景洲（黑龙江，人权捍卫者）Zhao Jingzhou（Heilongjiang， Human Rights Defender）

温克坚（浙江，学者）Wen Kejian（Zhejiang， Scholar）

魏文英（云南，教师）Wei Wenying（Yunan， Teacher）

陈惠娟（黑龙江，人权捍卫者）Chen Huijuan（Heilongjiang， Human Rights Defender）

陈炎雄（湖北，教师）Chen Yanxiong（Hubei， Teacher）

段春芳（上海，人权捍卫者）Duan Chunfang（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

刘正善（云南，工程师）Liu Zhengshan（Yunnan， Engineer）

关敏（湖北，大学教师）Guan Min（Hubei， Lecturer）

戴元龙（福建，企业主）Dai Yuanlong（Fujian， Entrepreneur）

余以为（广东，自由撰稿人）Yu Yiwei（Guangdong， Freelance Writer）

韩祖荣（福建，企业主） Han Zurong（Fujian， Entrepreneur）

汪定亮（湖北，律师）Wang Dingliang（ Hubei， Lawyer）

陈青林（北京，人权捍卫者）Chen Qinglin（Beijing， Human Rights Defender）

钱世顺（广东，企业主）Qian Shishun（Guangdong， Entrepreneur）

曾伯炎（四川，作家）Zeng Boyan（Sichuan， Writer）

马亚莲（上海，人权捍卫者）Ma Yalian（Shanghai， Human Rights Defender）

车宏年（山东，自由撰稿人）Che Hongnian（Shandong， Freelance Writer）

秦志刚（山东，电子工程师）Qin Zhigang（Shandong， Engineer）

宋翔峰（湖北，教师）Song Xiangfeng（Hubei， Teacher）

邓复华（湖北，作家）Deng Fuhua（Hubei， Writer）

徐康（湖北，公务员）Xu Kang（Hubei， Public servant）

李建强（山东，律师）Li Jianqiang（ Shandong， Lawyer）

李仁兵（北京，律师）Li Renbing（Beijing， Lawyer）

裘美丽（上海，维权人士）Qiu Meili（Shanghai， Rights Defender）

兰志学（北京，律师）Lan Zhixue（Beijing， Lawyer）

周锦昌（浙江，退休人员）Zhou Jinchang（Zhejiang， Rightist）

黄燕明（贵州，民主人士）Huang Yanming（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

刘巍（北京，律师）Liu Wei（Beijing， Lawyer）

鄢烈汉（湖北，企业主）Yan Liehan（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

陈德富（贵州，民主人士）Chen Defu（Guizhou， Democratic Activist）

郭用新（湖北，医生）Guo Yongxin（Hubei， Doctor）

郭永丰（广东，中国公民监政会发起人）Guo Yongfeng（Guangdong，Rights Defender）

袁新亭（广州，编辑）Yuan Xinting（Guangzhou， Editor）

戚惠民（浙江，民主人士）Qi Huimin（Zhejiang， Democratic Activist）

李宇（四川，采编）Li Yu（Sichuan， Editor）

谢福林（湖南，人权捍卫者）Xie Fulin（Hunan， Human Rights Defender）

徐光（浙江，企业主）Xu Guang（Zhejiang， Entrepreneur）

野火（广东，自由撰稿人）Ye Huo（Guangdong， Freelance Writer）

邹巍（浙江，维权人士）Zou Wei（Zhejiang， Rights Defender）

萧利彬（浙江，工程师）Xiao Linbin（Zhejiang， Engineer）

高海兵（浙江，民主人士）Gao Haibing（Zhejiang， Democratic Activist）

田奇庄（河北，作家）Tian Qizhuang （Hebei， Writer）

邓太清（山西，民主人士）Deng Taiqing（Shanxi， Democratic Activist）

裴鸿信（河北，教师）Pei Hongxin（Hebei， Teacher）

徐民（吉林，法律工作者）Xu Min（Jilin， Legal worker）

李喜阁（河南，维权人士）Li Xige（Henan， Rights Defender）

王德邦（北京，作家）Wang Debang（Beijing， Writer）

冯秋盛（广东，农民）Feng QiuSheng（Guangdong， Farmer）

侯文豹（安徽，维权人士）Hou Wenbao（ Anhui， Rights Defender）

唐吉田（北京，律师）Tang Jitian（Beijing， Lawyer）

刘荣超（安徽，农民）Liu Rongchao（ Anhui， Farmer）

李天翔（河南，工人）Li Tianxiang（Henan，worker）

崔玉振（河北，律师）Cui Yuzhen（Hebei， Lawyer）

许茂连（安徽，农民）Xu Maolian（Anhui， Farmer）

翟林华（安徽，教师）Zhai Linhua（Anhui， Teacher）

陶晓霞（安徽，农民）Tao Xiaoxia（Anhui， Farmer）

张望（福建，工人）Zhang Wang（Fujian， Worker）

黄大川（辽宁，职员）Huang Dachuan（Liaoning， Clerk）

陈啸原（海南，职员）Chen Xiaoyuan （Hainan， Clerk）

张鉴康（陕西，法律工作者）Zhang Jiankang （ Sha'nxi，Legal Worker）

张星水（北京，律师）Zhang Xingshui（Beijing， Lawyer）

马纲权（北京，律师）Ma Gangquan（Beijing， Lawyer）

王金祥（湖北，维权人士）Wang Jinxiang（Hubei， Rights Defender）

王家英（湖北，企业主）Wang Jiaying（Hubei， Entrepreneur）

鄢来云（湖北，企业主）Yan Laiyun （Hubei， Entrepreneur）

李小明（湖北，维权人士）Li Xiaoming（Hubei， Rights Defender）

肖水祥（湖北，维权人士）Xiao Shuixiang（Hubei， Rights Defender）

鄢裕祥（湖北，维权人士）Yan Yuxiang （Hubei， Rights Defender）

刘毅（北京，画家）Liu Yi（Beijing， Painter）

张正祥（云南，环保人士）Zhang Zhengxiang（Yunnan， Environmentalist）

Cyber Activist Sentenced to 3-Years for Expressing Support to Tibetan Protesters

2008-12-08T15:23:00.000-08:00

CHRD: China Human Rights Defenders
2008-12-4 16:44:26
http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class10/200812/20081204164426_12184.html

(Chinese Human Rights Defenders, November 21, 2008) - Today, Chen Daojun (陈道军), a cyber activist and freelance writer based in the Southwestern province Sichuan, was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power" and sentenced to three years of imprisonment and deprivation of political rights for three years for posting articles on the Internet to express views supporting the March 2008 Tibetan protesters.

Chen's verdict was announced at 11 a.m. this morning by Chendu Intermediate People's Court in Sichuan. Chen's family and his lawyer, Zhu Jiuhu (朱久虎), were present at the hearing. Chen is dissatisfied with the verdict but it is considering whether he is going to appeal.

On November 5, Chen was tried for "inciting secession" by the same court. It is unclear why the court dropped the charge of "inciting secession" and convicted Chen of "inciting subversion". The court clearly rejected the lawyer's "not guilty" defense on the basis that Mr. Chen has the right to free expression of his political views.

Recommendations

CHRD calls on Chen's immediate and unconditional release.

CHRD believes that Chen has been imprisoned solely for the peaceful activities of expressing his opinions. The authorities have abused Chen's rights to freedom of expression guaranteed in Articles 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed (but not yet ratified). This right is also enshrined in Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution.

Background

Chen, 40, is a cyber activist and freelance writer from Jintang Township, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province.

Chen was apprehended on May 9 and officially detained on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power" on May 10. At some point during Chen's detention, the charge "inciting subversion" was dropped and replaced by "inciting secession". The reason for this change was not known. On June 13, Chen was formally arrested by Chengdu City Procuratorate for "inciting secession". However, the charge of "inciting succession" was dropped and Chen was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power" today.

Following the March 14, 2008 riots/demonstrations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Chen published online several articles that supported the Tibetans who protested against the Chinese government. Chengdu City Procuratorate prosecuted Chen on the basis of one of the articles, "the Government Forces the People to Rebel--a Tribute to the Tibetans who Staged a Heroic Struggle", in addition to two others he authored --"What to Do after the 17th Party Congress" and "The Background of Those People Who are Against Westernization". The Procuratorate alleged that certain words and sentences in these articles "incited secession".

For more information, please visit http://crd-net.org/ and see:

Detained Sichuan Activists Denied Access to Legal Counsel (June 25, 2008)

Cyber Activists Detained for "Inciting" Anti-Pollution March in Chengdu (May
12, 2008)

Wei Jingsheng: Speaking about the Current Financial Crisis

2008-12-05T09:41:00.000-08:00

Wei Jingsheng Attended the Festival of Modernity: Democracy, in Milan, Italy and Spoke about the Current Financial Crisis

On November 29 and 30th of 2008, Mr. Wei Jingsheng was invited to attend the Festival of Modernity: Democracy, organized by the publisher Spirali in Milan, Italy. The festival was also attended by other well-known Chinese, including Lu Decheng and author Zhou Qing. Other attendees include the former Russian Minister of Energy, dissident writers and well-known painters, as well as authors and philosophers from various European countries.

In Wei Jingsheng's speech, he pointed out that, although the current hottest topic is the financial crisis, very few people noticed that the Western democratic system is running into trouble itself. The main reason that makes this a widespread and in-depth crisis is due to the adjustment of the global manufacturing sector in the last 20 to 30 years. The difference between these current adjustments in comparison to any previous adjustment of the manufacturing sector is that this adjustment was not produced by large-scale technical progress. Instead, without any major technical progress, this adjustment was produced by the availability of large amounts of cheap labor that attracted the investment and thus caused the transfer of capital. The characteristic of this type of capital transfer is that, on one side, multi-national companies win high profit; while on the other side, there is large-scale unemployment in the developed countries. Or to put it in a different way, while the capital was transferred to the undeveloped countries and areas, the global economy was going backwards instead of forward. The displayed feature is the huge trade deficit; the developed countries were eating their own future away, living hand to mouth.

Wei said: "this time I was in Germany participating a dispute, which exposed the infiltration of the Chinese Communist Party to the democratic countries. By infiltrating the Western news media and political circle, the Chinese Communists tried to paint a pretty picture of its system that made high profit through cruel exploitation. While the Chinese bureaucratic capitalists and Western big business share this huge profit, the Chinese workers are living miserably and the Western workers lost their jobs.

Wei further pointed out that: "Why didn't the governments of these developed countries notice this problem, and instead used the unfair trade policies to push the situation further? Why for a long time, would they accept a trade policy that is not beneficial to their own countries? We all know that the lobbying of big business had the determining effect on this, an effect that almost nothing can resist. The democratic system ran into a boulder in the river. This current financial crisis did not accumulate in a short time; nor was it due to purely economic reasons. The deeper layers of reasons include that the democratic system has been off of its original tracks; that money manipulated or influenced politics. Now, this democracy has been discounted. As we resolve the economic crisis, we should make a time table to reform the political system in the Western countries themselves."

[For more information, please visit www.WeiJingSheng.org]

An Open Letter to the PRC Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Security, Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Supreme People’s Court

2008-11-25T04:25:00.000-08:00

If you wish to support the open letter in English, please send you name, country or city of residency, affiliation or profession, to wangrongfen44@googlemail.com, or t.shaojiang@gmail.com

(more signatures will be added later)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: more than 1000 people have signed the open letter. Please refer to Petition website and Sohu Blog in Chinese.

An Open Letter to the PRC Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Security, Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Supreme People’s Court

Case: The case of homicide at Shanghai Public Security Bureau Zhabei Branch July 1, 2008

Invoking:
1. Press release of Shanghai Public Security Bureau on July 7, 2008
2. Indictment by the Second Branch of Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate ([2008] No. 123)
3. Shanghai Criminal Verdict by the Second Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai ([2008] No. 99)
4. Criminal Ruling by the Shanghai Higher People's Court ([2008] No. 131)

Annex: Analysis of the Yang Jia case

People's Republic of China
Department of Justice,
The Ministry of Public Security,
The Supreme People's Procuratorate and
The Supreme People's Court,

A vicious manslaughter took place in the building of Shanghai Public Security Bureau, Zhabei Branch on July 1, 2008, killing six police officers and injuring four. At 9:40 AM, Mr. Yang Jia, a resident of Beijing, climbed along staircase to the 21st floor where the Inspector’s Office is located to inquire about the result of his complaint. At 9:45 AM, a physical confrontation occurred between Yang and the police, and he was then brought to a special interrogation room on the second floor. Mr. Yang Jia insisted that he would not reply to any questions without the presence of a lawyer. As was revealed to the press by the government legal adviser who was ordered to come by the Zhabei Procuratorate and Xie Youming who later became Mr. Yang Jia’s defense counsel, the interrogation lasted for two hours, but neither side had ever mentioned the case of manslaughter.

Police of Zhabei hurried to clear and clean the scene until midnight and on July 2 the offices resumed open to public.

On July 4, the detection of the case was declared completed and was transferred to the Second Branch of Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate. On July 7, the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau held a press conference, saying that the killing of the policemen on July 1 was voluntarily done by Mr. Yang Jia in revenge.

On July 17, the Second Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Procuratorate filed a persecution against Mr. Yang Jia on suspicion of voluntary manslaughter of the police.

On July 23, six police officers were cremated.

On September 1, Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court sentenced Yang Jia to death on the charge of voluntary manslaughter.

Mr. Yang Jia refused to accept the sentence so he filed an appeal.

On October 20, the Shanghai Municipal Higher People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the death sentence. The case was then reported to the Supreme People's Court for review.

According to the judicial documents and a large number of media exposure, we maintained that the proceedings of the detection, indictment and trail of the case is a serious breach of the relevant provisions of "the Law of Criminal Procedure of the People's Republic of China".

Contrary to the rule of challenge defined by Item 4 of Article 28 in the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the detection was done by the Public Security Bureau Zhabei Branch which is also the target of the killing and the whole process of detection was even under the charge of one of the victims – the deputy Party Sectary of the Discipline Inspection of the Branch Bureau. The collection of testimonies of witnesses is illegal and self-contradictory. There are many faults in the legal examination of the crime scene and forensic evidences. The crime scene was quickly cleared and cleaned. No DNA and fingerprint identifications have ever been made on the suspected criminal or on the witnesses, particularly the colleagues of the dead. Four senior police officers on the first floor were stabbed to death but none of their colleagues have ever given any testimony – an obvious point of suspicion of this case.

The public prosecutor, the Second Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate, involved in the detection of the case and designated Mr. Xie Youming, the legal adviser of the Zhabei Government as the defense counsel of the suspect Mr. Yang Jia. The public prosecutor also sent Mr. Xie to the Compulsory Treatment Administration of Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau where Mrs. Wang Jingmei, mother of Mr. Yang Jia, was under compulsory treatment and forced her to sign on the Power of Attorney. In addition, the public prosecutor refused the defense counsel hired by Mr. Yang Fusheng, father of Mr. Yang Jia, and did not allow Mr. Yang Fusheng to meet with Yang Jia. All these are in violation of item 10 of "The Regulations Regard to the Implementation of the Law of Criminal Procedure by the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, Ministry of Justice, and Commission of Legislative Affairs of the NPCSC.”

Both trial courts did not review the major evidences, or summon most of the witnesses, in particular the main witnesses, or verify the Inspection Report (No.2008-0091) by the Criminalistics Examination Center of Shanghai Public Security Bureau and the Record of On-Spot Inspection by the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau (No. 2008-0069) and by Shanghai Public Security Bureau Zhabei Branch (No. 2008-1841). Nor did the courts answer the critical question raised by the accused: "How can you prove that the man wearing a mask is me, Yang Jia?"

In view of the insufficiency of evidence in accusing Yang Jia on the charge of voluntary manslaughter, we demand the immediate release of the accused.

In view of the transgressions committed by the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau, Procuratorate Bureau and Justice Bureau in the detection, the indictment and trial of this case, we urge the Central Ministries to investigate and deal with their respective subordinates, remove from office those who failed to perform their duty properly and punish those who violated the law.

In view of the complexity of the case, we hope the Chinese government could deal with it seriously. A special group should be set up to re-detect this case, so that the truth could be brought out to the public.

With best regards,

WANG Rongfen, SHAO Jiang, HU Ping, ZHONG Weiguang, HUAN Xuewen

Cc: National People's Congress and the State Council, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the European Parliament Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and non-governmental organizations around the world

November 20, 2008

Position of the Tibetan Exile Government

2008-11-17T11:05:00.000-08:00

[The following is the memorandum prepared by the Dalai Lama's representatives for the ninth round of dialogue-negotiation in Beijing, between the Tibetan government in exile and the Chinese central government.

The text is taken from the Tibetan woman poet, writer, and activist Woeser's blog (mainly in Chinese).]

THE MEMORANDUM ON GENUINE AUTONOMY FOR THE TIBETAN PEOPLE

I INTRODUCTION

Since the renewal of direct contact with the Central Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 2002, extensive discussions have been held between the envoys of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama and representatives of the Central Government. In these discussions we have put forth clearly the aspirations of Tibetans. The essence of the Middle Way Approach is to secure genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the scope of the Constitution of the PRC. This is of mutual benefit and based on the long-term interest of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. We remain firmly committed not to seek separation or independence. We are seeking a solution to the Tibetan problem through genuine autonomy, which is compatible with the principles on autonomy in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The protection and development of the unique Tibetan identity in all its aspects serves the larger interest of humanity in general and those of the Tibetan and Chinese people in particular.

During the seventh round of talks in Beijing on 1 and 2 July 2008, the Vice Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the Minister of the Central United Front Work Department, Mr. Du Qinglin, explicitly invited suggestions from His Holiness the Dalai Lama for the stability and development of Tibet. The Executive Vice Minister of the Central United Front Work Department, Mr. Zhu Weiqun, further said they would like to hear our views on the degree or form of autonomy we are seeking as well as on all aspects of regional autonomy within the scope of the Constitution of the PRC.

Accordingly, this memorandum puts forth our position on genuine autonomy and how the specific needs of the Tibetan nationality for autonomy and self-government can be met through application of the principles on autonomy of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, as we understand them. On this basis, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is confident that the basic needs of the Tibetan nationality can be met through genuine autonomy within the PRC.

The PRC is a multi-national state, and as in many other parts of the world, it seeks to resolve the nationality question through autonomy and the self-government of the minority nationalities. The Constitution of the PRC contains fundamental principles on autonomy and self-government whose objectives are compatible with the needs and aspirations of the Tibetans. Regional national autonomy is aimed at opposing both the oppression and the separation of nationalities by rejecting both Han Chauvinism and local nationalism. It is intended to ensure the protection of the culture and the identity of minority nationalities by powering them to become masters of their own affairs.

To a very considerable extent Tibetan needs can be met within the constitutional principles on autonomy, as we understand them. On several points, the Constitution gives significant discretionary powers to state organs in the decision-making and on the operation of the system of autonomy. These discretionary powers can be exercised to facilitate genuine autonomy for Tibetans in ways that would respond to the uniqueness of the Tibetan situation. In implementing these principles, legislation relevant to autonomy may consequently need to be reviewed or amended to respond to the specific characteristics and needs of the Tibetan nationality. Given good will on both sides, outstanding problems can be resolved within the constitutional principles on autonomy. In this way national unity and stability and harmonious relations between the Tibetan and other nationalities will be established.

II RESPECT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE TIBETAN NATIONALITY

Tibetans belong to one minority nationality regardless of the current administrative division. The integrity of the Tibetan nationality must be respected. That is the spirit, the intent and the principle underlying the constitutional concept of national regional autonomy as well as the principle of equality of nationalities.

There is no dispute about the fact that Tibetans share the same language, culture, spiritual tradition, core values and customs, that they belong to the same ethnic group and that they have a strong sense of common identity. Tibetans share a common history and despite periods of political or administrative divisions, Tibetans continuously remained united by their religion, culture, education, language, way of life and by their unique high plateau environment.

The Tibetan nationality lives in one contiguous area on the Tibetan plateau, which they have inhabited for millennia and to which they are therefore indigenous. For purposes of the constitutional principles of national regional autonomy Tibetans in the PRC in fact live as a single nationality all over the Tibetan plateau.

On account of the above reasons, the PRC has recognised the Tibetan nationality as one of the 55 minority nationalities.

III TIBETAN ASPIRATIONS

Tibetans have a rich and distinct history, culture and spiritual tradition all of which form valuable parts of the heritage of humanity. Not only do Tibetans wish to preserve their own heritage, which they cherish, but equally they wish to further develop their culture and spiritual life and knowledge in ways that are particularly suited to the needs and conditions of humanity in the 21st century.

As a part of the multi-national state of the PRC, Tibetans can benefit greatly from the rapid economic and scientific development the country is experiencing. While wanting to actively participate and contribute to this development, we want to ensure that this happens without the people losing their Tibetan identity, culture and core values and without putting the distinct and fragile environment of the Tibetan plateau, to which Tibetans are indigenous, at risk.

The uniqueness of the Tibetan situation has consistently been recognised within the PRC and has been reflected in the terms of the "17 Point Agreement" and in statements and policies of successive leaders of the PRC since then, and should remain the basis for defining the scope and structure of the specific autonomy to be exercised by the Tibetan nationality within the PRC. The Constitution reflects a fundamental principle of flexibility to accommodate special situations, including the special characteristics and needs of minority nationalities.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama's commitment to seek a solution for the Tibetan people within the PRC is clear and unambiguous. This position is in full compliance and agreement with paramount leader Deng Xiaoping's statement in which he emphasised that except for independence all other issues could be resolved through dialogue. Whereas, we are committed, therefore, to fully respect the territorial integrity of the PRC, we expect the Central Government to recognise and fully respect the integrity of the Tibetan nationality and its right to exercise genuine autonomy within the PRC. We believe that this is the basis for resolving the differences between us and promoting unity, stability and harmony among nationalities.

For Tibetans to advance as a distinct nationality within the PRC, they need to continue to progress and develop economically, socially and politically in ways that correspond to the development of the PRC and the world as a whole while respecting and nurturing the Tibetan characteristics of such development. For this to happen, it is imperative that the right of Tibetans to govern themselves be recognised and implemented throughout the region where they live in compact communities in the PRC, in accordance with the Tibetan nationality??s own needs, priorities and characteristics.

The Tibetan people's culture and identity can only be preserved and promoted by the Tibetans themselves and not by any others. Therefore, Tibetans should be capable of self-help, self-development and self-government, and an optimal balance needs to be found between this and the necessary and welcome guidance and assistance for Tibet from the Central Government and other provinces and regions of the PRC.

IV BASIC NEEDS OF TIBETANS

Subject Matters of Self-government

1) Language

Language is the most important attribute of the Tibetan people's identity. Tibetan is the primary means of communication, the language in which their literature, their spiritual texts and historical as well as scientific works are written. The Tibetan language is not only at the same high level as that of Sanskrit in terms of grammar, but is also the only one that has the capability of translating from Sanskrit without an iota of error. Therefore, Tibetan language has not only the richest and best-translated literatures, many scholars even contend that it has also the richest and largest number of literary compositions. The Constitution of the PRC, in Article 4, guarantees the freedom of all nationalities "to use and develop their own spoken and written languages ...".

In order for Tibetans to use and develop their own language, Tibetan must be respected as the main spoken and written language. Similarly, the principal language of the Tibetan autonomous areas needs to be Tibetan.

This principle is broadly recognised in the Constitution in Article 121, which states, "[T]he organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas employ the spoken and written language or language in common use in the locality." Article 10 of the Law on Regional National Autonomy (LRNA) provides that these organs "shall guarantee the freedom of the nationalities in these areas to use and develop their own spoken and written languages...."

Consistent with the principle of recognition of Tibetan as the main language in Tibetan areas, the LRNA (Article 36) also allows the autonomous government authorities to decide on "the language used in instruction and enrolment procedures" with regard to education. This implies recognition of the principle that the principal medium of education be Tibetan.

2) Culture

The concept of national regional autonomy is primarily for the purpose of preservation of the culture of minority nationalities. Consequently, the constitution of PRC contains references to cultural preservation in Articles 22, 47 and 119 as also in Article 38 of the LRNA. To Tibetans, Tibetan culture is closely connected to our religion, tradition, language and identity, which are facing threats at various levels. Since Tibetans live within the multinational state of the PRC, this distinct Tibetan cultural heritage needs protection through appropriate constitutional provisions.

3) Religion

Religion is fundamental to Tibetans and Buddhism is closely linked to their identity. We recognise the importance of separation of church and state, but this should not affect the freedom and practice of believers. It is impossible for Tibetans to imagine personal or community freedom without the freedom of belief, conscience and religion. The Constitution recognises the importance of religion and protects the right to profess it. Article 36 guarantees all citizens the right to the freedom of religious belief. No one can compel another to believe in or not to believe in any religion. Discrimination on the basis of religion is forbidden.

An interpretation of the constitutional principle in light of international standard would also cover the freedom of the manner of belief or worship. The freedom covers the right of monasteries to be organised and run according to Buddhist monastic tradition, to engage in teachings and studies, and to enroll any number of monks and nuns or age group in accordance with these rules. The normal practice to hold public teachings and the empowerment of large gatherings is covered by this freedom and the state should not interfere in religious practices and traditions, such as the relationship between a teacher and his disciple, management of monastic institutions, and the recognition of reincarnations.

4) Education

The desire of Tibetans to develop and administer their own education system in cooperation and in coordination with the central government's ministry of education is supported by the principles contained in the Constitution with regard to education. So is the aspiration to engage in and contribute to the development of science and technology. We note the increasing recognition in international scientific development of the contribution which Buddhist psychology, metaphysics, cosmology and the understanding of the mind is making to modern science.

Whereas, under Article 19 of the Constitution the state takes on the overall responsibility to provide education for its citizens, Article 119 recognises the principle that "[T]he organs of self-government of the national autonomous areas independently administer educational .... affairs in their respective areas..." This principle is also reflected in Article 36 of the LRNA.

Since the degree of autonomy in decision-making is unclear, the point to be emphasised is that the Tibetan need to exercise genuine autonomy with regard to its own nationality's education and this is supported by the principles of the constitution on autonomy.

As for the aspiration to engage in and contribute to the development of scientific knowledge and technology, the Constitution (Article 119) and the LRNA (Article 39) clearly recognise the right of autonomous areas to develop scientific knowledge and technology.

5) Environment Protection

Tibet is the prime source of Asia's great rivers. It also has the earth's loftiest mountains as well as the world's most extensive and highest plateau, rich in mineral resources, ancient forests, and many deep valleys untouched by human disturbances.

This environmental protection practice was enhanced by the Tibetan people's traditional respect for all forms of life, which prohibits the harming of all sentient beings, whether human or animal. Tibet used to be an unspoiled wilderness sanctuary in a unique natural environment.

Today, Tibet's traditional environment is suffering irreparable damage. The effects of this are especially notable on the grasslands, the croplands, the forests, the water resources and the wildlife.

In view of this, according to Articles 45 and 66 of the LNRA, the Tibetan people should be given the right over the environment and allow them to follow their traditional conservation practices.

6) Utilisation of Natural Resources

With respect to the protection and management of the natural environment and the utilisation of natural resources the Constitution and the LRNA only acknowledge a limited role for the organs of self-government of the autonomous areas (see LRNA Articles 27, 28, 45, 66, and Article 118 of the Constitution, which pledges that the state "shall give due consideration to the interests of [the national autonomous areas]]." The LRNA recognises the importance for the autonomous areas to protect and develop forests and grasslands (Article 27) and to "give priority to the rational exploitation and utilization of the natural resources that the local authorities are entitled to develop," but only within the limits of state plans and legal stipulations. In fact, the central role of the State in these matters is reflected in the Constitution (Article 9).

The principles of autonomy enunciated in the Constitution cannot, in our view, truly lead to Tibetans becoming masters of their own destiny if they are not sufficiently involved in decision-making on utilisation of natural resources such as mineral resources, waters, forests, mountains, grasslands, etc.

The ownership of land is the foundation on which the development of natural resources, taxes and revenues of an economy are based. Therefore, it is essential that only the nationality of the autonomous region shall have the legal authority to transfer or lease land, except land owned by the state. In the same manner, the autonomous region must have the independent authority to formulate and implement developmental plans concurrent to the state plans.

7) Economic Development and Trade

Economic Development in Tibet is welcome and much needed. The Tibetan people remain one of the most economically backward regions within the PRC.

The Constitution recognises the principle that the autonomous authorities have an important role to play in the economic development of their areas in view of local characteristics and needs (Article 118 of the Constitution, also reflected in LRNA Article 25). The Constitution also recognises the principle of autonomy in the administration and management of finances (Article 117, and LRNA Article 32). At the same time, the Constitution also recognises the importance of providing State funding and assistance to the autonomous areas to accelerate development (Article 122, LRNA Article 22).

Similarly, Article 31 of the LRNA recognises the competence of autonomous areas, especially those such as Tibet, adjoining foreign countries, to conduct border trade as well as trade with foreign countries. The recognition of these principles is important to the Tibetan nationality given the region's proximity to foreign countries with which the people have cultural, religious, ethnic and economic affinities.

The assistance rendered by the Central Government and the provinces has temporary benefits, but in the long run if the Tibetan people are not self-reliant and become dependent on others it has greater harm. Therefore, an important objective of autonomy is to make the Tibetan people economically self-reliant.

8) Public health

The Constitution enunciates the responsibility of the State to provide health and medical services (Article 21). Article 119 recognises that this is an area of responsibility of the autonomous areas. The LRNA (Article 40) also recognises the right of organs of self-government of the autonomous areas to "make independent decisions on plans for developing local medical and health services and for advancing both modern and the traditional medicine of the nationalities."

The existing health system fails to adequately cover the needs of the rural Tibetan population. According to the principles of the above-mentioned laws, the regional autonomous organs need to have the competencies and resources to cover the health need of the entire Tibetan population. They also need the competencies to promote the traditional Tibetan medical and astro system strictly according to traditional practice.

9) Public Security

In matters of public security it is important that the majority of security personnel consists of members of the local nationality who understand and respect local customs and traditions.

What is lacking in Tibetan areas is absence of decision-making authority in the hands of local Tibetan officials.

An important aspect of autonomy and self-government is the responsibility for the internal public order and security of the autonomous areas. The Constitution (Article 120) and LRNA (Article 24) recognise the importance of local involvement and authorise autonomous areas to organise their security within "the military system of the State and practical needs and with the approval of the State Council."

10) Regulation on population migration

The fundamental objective of national regional autonomy and self-government is the preservation of the identity, culture, language and so forth of the minority nationality and to ensure that it is the master of its own affairs. When applied to a particular territory in which the minority nationality lives in a concentrated community or communities, the very principle and purpose of national regional autonomy is disregarded if large scale migration and settlement of the majority Han nationality and other nationalities is encouraged and allowed. Major demographic changes that result from such migration will have the effect of assimilating rather than integrating the Tibetan nationality into the Han nationality and gradually extinguishing the distinct culture and identity of the Tibetan nationality. Also, the influx of large numbers of Han and other nationalities into Tibetan areas will fundamentally change the conditions necessary for the exercise of regional autonomy since the constitutional criteria for the exercise of autonomy, namely that the minority nationality "live in compact communities" in a particular territory is changed and undermined by the population movements and transfers. If such migrations and settlements continue uncontrolled, Tibetans will no longer live in a compact community or communities and will consequently no longer be entitled, under the Constitution, to national regional autonomy. This would effectively violate the very principles of the Constitution in its approach to the nationalities issue.

There is precedent in the PRC for restriction on the movement or residence of citizens. There is only a very limited recognition of the right of autonomous areas to work out measures to control "the transient population" in those areas. To us it would be vital that the autonomous organs of self-government have the authority to regulate the residence, settlement and employment or economic activities of persons who wish to move to Tibetan areas from other parts of the PRC in order to ensure respect for and the realisation of the objectives of the principle of autonomy.

It is not our intention to expel the non-Tibetans who have permanently settled in Tibet and have lived there and grown up there for a considerable time. Our concern is the induced massive movement of primarily Han but also some other nationalities into many areas of Tibet, upsetting existing communities, marginalising the Tibetan population there and threatening the fragile natural environment.

11) Cultural, educational and religious exchanges with other countries

Besides the importance of exchanges and cooperation between the Tibetan nationality and other nationalities, provinces, and regions of the PRC in the subject matters of autonomy, such as culture, art, education, science, public health, sports, religion, environment, economy and so forth, the power of autonomous areas to conduct such exchanges with foreign countries in these areas is also recognised in the LRNA (Article 42).

V APPLICATION OF A SINGLE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TIBETAN NATIONALITY IN THE PRC

In order for the Tibetan nationality to develop and flourish with its distinct identity, culture and spiritual tradition through the exercise of self-government on the above mentioned basic Tibetan needs, the entire community, comprising all the areas currently designated by the PRC as Tibetan autonomous areas, should be under one single administrative entity. The current administrative divisions, by which Tibetan communities are ruled and administered under different provinces and regions of the PRC, foments fragmentation, promotes unequal development, and weakens the ability of the Tibetan nationality to protect and promote its common cultural, spiritual and ethnic identity. Rather than respecting the integrity of the nationality, this policy promotes its fragmentation and disregards the spirit of autonomy. Whereas the other major minority nationalities such as the Uighurs and Mongols govern themselves almost entirely within their respective single autonomous regions, Tibetans remain as if they were several minority nationalities instead of one.

Bringing all the Tibetans currently living in designated Tibetan autonomous areas within a single autonomous administrative unit is entirely in accordance with the constitutional principle contained in Article 4, also reflected in the LRNA (Article 2), that "regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities." The LRNA describes regional national autonomy as the "basic policy adopted by the Communist Party of China for the solution of the national question in China" and explains its meaning and intent in its Preface:

the minority nationalities, under unified state leadership, practice regional autonomy in areas where they live in concentrated communities and set up organs of self-government for the exercise of the power of autonomy. Regional national autonomy embodies the state's full respect for and guarantee of the right of the minority nationalities to administer their internal affairs and its adherence to the principle of equality, unity and common prosperity of all nationalities.

It is clear that the Tibetan nationality within the PRC will be able to exercise its right to govern itself and administer its internal affairs effectively only once it can do so through an organ of self-government that has jurisdiction over the Tibetan nationality as a whole.

The LRNA recognises the principle that boundaries of national autonomous areas may need to be modified. The need for the application of the fundamental principles of the Constitution on regional autonomy through respect of the integrity of the Tibetan nationality is not only totally legitimate, but the administrative changes that may be required to achieve this in no way violate constitutional principles. There are several precedents where this has been actually done.

VI THE NATURE AND STRUCTURE OF THE AUTONOMY

The extent to which the right to self-government and self-administration can be exercised on the preceding subject matters largely determines the genuine character of Tibetan autonomy. The task at hand is therefore to look into the manner in which autonomy can be regulated and exercised for it to effectively respond to the unique situation and basic needs of the Tibetan nationality.

The exercise of genuine autonomy would include the right of Tibetans to create their own regional government and government institutions and processes that are best suited to their needs and characteristics. It would require that the People's Congress of the autonomous region have the power to legislate on all matters within the competencies of the region (that is the subject matters referred to above) and that other organs of the autonomous government have the power to execute and administer decisions autonomously. Autonomy also entails representation and meaningful participation in national decision-making in the Central Government. Processes for effective consultation and close cooperation or joint decision-making between the Central Government and the regional government on areas of common interest also need to be in place for the autonomy to be effective.

A crucial element of genuine autonomy is the guarantee the Constitution or other laws provide that powers and responsibilities allocated to the autonomous region cannot be unilaterally abrogated or changed. This means that neither the Central Government nor the autonomous region's government should be able, without the consent of the other, to change the basic features of the autonomy.

The parameters and specifics of such genuine autonomy for Tibet that respond to the unique needs and conditions of the Tibetan people and region should be set out in some detail in regulations on the exercise of autonomy, as provided for in Article 116 of the Constitution (enacted in LRNA Article 19) or, if it is found to be more appropriate, in a separate set of laws or regulations adopted for that purpose. The Constitution, including Article 31, provides the flexibility to adopt special laws to respond to unique situations such as the Tibetan one, while respecting the established social, economic and political system of the country.

The Constitution in Section VI provides for organs of self-government of national autonomous regions and acknowledges their power to legislate. Thus Article 116 (enacted in Article 19 of the LRNA) refers to their power to enact "separate regulations in light of the political, economic and cultural characteristics of the nationality or nationalities in the areas concerned." Similarly, the Constitution recognises the power of autonomous administration in a number of areas (Article 117-120) as well as the power of autonomous governments to apply flexibility in implementing the laws and policies of the Central Government and higher state organs to suit the conditions of the autonomous area concerned (Article 115).

The above-mentioned legal provisions do contain significant limitations to the decision-making authority of the autonomous organs of government. But the Constitution nevertheless recognises the principle that organs of self-government make laws and policy decisions that address local needs and that these may be different from those adopted elsewhere, including by the Central Government.

Although the needs of the Tibetans are broadly consistent with the principles on autonomy contained in the Constitution, as we have shown, their realisation is impeded because of the existence of a number of problems, which makes the implementation of those principles today difficult or ineffective.

Implementation of genuine autonomy, for example, requires clear divisions of powers and responsibilities between the Central Government and the government of the autonomous region with respect to subject matter competency. Currently there is no such clarity and the scope of legislative powers of autonomous regions is both uncertain and severely restricted. Thus, whereas the Constitution intends to recognise the special need for autonomous regions to legislate on many matters that affect them, the requirements of Article 116 for prior approval at the highest level of the Central Government - by the Standing Committee of National People's Congress (NPC) - inhibit the implementation of this principle of autonomy. In reality, it is only autonomous regional congresses that expressly require such approval, while the congresses of ordinary (not autonomous) provinces of the PRC do not need prior permission and merely report the passage of regulations to the Standing Committee of the NPC "for the record" (Article 100).

The exercise of autonomy is further subject to a considerable number of laws and regulations, according to Article 115 of the Constitution. Certain laws effectively restrict the autonomy of the autonomous region, while others are not always consistent with one another. The result is that the exact scope of the autonomy is unclear and is not fixed, since it is unilaterally changed with the enactment of laws and regulations are higher levels of the state, and even by changes in policy. There is also no adequate process for consultation or for settling differences that arise between the organs of the Central Government and of the regional government with respect to the scope and exercise of autonomy. In practice, the resulting uncertainty limits the initiative of regional authorities and impedes the exercise of genuine autonomy by Tibetans today.

We do not at this stage wish to enter into details regarding these and other impediments to the exercise of genuine autonomy today by Tibetans, but mention them by way of example so that these may be addressed in the appropriate manner in our dialogue in the future. We will continue to study the Constitution and other relevant legal provisions and, when appropriate, will be pleased to provide further analysis of these issues, as we understand them.

VII THE WAY FORWARD

As stated at the beginning of this memorandum, our intention is to explore how the needs of the Tibetan nationality can be met within the framework of PRC since we believe these needs are consistent with the principles of the Constitution on autonomy. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama stated on a number of occasions, we have no hidden agenda. We have no intention at all of using any agreement on genuine autonomy as stepping stone for separation from the PRC.

The objective of the Tibetan Government in Exile is to represent the interests of the Tibetan people and to speak on their behalf. Therefore, it will no longer be needed and will be dissolved once an agreement is reached between us. In fact, His Holiness has reiterated his decision not to accept any political office in Tibet at any time in the future. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, nevertheless, plans to use all his personal influence to ensure such an agreement would have the legitimacy necessary to obtain the support of the Tibetan people.

Given these strong commitments, we propose that the next step in this process be the agreement to start serious discussions on the points raised in this memorandum. For this purpose we propose that we discuss and agree on a mutually agreeable mechanism or mechanisms and a timetable to do so effectively.

Source:【西藏论坛】http://tibetalk.com/bbs/index.php?all=313

Is Political Dissent Possible in China Today? (Part 3 of 3)

2008-10-08T05:01:00.000-07:00

[Written for the Italian journal MicroMega's special issue on the Beijing Olympics, June 11, 2008; with minor modifications, Oct 8, 2008]

V. The Spirit of Political Dissent in Defiance

Ever since June 1989, the world has identified human courage and dignity in China with the “Tank Man” who stands alone in front of a long row of tanks to stop them with his defiant will. More than nineteen years later, another generation has grown up. Without easy access to information about the Tian’anmen pro-democracy movement and its tragic ending, has China’s younger generation forgotten that spirit completely, to show the world the achievement of the government’s effort to depoliticize the society? What does political situation mean to millions of ordinary people engaged in socio-political movements elsewhere in the world?

Ahead of the fifteenth anniversary of the Tian’anmen massacre in 2004, Shi Tao, a young poet and journalist born in 1968, sent an e-mail message using his yahoo account to a New York-based pro-democracy online journal. In it he passed information about the government’s preparation for potential political disturbances at the anniversary, which he had learned from a meeting where no note-taking was allowed. At the same time, he produced a series of touching poems full of painful memories and burning passion. In at least two poems, he predicted his confrontation with plainclothes police and his own arrest. It eventually arrived. Shi Tao was sentenced to ten-year imprisonment for “subversion,” with evidence supplied by Yahoo to the Chinese police.

If Shi Tao acted explicitly on behalf of his comrades at Tian’anmen Square fifteen years earlier, some others took up causes of political dissent more recently. Like Wu Lihong, the peasant environmental activist by Lake Tai in Jiangsu province, many of them started as volunteers in social welfare charity work, but eventually fell out with local authorities and then with the political system as a whole.

Chen Guangcheng, born in 1971, was from a village near Linyi City in Shandong Province. He lost his sight in his childhood but nonetheless managed to train himself as a legal consultant and an activist for local villagers since the late nineties. He was prompted into determined action in early 2005 after learning about the thousands of cases of brutality against peasant women by local authorities forcefully carrying out the one-child policy. By late summer, the National Family Planning and Population Commission took up the issue and publicly recognized Chen’s effort. However, the commission does not have any real power over local governments, even though its policies were frequently taken as excuse by local officials to bully peasants or extort extra incomes. At the same time when the commission said Linyi officials related to the issue had been punished, Chen was put under house arrest by local police.

Complicating the situation were foreign journalists. Beijing just started to give greater freedom to foreign journalists to go around the country. They learned about Chen’s activism and the Time magazine already published an interview with him in the summer. Next year, Chen was named one of the 100 most influential persons of the world in 2006, together with the filmmaker Ang Lee and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao. Beijing was obviously not pleased with the publicity. In the following months, Chen was tried for “damaging property and organizing a mob to disturb traffic” and was sentenced to more than four years in prison. His three lawyers were beaten by local thugs, detained by police and prevented to attend the trial. When decision was to be announced on his final appeal in January 2007, members of a German television station were also physically abused in Chen’s village. Summer 2007, Chen was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in Manila, the Philippines, for emergent leadership. His wife was prevented from going to the award ceremony and put into house-arrest herself, together with a baby son not yet three-year-old.

While Chen was struggling, he and his wife were supported and cared after whenever they traveled to Beijing by a young couple, Hu Jia and his wife Zeng Jinyan. Born in 1973, Hu Jia had been an AIDS activist for years when he met Zeng. Ten years younger than Hu, Zeng at beginning was skeptical of the many tales Hu was telling her. She also had hesitation, uncertain if Hu should get himself into all those troubles with the authorities. Essentially, she was transformed into a determined activist by the experience of grieve anxiety, when Hu Jia “disappeared” for 41 days in early 2006 while police showed the ugly face of the state power. Here we see clearly that, with all internal contradictions, the Chinese education system is still capable of producing truly idealistic, courageous young people.

The years since they got married have not been an easy time for the young lady. Hu Jia was placed under house-arrestment for almost a whole year in 2006-2007. Both of them kept active networking with other activists and frequent writing on the Internet. While Hu was unable to leave home, Zeng attended training programs run by the Focus group in Thailand and the World Social Forum India in late 2006. Next year, she herself was named one of the 100 influential people of the world by the Time magazine. Bad omen. By the end of 2007, not long after she gave birth to their daughter, Hu Jia was taken away. He has since been sentenced to three-and-a-half-years into prison. Zeng herself has been under house-arrest for months by now, together with her infant daughter, helped mainly by her mother. When Zeng’s mother left Beijing earlier this year, police stepped up their surveillance and harassment. Neighbors and her baby’s nanny were all visited by police at home, checked with information of all their family members, and warned against letting their own babies to play with Zeng’s.

If anything, what shared by the case of Shi Tao, Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan are the followings. First, they might start with charity works, but they all held clear political visions and explicitly raised political demands. Second, in raising sensitive political issues, they focused their attention on the disadvantaged social groups. Third, their cases, particularly Chen Guangcheng and the Hu-Zeng couple, infuriated the Chinese government and its security forces the most by their connections to the outside world, be it foreign media or foreign activists. It has become inherent to the CCP’s political culture that official hierarchy is more important than anything else. For the CCP, bringing in foreign factors for the purpose of adding on political pressure is the greater crime than challenging authorities locally. For it breaks the rules of its own game. Thus, the punishment received not only by Chen and Hu, but also their wives and their young babies. Beijing shows its real color in these cases, when it deliberately courted world capitals and easily dismissed international solidarity of today’s grassroots socialist movement, such as those represented by the World Social Forum India and by the Magsaysay award in the Philippines.

Here we may recall the environmental cases in the cities of Xiamen and Shanghai, mentioned earlier, when citizens’ “collective walks” took place, as if there was no political intention, no organizer, and not one single individual to be taken responsible. The question and challenge to social movement worldwide would be this: Do we believe in political dissent? Do we accept substitution of valuing political dissent by prioritizing cooperation with political establishment? Do we believe that, under whichever kind of situation, improvement of living standard is always more important than promoting political consciousness? Chinese people hold unrealized political potentials with great energy that has not been relished yet. We might see a very different China once the people can openly, freely pick up political topics concerning the world as well as concerning their own lives.

-- Los Angeles, June 11, 2008

[1] Wang Hui, Qu zhengzhi hua de zhengzhi: Duan 20 shiji de zhongjie yu 90 niandai (Depoliticizing politics: The end of the short twentieth century and the nineties), Beijing, 2008, p. 7, 14, 15, 55-56.

[2] E.g., see ibid, pp. 15-20. Wang Hui’s discussion on theoretical debates in 1979-1983 (ibid, pp. 21-22) raises more questions that are beyond the scope of this paper. For views differing from Wang Hui’s, for instance, see Cui Weiping, "Weishenme meiyou chunfeng chuifu dadi" (Why there was no wind of spring over the land), http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=11741 , last visited on October 8, 2008; Sixiang (Reflextion), no. 6 (August 2007), Taipei, Linking Publishing.

[3] http://www.reviewing.cn/fact/2008/0606/article_520.html (in Chinese), last visited on June 10, 2008.

[4] http://ccdv.people.com.cn/GB/66982/5876850.html (in Chinese), last visited on June 10, 2008; and New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/world/asia/06pollute.html?ref=asia

Is Political Dissent Possible in China Today? (Part 2 of 3)

2008-10-07T16:44:00.000-07:00

[Written for the Italian journal MicroMega's special issue on the Beijing Olympics, June 11, 2008; with minor modifications, Oct 7, 2008]

III. Changing Social-Political Landscape

The fact that Wu Lihong was honored in Beijing as one of the 2005 top ten national environmentalists itself indicates important social-political changes taking place in China. As the country moved from its previous practice of “socialist planned economy” to a “socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics,” the central government under financial pressure in the early 1990s got rid, first of all, of its social welfare obligations, in education and public healthcare in particular. Not surprisingly, with rising living standard and the emergence of middle class and urban new riches, issues concerning the society’s general well-being were the first to gather voluntary participation and gain government tolerance. In other words, social diversification, brought about by three decades of reform, has made it possible for a “society” to practically prioritize its interest over the interest of the “nation,” whereas the “state” is relatively neutralized and the Party itself is forced to take a back seat in this kind of contest for legitimacy discourse.

The best example of such structural alternation will have to be the almost spontaneous, nationwide mobilization in the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake, mentioned at the beginning of this essay. But the changes started much earlier, as can be seen in the 1999 prize-winning film, Not One Less, by Zhang Yimou. The credit roll at the end of the film includes explicit call for donations to support basic education in China’s poor rural areas. Shifting the burden of social welfare from the state to the shoulder of the society or even to that of foreign philanthropic organizations had not been a difficult transformation for the CCP government to adapt.

This is not to say that the State and the Party sat through these changes idly. From the start and up to this moment, they have been watching vigilantly. However, instead of mobilizing societal energy for the general good, their preoccupation has been predominantly against social organizations with political potentials. A careful look at the most-wanted lists issued immediately following the Tian’anmen crackdown will tell you that, in addition to influential intellectuals, most names there were previously unheard of at all, who became the top enemies of the state precisely for their direct involvement in organizing autonomous associations among students, workers and ordinary citizens. Similarly, Jiang Zemin, CCP’s former Secretary-general (1989-2002), launched severe persecution against the Fa-lun-gong sector after the religious group staged a surprise demonstration just outside Zhongnanhai, the housing compound of the CCP’s top leaders in central Beijing. Fa-lun-gong’s mobilization ability shown in the demonstration made it impossible for the CCP to give the crackdown a second thought.

The oppressive logic of the Party did not stop at mass organizations staging actual big demonstrations. Yang Zili, a young physics graduate from the prestigious Peking University, was sentenced to eight years for “subversion” in 2003, for the crime of writing critical political commentaries on his website and for organizing a small study group. Three of his comrades were imprisoned at the same time. Ironically, the name they chose for their little group was “New Youth,” exactly the same as the name of the iconoclastic journal run by the CCP’s founding general-secretary, Chen Duxiu, more than 80 years ago. The Party certainly knows its own history perfectly well - free political association could easily lead to mass mobilization and social movement, posing real threats to its hold of the state power. A few years earlier, the CCP views it as a must to crash on the dissidents who sought to establish a China Democracy Party in 1997; now, Beijing also sees it as necessary to punish young intellectuals like Yang Zili.

Not surprisingly, giving permission to NGOs to provide charity service to the society became delicately challenging at all levels. Similarly challenging are new communication technologies, such as the Internet, the mobile phone, and text-messaging. Together with the changing social-political landscape, described earlier, the society is opening up considerably for initiatives. Of all the issues, environmental protection seems to be the most powerful magnet, bounding together otherwise atomized city dwellers to fight against vested interests of developers, business owners, and government officials. When a big chemical plant with Taiwanese money was to start construction at the southeast coast city Xiamen and the municipal authorities announced tough rules against non-official mass rallies, the citizens text-messaged each other for “collective walk” in front of the city hall for three consecutive days last year. Under growing public anger, the project was eventually moved to a less populated rural setting (without further hearing on pollution threat to the rural community). Similar tactic was then adapted by Shanghai residents, in their fight against an unpopular infrastructure project with high-volume noise pollution possibilities. News about these events spread fast and wide on the Internet. “Collective walk,” thus, has since become a politically charged word for actions of civil disobedience.

As a matter of fact, environmental groups are mushrooming in Chinese cities, and so are volunteer associations of charity groups on various themes: rural education, basic healthcare, AIDS, homosexuality, natural disaster relief, and so forth. Many contributed at the earliest instance to the earthquake rescue and relief in May this year. Intellectuals and scholars working on rural problems have set up special training programs in selected countryside locations, recruiting college students to work together with poor peasants during school vacations. These new developments have loosened the nerves of the authorities so much that the Organization Department of the CCP’s central committee has launched a new program, starting from this year, to recruit 100,000 college graduates in five years to serve as local cadres at village level. It has no doubt helped to raise social awareness among college students.

Heightened social awareness among college students in recent years is also thanks to new trends in academic humanities and social sciences, hugely influenced by their American counterparts that emphasize cultural studies in themes and field-work in methodology. Urban wealth, commercial interest, tourism development, as well as increasing cultural exchanges, awakened general curiosity about China itself, its history, its geography, its many regional diversities in dialects, customs, cuisines, climates and cultural relics. One particular aspect of vibrant social life, benefited by cultural exchanges with outside world, is religious activities. Large number of college students now is Christian converts. Officially registered Christian churches claim more than 30 million members, but scholars’ estimations are about two or three times of that number. Increasing inter-communications with other East Asian countries have made equally important contributions to reviving interest in religion. Temples of Daoism, Buddhism, and other folk religions, built brand new or repaired from old ruins – possibly inflicted during the Cultural Revolution that vowed to sweep the world clean of all religions – in as many cities as villages, are receiving crowded visitors at traditional holidays, which often pose risk of stampede and required extra police force for safeguarding. According to the estimation based on two Shanghai professors’ research, China today has more than 300 million people who hold religious faith of one kind or another.

IV. The Tibetans

If the society is really so diversified, lively, and with high degree of social awareness, one might ask, why the Han Chinese reacted so strongly, uniformly, aggressively and rather chauvinistically (see below) towards the Lhasa riots in Tibet earlier this year? To understand this, we need to keep in mind a couple of points. First, growing social awareness, encouraged by economic development and tolerated by the authorities, is not exactly the same as political consciousness. Likewise, charitable work cannot supplant political demands from below. Distinctions such as these may be subtle, but they are never completely submerged into each other. It is the job of the cultural police to watch out that these boundaries are not to be crossed, on the Internet or on the streets. People need to feel good about themselves, a sense which charitable work could safely provide. Political questions, on the other hand, might easily make people uncomfortable just like the state could be challenged, probably unnecessarily. Talking about the rich-poor gap is ubiquitous by the Chinese nowadays, which is partly the bases for growing interest in charity work. Yet, talks about political rights for the poor are completely another matter. In this sense, the Chinese society has been indeed depoliticized to a considerable extent.

Second, similar to policy debates at the top, vibrant cultural life at the society level usually carries a trace of nationalistic rhetoric. As a young intellectual commented, the Chinese today believe that China is a “normal country” just like any other one, with its own distinctive cultural characteristics. We can do what other people are doing, but we prefer doing it our own way, be it charity work or Buddhism worshipping. Behind this thinking, anxiety over recognition by the “international community” is clearly visible. The fixed sight is on the West (or lesser partners of the abstract “West”), and the “China” or “Chinese culture” is to be defined by a collective “Chinese” that is, generally speaking, Han Chinese only.

Historically, the PRC did entertain the idea of Soviet-style ethnic republics, but for a very short period only. The same is true about ethnic equality in general. Before 1958, the PRC was actually very enthusiastic about identifying and developing minority nationalities within its territorial boundaries. Ethnographical teams were sent out and totally 55 ethnic “nationalities” were identified. At least 14 written scripts were created for 12 ethnic groups that did never developed one for themselves before, and many other scripts were reformed, regrouped, and experimented within the concerned population. These actions were generally halted by 1958 and further impeded by the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, for the sake of “speeding up and running directly into communism” that would no longer acknowledge ethnic differences anyway. Economic recession, understandably, went much worse in minority ethnic areas than in Han regions, due to severe cultural and linguistic damage. There was indeed a short period of beneficial ethnic policy in 1977-1985, which, unfortunately, slowed down to almost complete stop in the nineties, due to the central government’s developmental position that focused on economic growth and almost nothing else. By official statistics in 2005, ethnic minority was 8.41% of China’s total population, but 45% of the total poverty population nationwide. Of officially identified “poverty counties” across the country, minority ethnic autonomous counties, once again, took up 45% of the total.

On the other hand, though ethnic minorities are less than ten percent of China’s total population, they occupy 64% of the PRC’s entire territory. A large proportion of the 64% is historically Tibetan inhabited areas. Tibet is also along a very long stretch of China’s 22,000 kilometers of inland border with other countries. These are the hard facts of the “Tibetan Question” today.

Has Tibetan areas been experiencing “cultural genocide” as the Dalai Lama claims? “Yes” and “no.” “Yes,” because official documents issued by the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) government are nowadays mostly written in Chinese, often without Tibetan translation at all; Most governmental meetings are conducted in Mandarin Chinese instead of Tibetan; Recruitment examinations for civil servant positions are mostly conducted in Chinese instead of Tibetan; Elementary schools for Tibetan children in Lhasa have adapted to using Chinese as first language and Tibetan as the second. The main reason for such phenomena is the PRC’s top official appointment practice. The CCP simply couldn’t trust any Tibetans to be at the top of the TAR leadership. Its Party Secretary, the real boss of the region, has been taken up by Han Chinese one after another for decades. They were often transferred in short notice from other regions and did never feel the pressure to learn the native language.

In addition, with Beijing’s unceasing assault on the fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism – a faith followed in varied forms by the majority of Tibetan population – is agonizing with its fragmented identity. With his charisma and international standing, whatever happens to him in the future, the fourteenth Dalai Lama is bound to become another legend in Tibetan cultural memory, just in the same way as one of his predecessors, the sixth Dalai Lama, a romantic poet fondly remembered in Tibetan folklores. Beijing’s pragmatic-thinking top leaders apparently have not registered this possibility. It is generally believed that the Chinese government is patiently waiting for the day when a reincarnation procedure will have to be enacted under its control inside China, in order to choose a successor of the current Dalai Lama. With this thinking firmly in their mind, whenever social unrests taking place in Tibetan areas, the authorities would jump upon all Tibetans, forcing them one by one to make public denouncement against the current Dalai Lama. Amazingly, or maybe not by accident, the method is exactly the same applied to all of the Chinese in the PRC during the Cultural Revolution. By so doing, instead of turning the Dalai Lama into its own political assets, Beijing has created a formidable windmill for itself to busy fighting against eternally. The political reeducation sessions forced upon every Tibetan inside China have been the most humiliating experience to the young, educated Tibetans living in Han Chinese cities in particular. Many of them actually have some spoken Tibetan only, unable to fully express themselves in the written language, let alone to keep that language’s beauty in some living, rejuvenating forms for future generations. This deeper sense of national humiliation has been simply reinforced by Beijing’s crude and cruel tactics against their fellow Tibetans remaining on the Roof of the World.

On the other hand, with more than 80% Tibetan population still living as farmers and going to rural schools or Buddhist monasteries that teach Tibetan as first language, there is no immanent danger of Tibetan culture disappearing from the world. On the contrary, with commercialization and loosened political control in East Tibet in particular, there have been more Tibetan periodicals in China’s Tibetan areas than ever before, much more lively than Tibetan print culture in the exile communities in northern India. Growing tourism, encouraged by Beijing with preferable policies and extra investment, has brought many Tibetan youth into closer contact with their traditions than, say, thirty years ago. They are creating lively cultural life in Tibetan cities and towns not just for tourists, but also for themselves. Like their Han counterpart, what in need is formal political recognition and protection of their rights. Unlike their Han Chinese counterpart, the younger generation of Tibetans keenly feel the need, longing for greater freedom to develop their national identity. For them, the Dalai Lama is mainly in this sense to be an important political symbol. Also in this sense, we may say, Beijing has been playing foolishly for unable to fully grasp the depth of the Tibetan Question.

Is Political Dissent Possible in China Today? (Part 1 of 3)

2008-10-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

[Written for the Italian journal MicroMega's special issue on the Beijing Olympics, June 11, 2008; with minor modifications, Oct 6, 2008]

News stories from China often provide, to say the least, conflicting pictures about social political life in the country. For example, a series of incidents since early March this year has seen startling changing faces of the Chinese public. Authoritarian manipulations notwithstanding, political passion in the country has been undoubtedly running at its highest point since the 1989 Tian’anmen protests. In particular, the urban masses demonstrated enthusiastic support to the government’s heavy-handed suppression of Tibetan protests in March, to the world torch relay of the Beijing Olympic Games (to be held in August) in April, and to the victims of the May 12 earthquake – massively devastating – in Sichuan province. Thousands of volunteers rushed to the damaged areas to offer help. Meanwhile, an almost unprecedented press freedom followed at the heel of the earthquake, not only covering heroic rescue missions but also exposing man-made tragedies, such as thousands of children buried by the instant collapse of under-standard school buildings. The government’s quick responses to the school building controversy were only partly due to pressures from the parents. To be sure, public outcry played a much grater role in this case.

Does it mean political participation has become the norm of public life or political dissent against the government is publicly tolerable in today’s China? The answer will, perhaps, have to be “No” or at least “Not yet,” with some twist concerning China’s recent history.

I. Depoliticized Politics of the Party

Wang Hui of Tsinghua University in Beijing believes that, corresponding to China’s economic integration into capitalist globalization worldwide, the politics of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been depoliticized, turning the PRC’s previous party-state into today’s state-party. In this way, the CCP has lost its political vitality, if not yet completely its mandate as well, becoming highly dependent on the state’s power and its apparatus. Now the Party is deeply entrenched in developmentalism in both ideology and practice. The transformation, Wang Hui implies, is a betrayal of the Party’s earlier, more revolutionary tradition that saw vigorous debates – either theoretical or policy-oriented – engendering real mass politics. On the other hand, depoliticizing tendency is inherent to all modern political parties. To counter the tendency and retain the revolution’s political vigor, Mao relied on mass mobilization, such as launching the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). The cause behind many human tragedies taking place at the time, Wang Hui argues, was exactly due to the Party’s depoliticizing tendency, manifesting itself most of all in the form of power struggles between political factions within the top leadership. [1]

Such an interpretation recognizes the historical significance of the Chinese revolution in general and its politicizing impact on the working class in particular, which has informed most cases of worker protest since the 1990s. But, the interpretation also clearly points to the fact that politics in Mao’s PRC was always the monopoly of the CCP, at least always nominally guided by the Party or by Mao himself personally. Mass political participation was promoted and rebellion against bureaucratization of the socialist state was indeed encouraged at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. Experiencing the sudden collapse of established social hierarchy, the young and the active ones were prompted to “heterodoxy” thinking avidly, often in underground fashions. This has been another stimulating legacy of those years, often directly informing today’s social activism.

Above the ground, the Cultural Revolution soon had its own reversal; whereupon, in the last years of the upheaval, China’s social, economic and political orders were mashed together to the greatest extent possible, with almost the entire population organized into semi-military units of minimal social mobility, maintained largely through endless ideological campaigns. The practice lowered the level of administrative sophistication considerably, as well as sweeping away cultural, ethnic and religious differences mercilessly. The three decades of reform has seen the actual falling apart of this order. The Party’s depoliticization process since 1979 [2] is epitomized by Deng Xiaoping’s colorful expressions: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is white or black; what matters is the cat can catch mice;” “No debate” about what is socialism and what is capitalism; “Get rich is glorious;” and “Development is the irrefutable truth.” Deng might be determined to get rid of ideological debate inside the Party. However, this does not at all mean that he was ready to give up suppression of political dissent.

Political dissent was never a valued virtue for the ruling Party, within or without. Bapa Phunsto Wangye, founder of Tibetan Communist Party who helped to bring the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into Tibet in 1951, lost his own freedom for twenty years when he spoke out, as a CCP member, against the Party’s Tibetan policy in the late 1950s. As for the Cultural Revolution’s beginning years mentioned above, its sense of liberation for young students, like its appearance of chaos in the country, came always with unmistakable boundaries imposed by Mao and his allied comrades. For even then, to engage in “unorthodox,” independent thinking could mean great personal risk, from long-term imprisonment to immediate execution. Of hundreds of thousands people who perished in the decade, three individuals stand out and are remembered with great admiration by later generations. Lin Zhao (1932-1968), Yu Luoke (1942-1970), and Zhang Zhixin (1930-1975), independent of each other, all met with death squad for their daring ideas at relatively young age.

By comparison, Deng and his successors in the Reform era have been much lenient to individual political dissenters. Yet, the government on the whole is no less vigilant against any potential challenges to their power and no less ruthless and brutal in suppressing challengers, imagined or real. This lies at the root of Deng Xiaoping’s decision to move huge amount of PLA troops into Beijing to quell the pro-democracy movement on Tian’anmen Square in 1989. The Tian’anmen Mother group, led by Ding Zilin who lost her seventeen-year-old son in the wee hour of June Fourth, 1989, has been fighting not only for obtaining the truth about their beloved ones missing in the crackdown, but also for mourning the victims freely, openly, and living a normal life without constant surveillance and harassment by the National Security police force. Fear of political challenge also determined Jiang Zemin’s heavy-handed persecution against the religious group, Fa-lun-gong, since 1999. Many Fu-lun-gong practitioners suffered police harassment and brutality for years. Nonetheless, manners of political suppression are undergoing significant changes. Nowadays, except in Tibetan areas (more later), the Party’s key concern is no longer to squeeze out personal confessions or physically wipe out the “unfit,” so much so as to silence the voice and destroy the courage.

II. Depoliticizing the Society, Coercively

Wang Hui’s account of China’s depoliticizing process explicitly concerns the CCP and the Chinese state, but only vaguely implying a similar process happening to the Chinese society as well. The logic seems to suggest that a depoliticizing and depoliticized politics internal to the CCP is identifiable with politics in China as a whole. If so, this would be a serious misreading of the reality. Since the end of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the Chinese society has been continuously diversified, economically and politically. However, the society and its people did not take the depoliticizing, commercializing path without a fight.

In the Reform era, with Deng Xiaoping’s developmentalist guidance that shuns ideological debate, new slogans issued by CCP’s leaders, such as the “three represents,” “basing everything on humanity,” “relating to the people” and “building up harmonious society” are functioning figuratively than substantially in organizing social life. Policy debates are never based on these slogans but, indeed, hinged on ideological rationalizations, usually with one side emphasizing the centralized state in need to unify political and economic power, and the other promoting free market and private interests as the key to stimulate sustained economic growth. While nether side would touch on mass mobilization of the labor class any more, neo-liberal defenders are actually no less rhetorically concerned with a strong nation than their supposed left-leaning opponents. As political institutional reform has not moved much to anywhere, party cadres at all levels have been like a political commissar without reliable ideological compass except upholding “state interest,” almost completely relieved from the old pressure to cling to ideological correctness. At the same time, thanks to residue socio-political structure from the previous period, they sit like a judge or referee over the fast-changing society of diversified interests, while keeping firm grip of the greatest social, political and economic power over all other competing interests. The double-role of being the referee of one’s own performance has enabled Party officials to play with ideological discourses of the old and the new alike, all to their own advantages.

The situation has been classical for brewing official corruption and causing serious social conflict. All social groups naturally have eagerly looked for political expressions for their own interest. Rather than “automatically” depoliticized by smooth talkers of neo-liberal free-market principles, the masses were constantly mobilized into political actions by the daily social transformations in their lives. If their actions have not led to any sustained political movement with historical significance, it was mainly because rising social conflicts are often handled by the state ruthlessly at first, as if dealing with “class enemies” in the old days, before the government might gradually make policy readjustment or administrative reorientations to reduce tensions on the ground. A few well-covered examples might remind us how changes were brought about in Chinese society with political implications in the last decade.

Industrial restructure – a euphemism for privatization of state-owned or collective-owned firms – became one of the key programs in China’s reform since the mid nineties. The Liaoyang Ferro-Alloy Factory in Liaoning Province used to be a state-owned well-performing, profitable firm with thousands of workers in the eighties, and is still well-performing, profitable as a private firm today, owned by associates of former municipal officials, with less workers and worse working conditions. Between 1993-2001, corrupt officials managed to push the factory into filing for bankruptcy, with worker’s salaries unpaid for as much as for 22 months. Most workers were against bankruptcy filing, demanding transparency in auditing and approval by the worker’s congress. When all failed, they took on the streets in early 2002. Four of their leaders were arrested, but the workers persisted. The municipal authorities deliberately accused two leading old workers for unverified membership in the outlawed China Democracy Party. Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang were sentenced for “subversion” for seven and four years, respectively. At the same time, the city diversified 20 million yuan to pay off all the rear pays to the workers within a year. In the same year following the workers protest, Premier Wen Jiabao visited the northeast Rustbelt three times, committing the central government to reviving the old industrial base there. Yet, economic demands may be met, but explicit political activism must be punished. To this date, Yao is still serving his term. [3]

One factor affecting the outcome of the Liaoyang case is the wide coverage by both domestic and foreign media of the worker’s protest, which put great pressure on Beijing to demand the municipal government find a quick settlement. Similar factors often come into play in social conflicts in the countryside, too. They often brought out similar outcomes as well, with leading individual activists punished while the general situation improved gradually to various degrees.

Wu Lihong was a peasant activist for more than a decade when he was named among China’s top ten environmentalists at the Great Hall of People in Beijing in late 2005. His hometown is by Lake Tai, the third largest fresh water body in China, and near Yixing City in Jiangsu Province, not far from Shanghai. Since the 1980s, the lake area had attracted legions of chemical factories that are big in both their contribution to local revenue incomes and polluting the once scenery lake. In his tireless effort, Wu documented more than 2,000 chemical firms by the lakeside and helped to close down some 200 big polluters. Yixing’s officials worked hard to turn the bad publicity into positive image-building, earning the city a title of “national model in environmental protection” in late 2006. Wu was not convinced. He was to go to Beijing for further petitions when dozens of policemen stormed his home and took him away in April 2007, accusing him for “extortion” and corruption. Yet, Yixing’s bad publicity turned to worse in a month, when the most serious algae scum in Lake Tai’s history occurred, threatening 200 million urban population with polluted drinking water. Government agencies at all levels jumped to the emergency, but the municipal authorities did not budge in Wu’s case. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Water quality continued to decline, according to official report, and new regulations taking effect this month are to subject chemical factories around Lake Tai to penalties five times higher than before. It is not clear if any of the Yixing officials being disciplined in any manner; or more likely if they collected credit for overcoming the public hazard. Clearly, neither the central nor the provincial government acted on Wu’s behalf to demand a fairer hearing than the 30 minutes allotted to him. Wu is still serving his sentence. [4]

Human Rights and Civil Rights: Before and After Tian’anmen

2008-10-04T15:10:00.000-07:00

Presentation at “China and Human Rights: A Symposium”
Claremont McKenna College
Thursday, March 6 & Friday, March 7, 2008

Last week, China announced that it is ready to resume human rights dialogues with the United States, which have been interrupted for four years since 2004. These dialogues were initiated under US pressure in the aftermath of the 1989 Tian’anmen crackdown, and were something completely new for Beijing. To meet the challenge, Beijing issued its first White Book on human rights in 1991, insisting that China’s record had been excellent in all areas: political, economic, socio-cultural, labor and religious rights, rights of minorities, of women and minors, of disabled people, and rights in legal procedures. Complaining of interference of its internal affairs and of the ideological framework supposedly imposed on it, the government repeatedly emphasized how much social welfare had been improved under the CCP’s leadership. The then president Jiang Zemin’s notorious slogan, “human rights are the rights to survive,” was initially raised in this context.

A key conceptual issue in the White Book was its focus on protective conditions afforded to the populace by a government purportedly representing the collective in toto. Emphasizing its history as a Third World country, with numerous references to infringements and abuses of its sovereign rights by imperialism in the past, it argued in effect that rights accrued to individuals can never be evaluated universally and must be subsumed into collective’s overall interest in consideration.

Nowadays, the Jiang Zemin slogan is no longer propagated noisily by Beijing, but the same logic is repeated in almost all Chinese official utterances on issues relating to human rights. Viewed historically, it is undeniable that there is some truth in the argument. However, in the logical chain of this official line, an important link is missing, which is the individual’s authorization of the collective to act on her or his behalf; That is, the political legitimization of the collective entity itself. Officially, when being pressured, Beijing still invokes the revolutionary victory of 1949 as the basis of its legitimacy to rule and to deal with issues concerning the conditions of human life. It was exactly the question of humanism, however, that most effectively challenged the legitimacy of the CCP in the early eighties.

The Reform Era started in the late 1970s, as a direct response to the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. Intense reflections on that extraordinary decade had already been going on for some time, among Party cadres and dissidents alike. At the same time, underground literature, poetry in particular, ventured most daringly into the sphere of humanism, exploring the existential value of the individual being. By the late seventies, fictions rose to the same calling, when Dai Qing, another speaker in our afternoon program, started her writing career in the same vein. Works like Dai Houying’s “Oh, Human Being” increasingly held humanistic values and human dignity as the top criteria in critical reassessment of social practices under Mao.

Politically, exactly at the moment when the democracy Wall in central Beijing was in full spate, attracting large crowds in late 1978, the Party’s Central Committee suddenly changed course in the middle of a working session, turning its attention to redressing wrongs committed in previous political campaigns. Older Party leaders, such as Chen Yun and Deng Xiaoping, laid their stress on the Cultural Revolution, from which they themselves had suffered. However, Hu Yaobang, who was younger, pushed the drive further, to redress the half million cases of those persecuted in the anti-Rightist campaign of the 1950s. Originally responsible for the anti-Rightist campaign, Deng Xiaoping could not have been pleased with this move. Hu Yaobang, without really adhering strictly to principles of justice, nevertheless appealed to humanistic values, emphasizing not only the human suffering involved in these persecutions, but also their meaningless waste of talents and creative energy. Thus, in the name of humanistic values and human dignity, the Party’s political practices were also assaulted.

Theoretical reflections soon followed, exposing the Party’s legitimacy crisis. Months after the Central Committee’s meeting, a number of reflective works inspired by humanistic perspectives hit the press, including an influential article by Mr. Gao Ertai. Cui Weiping has recently published a well-researched and well-argued article on this important intellectual development, known in China as the debate of “Marxist humanism and the question of alienation.” Attacks on the Party’s line in this wave of lively writing were sharply pointed. For example, Mr. Gao characterized the Party’s ideological operations in these blunt words: “The People in the abstract has become the God; whereas the people in the concrete have been reified as sacrifices on the altar for God.”

Faced with these external challenges and internal divisions, the Party first exploited them to its own advantage and then launched a counterattack in late 1983, when Deng Xiaoping and his ideological allies had consolidated their power at the center. As Cui Weiping has noted, the Party had by then already adopted the theoretical framework that it continues to employ today. Specifically, the Party’s ideologues separated the realm of historical explanations, where they maintained humanism had nothing to contribute; and the realm of ethical norms, where humanism was tolerable to some extent on a subordinate terrain. Wang Ruoshui, a comrade-in-arms of Mr. Gao in the debate, rebuffed this division, arguing that once humanism was compartmentalized in this way, it lost any significance as compass for social change, and that in the contrary China needed to reestablish the social purpose of seeking to realize the true essence of humanity in and for every member of the society.

In this vision the Party instantly detected a subversive danger. The campaign against “Spiritual Pollution” of humanism did not go very far in late 1983, due to Hu Yaobao’s intervention. But by 1987, Hu Yaobang was removed as the Party’s Secretary-General for permitting political dissent and student protest. Meanwhile, Wang Ruoshui was eventually kicked out of the Party. Wang, Mr. Gao, and couple of intellectual activists persisted, launching their short-lived journal New Enlightenment in early 1989. In mid-April that year, Hu Yaobang’s death triggered the massive pro-democracy movement centered at Tian’anmen Square.

=== === ===

At that time, notions of human rights – as distinct from philosophical conceptions of humanism – were still quite marginal in China, even though some veterans of the 1979 Democracy Wall period, such as Ren Wanding, had been promoting them for years. Roughly speaking, the concept of “rights” entered China’s social life in the mid eighties, when Beijing became a member of the UN Human Rights Conference. Subsequently, Deng Pufang, Deng Xiaoping’s son paralyzed in the Cultural Revolution, started an unprecedented association for the disabled. Still, upholding “human rights’ (renquan) as universal and inalienable entitlements of the individual was generally considered a weak position in this period. For most Chinese, it was not until the nineties that this idea acquired real value and dignity.

Between the suppression of the humanism debate in the early eighties and the accepted dignity of human rights in the nineties, there was a tilting period. What held greater sway in people’s imagination was the idea of civil rights, which raised more directly the issue of citizen’s power vis-à-vis the legitimacy of the existing political order. In fact, to most participants of the nation-wide 1989 pro-democracy movement, civic rights were probably not clearly distinguished yet from the idea of political power. The two words in Chinese have an identical pronunciation, quanli, and the blurring of them involved more than just vagueness. For even if a distinction between them was made, the idea of quanli as rights leaned heavily towards the exercise of political power – or, so to speak, in positive liberty rather than the negative liberty of freedom from interference. Thus, individual labor rights could easily be understood as the collective power of labor and individual citizen’s rights as citizens’ collective social power. In a sense, it was this equation between rights and popular power that alarmed the power-clutching CCP the most, stoking its fear of social movements and civic participation to the extreme.

For the protesters of 1989, the intermingled understanding worked both ways. On the one hand, as Han Dongfang’s experience at the square testifies, fellow workers in many factories hesitated to join his autonomous union, partly because they could not yet fully grasp the distinction between an official union that make them the country’s collective master on paper and an autonomous union that would reclaim their individual rights and restore dignity to them. On the other hand, the notion of rights shed fresh and critical light on the issue of political legitimization in the PRC, empowering and emboldening individual citizens in political participation. Faculty and students at the China Politics and Law University made a famous large placard. Copied on it were passages taken from the PRC’s constitution, all concerning citizens’ rights. It was cheered at wherever it was held aloft in the huge rallies of those days.

The awakening sense in terms of civic rights went hand in hand with the belief of fighting for essential human dignity. One big banner erested at Tian’anmen Square had lines taken from a poem by Bei Dao, a leading poet in the underground poetry movement since the seventies. Translated roughly, they read like the following:

Never kneel down on the ground
To prove the height of the executioners
So that they may block the breeze of freedom

In the original poem, a few lines before these words, the poet proudly proclaims:

I am not a hero
At a time when there is no more heroes
I only want to be a human being

Contrasting an antihero “human being” to the executioners who, blocking freedom’s breeze, could order at will anyone to kneel down before them, the poet best captures the political gist embedded in the perceived human dignity in the Chinese 1980s.

The democracy movement of 1989 was crushed by force. But since the mid-nineties, human rights consciousness in China has generally increased, thanks in part to persistent foreign pressures. Human rights concerns, even if compartmentalized, have helped many suffering people on a case-by-case basis, me included, and are urgently needed to help many more. By the same token, we should admit that not all Beijing’s accusations that Washington has its own record of human rights abuses are unfounded; and these cannot all easily be answered by reference to differences in legal settings, either. In China or Darfur, in the US or US-occupied Iraq, the premises of any discussion of human rights are always, if I may say, political. Without political space for civic activism, and without procedural politics to ensure renewable political legitimization of the state, a society is ill prepared to take effective actions against human rights abuses. In this sense, to improve human rights situation in China, comprehensive political reform or even a revolution will have to be on the agenda.

ZT: 南方都市报社论：《以国家名义捍卫文明底线》

2007-06-17T00:57:00.000-07:00

南方都市报社论：《以国家名义捍卫文明底线》

山西黑砖窑奴役、虐待工人事件，点燃了举国上下普遍的义愤。昨日，国家主席胡锦涛、总理温家宝及其他国家高层领导相继就此事作出重要批示。截至昨日上午，山西、河南两省通过专项行动，共解救出了468名黑窑工，目前行动仍在继续。这一数字，从侧面验证了这场灾难的规模。这一场人道的危机，以愤怒的民意推动，正演化成高层意志主导下的政治行动，要以国家名义，捍卫文明底线。

　　这些天，我们亲见愤怒在全社会、各阶层燃烧。这人道的愤怒当中，也有敏感的抑郁，也有现实的忧心，还有难言的忌讳，但都无须掩饰。如果这愤怒，仍要克制，仍要掩饰，仍要辩证地指导，要么是社会的底线已经完全失去，要么是社会根本就没有底线。

　　这些燃烧的愤怒，是社会底线失守的普遍疼痛，是进步幻觉中蓦然惊醒的惶骇——我们以为自己在向文明飞奔的路上，却发现竟是赤膊上阵，羞愧难当。社会尚未剥夺殆尽的羞耻感，是它仍然活着的生命自证。我们不能阻止它感到羞耻和愤怒。

　　今日的局面，定要有人负责。这不容含糊，也无从商榷。许多人议论，许多人分析，写下各种各样的理据，要为事件找到出路。可是，这不是一道复杂的社会分析题，只是一道简单的文明判断题。那些普遍的愤怒，已经标定底线，也给出答案。

社会创制法律，每一个乱法者都要伏法；公民委托政府，每一个玩忽职守者都必须解职。这是社会恢复秩序、维系信心的基本前提。在这场人道灾难中，无良的黑窑主、暴虐的包工头、邪恶的拐骗者、凶残的打手，一个也不能宽恕。还有那些官员，散漫的、失职的、贪腐的、丧失责任心的官员，没有理由强奸民意，霸权占位，必须接受道义的谴责与政治的追惩，以及民众和法律的问责。

　　可我们的社会显然缺乏信心。甚至，这份无望的压抑，本身就构成今日愤怒的大部分。虽然这无声蔓延的愤怒，并未站定在公共舞台上朗声发言。可如果这澎湃的愤怒，仍要领受虚词和周旋，仍要观看敷衍和推脱，我们的政治恐怕会变成闹剧。

　　我们努力呈现这压抑而扭曲的愤怒，只因感念社会前进全赖真实。尽管这真实，常常令人不悦。今天的事实，是只有政治高层确认的愤怒，才可以成为驱魔降妖的真实的愤怒。那么多失子家庭的父母悲呼，他们目睹暴行，直击残酷，他们的忍耐近乎悲壮。那么多民众同心呼应，他们痛斥践踏人权的恶人，更厌恨辜负民意的官员，他们的忍耐同样近乎悲壮。这种忍耐，本能地在渴望一种起码的政治尊重。现实需要回答他们，他们的忍耐是因为坚信，坚信这个制度仍在不遗余力地修复，修复他们因愤怒而塌陷的信心。

　　在国家与公众之间，我们需要重申一些常识。个人之恶，从来就不曾消亡。国家之善，即在于以公共名义，遏制个人之恶。不得不承认，黑砖窑累积的罪恶，最刺人耳目的，并非个人之恶的极度暴虐。而是那些接受公民委托，担当保护之责的官员，如何背信弃义，如何临阵脱逃，如何自私自利，将垄断的公权败坏成公民权利的惨剧。

　　为骇人的山西黑砖窑写下结语，只能是个人之恶所叠加的公器之恶。为恶毒的人性，我们只留一声悲叹，为反噬其主的公器，却要喊出大声的愤怒。检讨人性，这是每时每刻的个人修为；检讨公器，却是此时此刻全社会必须要做的工作。

　　那么多小心翼翼的愤怒，喧腾躁动，他们在彼此交谈，彼此相识。这愤怒必须被听到，必须被理解。在今日的公共生活中，它在等待来自政治的确认和回馈。民愤，以及平民愤，逐渐成为今日中国的政治游戏原则。愤怒，就此成为道义的武器，为民众参与，找到一条委婉的路线。也许要说，不幸的是，我们只有愤怒；也许要说，幸运的是，我们仍有愤怒。

Remembering Chinese blood shed for democracy

2007-06-06T02:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/06/04/commentary_remembering_chinese_blood_shed_for_democracy/

WANG CHAOHUA

Chinese Communist Party officials on several occasions this year have publicly broached the topic of democratic reform, at long last. It seems that time, and repeated lies, have created enough barriers to stop the public from relating the word "democracy" to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

However, the confrontation between the peaceful demonstrators and the army's machine guns and tanks left a huge question in history: What was the conviction that led those demonstrators to confront the military machines? Explanations such as the "impulsiveness" of youth cannot account for those striking scenes that shocked the world. I have always understood their courage to come from the power of a mass movement toward democracy.

Looking back at the widespread participation and the way people were mobilized in 1989, we recall that the marchers paraded in the streets in the middle of the day, carrying the banners of their schools or workplaces, as if the banners made their actions more righteous. Under the social circumstances of the time, the intent of the demonstrators was to participate in a patriotic movement toward democracy, not to overthrow the government. Only by realizing this point can we understand why, throughout the month-long demonstrations, the people demonstrated such strong self-discipline. This did not come from fear of government revenge. Instead it suggested a strong feeling of pride in challenging government suppression. The key point was the widespread participation, which is what democracy relies on.

When night fell, the people who went out to the streets represented only themselves. They did so of their own free will, and many confronted government officials face-to-face. This shows that, although the students' strategy was to stir the sympathy of the people, the force that mobilized the masses went far beyond mere expressions of sympathy and support. Sympathy was just superficial; whether it was the April 27th incident (when students protested the state media's depiction of the movement), the martial law order, or the gunshots on the night of June 3rd, the largest scale participation always occurred in direct opposition to the government's tough measures.

We might say that the 1989 incident was quite similar to today's campaigns to defend the people's rights. The deprivation or denial of a citizen's rights is the most effective motivator, and the real foundation of mobilization is the hope of democracy. Most victims in the June 4th incident were acting as individual, ordinary citizens. They were sacrificed at the fatal place at the fatal time only because they couldn't accept the ruling authority's violence toward the practice of their civil rights.

Commemorating the June 4th incident and returning political power to the people can never be separated. We can say without any doubt that the victims of the June 4th events shed their blood and died in the pursuit of democracy.

Those unwilling to face the democratic nature of the movement, or who intentionally wish to cover it up, always avoid examining the intentions of the citizens who were involved at the time. They just look at the students and criticize them by picking out certain details. They argue that if the students had obtained power they would have exerted a stronger dictatorship than the Communist Party. This argument is completely unfounded.

During the democratic movement, the students were pursuing political participation. They were not asking for sympathy, coercing the government or usurping authority. Although they lacked practical experience, due to a prolonged ban on non-governmental organizations, the students did experience a certain amount of openness and reflection in the 1980s. Ideas of democratic reform had been widely spread by physicist and professor Fang Lizhi and others.

Less than one week after the death of the reformist Communist Party leader Hu Yaobang, those who gathered to mourn him began uniting into independent organizations. As soon as one active individual initiated a group, many students followed. Every school had such student representatives, who used their real names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms, which was a great difference from previous student movements. Besides, up until the final phase of the movement, including the clean-up in Tiananmen Square, the student leaders still made their decisions by voting, which shows the democratic character of the movement.

If we consider that the students' organizations were the voluntary leaders of the mass movement at that time, they had to take into account the views of the masses. They had no intention of extending their authority beyond the principles of democracy. In fact, we can resolutely say that if the government had fallen, the students would surely not have established an autocracy or dictatorship. Instead, they would have asked people from all walks of life to elect new authorities to share the heavy burden of governance, which they could hardly carry.

Nowadays there are many discussions and discourses on democracy within China. Especially in recent times, these have become more and more confusing. The major problem lies in the fact that the fundamental meaning and function of democracy has been made ambiguous.

In my opinion, the word "republic" emphasizes a voluntary unity among citizens, whereas "democratic" stresses the political procedures to be followed after unity is established. China had abolished an imperial system before the People's Republic of China was established. Only by first admitting the concept of a republic can we make it democratic, and only by realizing the spirit of democracy can we guarantee the original spirit of a republic. Instead of contradicting each other, the two complement each other, and both emphasize the equal political status and right to political participation of the citizens.

In this sense, there is a great distance between real democracy and the current political situation in China. This is the root cause of the emerging social conflicts and confrontation. If the Communist Party does not open the channel of democracy, the conflicts between people will never end, especially those between local people and the central groups that are the beneficiaries of the current system.

Democracy is a good thing and it is what the students paid for by shedding their blood and losing their lives in order to protect their civil rights in 1989. At this moment, as we commemorate the 18th anniversary of the June 4th incident, I look forward to the time when every Chinese citizen can practice his or her right to participate in democratic elections and political decision-making.

--
(Ms. Wang Chaohua was a leader of the democratic movement of 1989, when she was a graduate student and lecturer at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. She left China after the June 4th incident and pursued her master's degree in history at the University of California. She is currently a PhD candidate of Chinese contemporary literature at the University of California in Los Angeles. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese. The original was published in "Trends" magazine and can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wang Chaohua.)

[ZT]拒绝遗忘：我与六四抗暴者的二三事(江棋生)

2007-05-29T22:50:00.000-07:00

2007.05.29

1989年9月9日，在六四屠城之后的大抓捕中，我被投入秦城监狱。虽说这个坐牢在某种意义上是自找的，但由于是平生头一次，因此难免有心绪不宁乃至心头痛楚的时候。而每当这样的情形出现时，我总会自觉不自觉地提醒自己，想想那些六四死难者和伤残者，想想那些已经被判或将要被判重刑的人。我默默地对自己说：与他们相比，你的苦难算得了什么呢？这种提醒对我来说很见效，我往往会较快地平静下来。

图片：6月4日，部队向广场的示威学生开始开枪镇压清场。图为一名女学生遭枪击受伤被抬出广场（法新社）

将近一年半之后，我出狱了。在这一年半中间，当局制造了大量六四良心犯。而在所有六四良心犯中，承受了最大苦难的，不是像我这样具有学生或知识分子身份的"动乱分子"，而是所谓的六四"暴徒"-以正义和良知对针对平民的恐怖主义屠杀说不的抗暴者。他们先是在看守所中受到了我们一般受不到的凌辱、虐待和殴打，后来又被当局狠狠地胡判、重判。胡判到什么程度呢？抗暴者们后来告诉我，他们在狱中见到过一份判决书，法院竟白纸黑字以"殴打、污辱坦克"为名判处孙彦才无期徒刑！重判到什么地步呢？林昭荣、张文奎、陈坚、祖建军、王汉武、罗红军、班会杰、徐国明、卞汉武和严雪荣等人在被抓10多天之后就被判处极刑，且立即执行。还有大量的六四抗暴者则分别被判处15年以上有期徒刑、无期徒刑和死刑（缓期二年执行）。

出狱之后，我不能忘记六四死难者、伤残者和被苛以重刑的六四抗暴者们。1993年春夏之交，在还能明显感觉到严酷、恐怖的政治氛围中，我开始寻访六四抗暴者家属。我走进北京民族学院（现改名为中央民族大学）杜建文的家。在"屠城有功，抗暴有罪"的荒唐定性下被判处17年有期徒刑的建文，当时才20岁刚出头。自他被抓之后，父亲郁郁寡欢，终日无语：一腔悲苦，向谁诉说？建文的母亲比较坚强，挑起了全家生活的重担，让人敬佩。我去了北京钢铁学院（现改名为北京科技大学），见到了贾马杰的母亲。

小贾当年还是一个未毕业的中专学生，因为给一辆已经燃烧的军车添了薪，被判了13年。小贾的母亲年纪并不大，但因苦苦思念儿子，已然头发花白，处于精神崩溃的边缘；见到她，我只能想起一个人-祥林嫂。小贾有个同班同学叫苏刚，家也在钢院。他被判得更重，判了15年。让我略感庆幸的是，苏刚的父母默默承受了儿子冤案带来的重击，精神尚好。我还去过被判了20年的刘建文和李红旗的家，去过被判处死缓的郗浩良的家以及另外一些六四抗暴者的家。我完全理解但深感遗憾的是，尽管我承诺不公开、不张扬，但我寻访过的多数抗暴者家庭，依然不敢接受我带去的人道救助款。

在此，我也想提醒海内外主张就六四事件尽快实现"和解"的倡导者们：任何具有起码道义基础的"和解"，都不应无视六四抗暴者至今依然受着残酷政治迫害的严峻事实。

我第三次坐牢时，后两年被关押在北京市第二监狱16中队。2002年4月21日上午，我忍无可忍，和二监有名的绰号为"庞狠子"的狱警发生了公开冲突。很快，狱方将我关进禁闭室，到晚上又将我移送到10中队-集训队去接受"严管"。或许真是缘分，集训队里当杂务的，就有两名六四抗暴者-董盛坤和张茂盛，当年他俩都被判了死缓。而三楼上的12中队，还关押着数十名六四抗暴者；当天晚上，他们都知道了我被关集训的事。第二天，我特意站在能见到12队打饭的窗口前，与许多抗暴者见了面。使我心中很不好受的是，他们肩扛着令人生畏色变的长刑，不为外界所知地吃了那么多的苦，却对做过些微好事的我备存感激，且溢于言表。

中午时分，杜建文就通过董盛坤给我送来了袋装食品和日用品。那天晚上，董盛坤和张茂盛对我说，以前有个时期，他们曾经设法搞到过半导体收音机，因此他们都知道丁子霖老师的事。已经在狱中煎熬了13个春秋的他们说，比起六四殉难者来，他们算是幸运的。他们要我提前给丁老师带个好，等他们出狱后，他们一定会去看望丁老师和其他死难者家属。最后，董盛坤眼中闪着泪花对我说，请你出去以后转告六四死难者母亲：请她们节哀保重，我们就是她们的儿子！那一夜，我久久不能成眠……

在此后被关集训的日子里，为了能和12中队的六四抗暴者们天天打个照面，我坚持每天早上都出操；一有机会，我就上场打篮球。我和三楼上的他们注目相望，挥手致意，互打V字型手势。后来他们动情地告诉我，每当看到我三步上篮时的矫捷身影，他们心里就别提多带劲了。

2003年5月17日，我走出监狱。很快，全美学自联将2003年度自由精神奖授予了我。我在获奖答词中写了下面一段话：

然而，我所付出的代价和所经受的苦难，比起六四死难者及其家属所付出的和所经受的，比起至今仍被关押在北京市第二监狱中的六四犯（所谓"暴徒"）所付出的和所经受的，比起在制度性不公正的黑暗下痛楚地活着或苟且地活着的弱势群体所付出的和所经受的，又算得了什么呢？和他们相比，我受到了太多的关注。如果说，对我的这种关注确有什么意义的话，那么，全部的意义就在于：我的个案昭示了一个沉重的和让人无地自容的存在-在21世纪的今天，作为中国人，竟然还会被以言治罪！出于天性说了真话，竟然还要被当作勇士和英雄来颂扬！

不久，我又将二监中六四抗暴者的情况通报给了国际人权组织。在2005年3月于香港出版的《看守所杂记》一书中，我写道：因反抗六四大屠杀而正义地抗暴的"暴徒"们，至今仍在二监里受苦受难！就我所知，他们是：李玉君、孙宏、朱文义、王连禧、苗德顺、董盛坤、张茂盛、朱更生、姜亚群（延庆监狱）、赵锁然、张国栋、常景强、武春启、孙传恒、高鸿卫、王连会、孙彦才、石学之、冯立生、刘建文（北京市监狱）、李志欣等。

法国总统希拉克前几天跑到中国来，把欧盟因六四反人类罪而实施的对华武器禁运说成是"另一个时代的事"，并频频鼓吹尽快"取消"，真是又下作，又荒唐。在我的印象中，如此见利忘义、自贱自辱的西方政治人物，近年来并不多见。在这里，我只想提醒一下希拉克先生，在二监的高墙电网之内，还关押着一个个终日劳作、历尽磨难的六四囚犯，这可一点不是"另一个时代的事"。

2006年9月13日上午，冥冥之中我拨通了张茂盛家的电话。茂盛母亲兴奋地告诉我：茂盛今天出来，他哥去接了，中午就到家。当天下午，我赶到牡丹园小区，见到了已分别4年的茂盛，见到了在17年的痛楚和悲苦中走过来的茂盛家人。9月16日，茂盛和董盛坤到首师大来看我。盛坤于2006年9月5日出狱，但他已经再也见不到思念了他17年的父亲！老人家带着无尽的悲愤，于2003年5月11日与世长辞。

2006年12月22日，我和盛坤、茂盛和孙传恒（1989年被判无期徒刑，2006年春出狱）去看望丁子霖老师和蒋培坤老师。望着三位因抗议军队屠杀蒋捷连、王楠、袁力、叶伟航……而蹲了17年大牢、受尽迫害和磨难的中年"小伙子"，丁老师百感交集。她对三位抗暴者说：以前我老是觉得，如果小连活着，他今天一定会是一位教授，科学家，或者其他类型的人才。但是，现在看来未必。小连、王楠、袁力、叶伟航……如果没有死在当局的屠刀下，他们几乎也肯定会像你们一样，走上街头去抗暴，去烧屠夫的军车的！而他们也就会被关进大牢，说不定到今天才刚刚被放出来。而放出来之后，苦难还远远没有完。正如你们现在所面临的，如何谋生？往后的人生之路怎么走？

的确，六四抗暴者的路还很难走。尤为令人可恨的是，当局关了他们17年还不过瘾，还要"依法"从重剥夺他们的政治权利，分别是：孙传恒5年，张茂盛 5年，董盛坤8年！在此，我想特别提醒一下欧盟，当中共当局再次情真意切地恳求你们解除武器禁运时，不妨反问他们一句：是否也应当把"己所不欲，偏施于人 "的臭毛病好好改一改，公平地解除强加于六四抗暴者身上的附加刑？是否也应当全部释放还在忍受牢狱之灾的六四抗暴者？在此，我也想提醒海内外主张就六四事件尽快实现"和解"的倡导者们：任何具有起码道义基础的"和解"，都不应无视六四抗暴者至今依然受着残酷政治迫害的严峻事实。

2007．5．29于北京家中

[ZT] 谭作人：1989：见证最后的美丽

2007-05-29T00:40:00.000-07:00

网路文摘-3453

　　　　　　　　1989：见证最后的美丽
　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　—— 一个目击者的广场日记
　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　　　□ 谭作人

心、就是给予
伴随着一滴眼泪，一支歌曲。
——泰戈尔《园丁集》

　　　　　　　　　　　（上）

坦克进场的时候，大学生们正围坐在广场中央——广场民主大学的开
学典礼已经开始。

十一时许，首都的夜空依然明亮，远处不时响起枪声。人们席地而
坐，平静，安静。广场民主大学首任校长严家其先生在演讲，民主的
历史，民主的现状，民主与法制，民主在中国……晚风吹送，严先生
娓娓而谈。民主就是多数原则，并尊重少数人的权利。民主是人民制
约政府，而不是政府主宰人民。民主要依靠法治，反对人治。民主是
中国人民努力奋斗了整整70年，不懈追求的好东西。

嗡嗡之声突然降临，像来自天际，有人站起来，抬头张望。你坐着，
感到大地开始颤栗，紧接着，听到了你永远忘不了的声音，那是坦克
的轰鸣声和高速奔驰的履带轧轧声。

“路障！”有人大喊一声。路障路障路障！人们一跃而起，一声声地
呼喊着，向广场西侧那辆急驰的坦克车冲过去，仿佛路障，就是自
己。

这是1989年6月3日，十一时三十分，在人民的大会堂面前。

　　　　　　　　和平的最高原则，就是牺牲

民主与坦克不期而遇，超出了许多人的期许。大学生们都熟悉广场的
历史，从1919年五·四运动，到1976年四·五运动，广场就是公众
意见的表达场地。70年来，人们追寻德先生和赛先生的足迹，一次
又一次地奔走呼号于此。他们见过棍棒刀枪高压水龙，也见过致命武
器，偏偏没有起码的军事常识：坦克可以对付人群，也可以开到你家
里。也许正是这不够充足的精神准备，激发了恐惧和激烈的反应。

路障！路障！路障！大学生们喊着冲到广场西路和长安街上，追着那
辆坦克——其实是辆轻型装甲运兵车，扔出了手里的汽水瓶、砖头瓦
块，甚至，钢笔和书本。装甲车楞了片刻，突然掉头，沿着来路，向
前门西大街方向，夺路而去。

不用动员，没人指挥，一直没有设防的广场在恐惧之中做出了本能反
应。隔离墩、铁栏杆、垃圾桶、乃至各种垃圾杂物，全被搬到路上，
做成障碍物的样子。你和大家一起搬运着隔离墩，心里想，十点钟，
广场宣誓的时候，你能想到的结局是头破血流遍体鳞伤和秦城监狱。
你愿意。坚守广场15天，愿意等待这个结局，这是因为，三十多年
的革命教育刻划了你，侵蚀了你，使你以为自己是牛虻、罗亭、格瓦
拉、阿莱科斯，或是保尔·柯察金，是一块注定要毁坏、中断并且奉
献到祭坛上去的肉体。也许那时，你并不真正了解自己。

不了解自己，并不等于不了解社会，不了解历史，不了解国家和民
族。四十年前，有人在这里大声宣布：中国人民从此站起来了。然
而，站起来的中国人民却找不到自己究竟“站”在哪里。1989年，
中国知识分子和人民群众空前规模地聚集起来，终于大声说出了自己
的愿望和意志，令世界大吃一惊！

4月15日以来，超过3000名大学生，为了自己的同胞和祖国，为了
反腐败，争民主，坚持了7天7夜的绝食斗争。他们的壮举感动了全
世界，却感动不了，自己国家的领导人。一些人越过全国人大，宣布
戒严北京，用军队来对付学生，激起了全国人民的反对。可敬的首都
人民，选择了见义勇为。他们自发地走上街头路口，劝说并拦截着不
明真相的军队，他们多次以百万人的大游行表达着民意民心：政府有
错，学生无罪！令人失望的是，具有“饲养员思维”传统的政府官员
从不认错，从不“罪己”。有时,他们更像一个聋哑人，不说也不
听，只会挥舞着武器，蛮干,横行。这一次，极少数人滥用国家暴
力，并激发了社会暴力，致使大学生们倡导的非暴力的和平改革遭到
破坏，难以控制，对话不成，对抗不断升级，大学生和士兵们的年轻
生命，正在成为政府错误的牺牲品。

坦克进场，预示着最后时刻的来临。大学生们围坐在纪念碑上，静静
等候，他们反对暴力，也随时准备牺牲。一个半小时前，绝食团广播
站一个沉静柔美的声音，已经说出了大家的共同意志。同学们，同学
们，我们和平请愿的最后时刻已经来临。我们一定要保持理智，保持
冷静，维护和平请愿的初衷，不要用暴力去对付暴力。二个月来，我
们坚持的是非暴力的和平斗争，和平的最高原则，就是牺牲。

广场上的人熟悉这个声音，是柴玲——当时，在某种意义上，她是广
场上另一个民主女神。

　　　　　　　　　　再见了，同志们！

广场重新平静下来的时候，周围的枪声再次响起。先是远处，象除夕
夜的爆竹声，一阵紧似一阵。接着，博物馆，大会堂，曳光弹平射而
来，点射夹着连发，烟花似地划空而过。

你在广场西北角，工自联广播车前面，数着从博物馆和大会堂黝黑的
窗口里发出来的枪声——闪光过后，枪声必至。脑海中闪着观察火力
点的念头，似乎你就是黄继光董存瑞随时准备去消灭火力点。不多
时，就数不胜数——枪声太密，“火力点”太多了。

广播车放送着“民兵训练课本”，教导人们怎么打坦克：蒙眼，掏
耳，剖腹，砍腿……来得还真够快的。正想着，坦克就来了。

金水桥东侧，传来坦克的轰鸣，一阵紧似一阵，广场上的人们向那里
奔跑。与此同时，从惊慌奔跑的人群中，你听到坦克压死了女大学生
的消息，有人说，是北师大的。

身旁的喇叭响起了刺耳的噪音，突然，“民兵训练课本”变成了高亢
的《国际歌》声，紧接着，这辆由公共汽车临时改装的广播车，轰地
一声发动了。看着这辆公交车转弯，掉头，拖着地上的高音喇叭，你
明白了它的意思——拦截坦克，同归于尽！你追着它跑，终于抓住了
车门，车门却轰然一声关闭，从驾驶室传来了诀别的喊声：“再见
了，同志们！”

后来，你在电视画面中多次见到这辆公交车时，前面离它仅几十米的
坦克不见了。而公交车，已不在长安街上，并被人改变了使命，成为
攻击建筑物而不是拦截坦克的一个“罪证”。

奇怪吗？不奇怪。伟大与荒谬是亲戚。正如美丽，在另一些人眼里总
是丑的。

选择留在广场上，等待最后的结局，最重要的原因是，广场是大学生
有组织的控制区，也是大学生集体意志的表达区。这个集体意志是坚
持和平请愿。非暴力，不服从，不流血，不投降。你赞成这个理念，
尽管你也知道在当时它“不合时宜”，但比起高对抗性同时具有高破
坏性的街垒战来，这条失败之路可能通向另一种胜利，而不会导致从
无序走向更加无序。

暴力，来自于恐惧；过度的暴力，来自于过度的恐惧。然而在当时，
明白这点的人不多。即使明白也控制不了局面，改变不了局势，因而
无济于事。首先，当局搞不清状况，他们用戒严来对付请愿，用军队
来对付人民，就是一个错误的开始。而军队服从的是政党政治，并不
是国家利益，“枪”被“党”指挥着，甚至撇开党的总书记，执行着
强行占领广场的死命令。这时候，政党、政府、国家、人民，都不见
了，只有那几个人，在按照个人经验和权威作决定。在全社会的高度
参与下，大学生早已控制不了北京街头，他们只能竭力维护广场斗争
的纯粹和干净。街头政治，则是一个无组织或自组织的竞技场，各种
动机，各种主张，各种力量，各种机会，在混乱中交织，把天使变成
魔鬼，或把魔鬼变成天使。然而丛林法则的唯一公理，是强者和王者
的胜利。这唯一的强者，不是人，是人发明和使用的杀人武器。混乱
的王者，是暴力，是超越法定程序的国家暴力。

　　　　　　　　　　　　

不许打人！

上帝要人疯狂，就叫他去革命。

十八年后，你终于明白：反抗暴政，不等于睚眦相报；公民有反抗暴
政的自由，也有不服从的权力。而公民不服从，更重要的是守住你自
己。而在当时，你并不真正懂得这些道理。中国盛产革命文化和党文
化，多年来，无论电影、电视、戏剧、文艺，还是报纸、杂志、文
学、书籍，无不承载着一个政党的宣传诉求，充斥着革命暴力。革命
暴力，只能孕育暴政，以及反抗暴政的暴民。正所谓，仁政出仁民，
出良民；暴政下，只有刁民，暴民，还有愚民。

当国家的发展被一个特权集团的需求所控制，当民族的文化被一个政
党的宣传所置换，当社会的价值只剩下所谓专政“精英”价值，当政
党的舌头和牙齿代替了人民的喉咙和心声，当全人类的普世价值遭到
少数人拼命的封杀抵制，你就成为，这种文化的一件作品。如果顺服
并且接受这种安排，你要么怯弱，要么白痴。多年的革命教育，你只
学会了模仿革命英雄，没有学会别的。所以当时，你追着广播车跑，
手拿一根三尺长的竹竿，要去跟坦克拼命，不怯弱，很白痴。

大约12点30分，广播车冲到长安街上，距那辆装甲车几十米，停
了。因为装甲车已经被堆积起来的垃圾桶阻停，徒然轰鸣着，然后熄
火了。霎时，003号装甲车成为人们围攻和宣泄的一件物品。砖头瓦
块，棍棍棒棒敲打着这个铁乌龟，点燃的衣物、棉被，马上堆满了
“龟背”。人们愤怒着，兴奋着，拥挤着，像围着一只巨大的烤红
薯，只等着分而食之。

提着竹竿，你摸到了铁乌龟发烫的后门，竹竿还没有敲下去，车门
“嘭”地一声弹开，滚滚浓烟里冲出来二个当兵的。当兵的被车里的
高温和浓烟薰得迷迷糊糊，完全失去了自卫能力，所以立刻被狂怒的
人群打倒在地。人群里只听到夯土似的沉闷声音，没有求饶声和呼救
声。

你拼命挤了进去，想打人，可能还想杀人。或者你什么都没想也用不
着想，大家怎么做，跟着做就行。没有料到的是，你做了相反的事。
十八年来，每每回想起那一刻，你都要犯迷惑，失去思维。后来你越
来越相信，那一刻，出现了神迹，拯救了你。

你挤进其中一个圈子，那当兵的伏在地上，已不动弹。有人还在踢他
的头，有人跳起来踩他，像演武打电影。他毫无反应。你听见自己在
喊：不能打了不能打了人不行了！接着你拉起他的左手，甩上肩，一
发力，背起他，向救护站挪动。

殴打没有停止。有人开始打你，一个踉跄差点倒地。没等你跪下去，
右边一双手伸过来扶住你，接着，那双手架起士兵的右臂，使你挺直
了身躯。“不许打人”！有人在喊。不许打人！不许打人！不许打
人！人们开始喊起来，越来越响亮，越来越整齐。在这有节奏并富有
当时的广场特色的呼喊声中，在十多双手臂的围拥保护下，你们奔跑
着，把士兵送到了几百米外的博物馆急救站。

后来听说，那天广场上没有死一个当兵的，包括这个一米八几的大个
子士兵，流了血，没有牺牲。这是大家的幸运。

　　　　　　　　　　　他们都是孩子！

快到救护站了，有人把你换下来。坐在地上，喘气。手上粘粘的，一
摸糟了，肩上胸前，满身血迹，头发也粘成了血饼子。这是那个大个
子士兵留下的纪念品。以后的几天里，你穿着这件可能被控为“凶
手”的血衣，在这座戒严的城市里漫游，有人问，你就得解释。

枪声密集响起，预示着有事发生。果然，广场西路的人群潮水般地向
南退去，其间不断有人倒地。当时无法判定，这是中枪还是摔倒。你
迎着溃散的人群向北走，直到看到西长安街，密密麻麻，都是军人的
身影。这些黑影中，至少有五、六支枪口在吐火，射击。这是文革武
斗以来，你第一次如此近距离看人开枪，没有向着天空，而是向着大
地和人群，打得广场地砖火星直迸。

多年来，你面对危险或是危机的处理经验，就是正视。缓慢地，镇定
地，迎上去，看清楚，正视。无论小时候被群狗追逐，还是后来多次
面临群殴场面，镇静，是你的唯一武器。所以，你缓慢地，迎着正在
喷吐的枪火，走上去。广场西路已空无一人，在西长安街火光的映照
下，你看到了那个令你终身难忘的场景：一个短发白衣的女人，一个
人站在西长安街口的拐角处，前仰后合地比划着，你听她喊：“别开
枪！别开枪！他们都是孩子！”

你迎着她走上前去，边走边想，开枪的，不也是孩子吗？

西长安街，全是军队组成的步兵方阵，望不到头，看不见尾。方阵上
空响着口号，十分整齐。“动乱不平，决不收兵！”“如若阻拦，坚
决还击！”“严惩暴徒！”等等。突然一声哨音，部队就地坐下，现
出一片整齐的钢管森林。这是建筑工地常用的2米钢管，现在靠在士
兵的肩头上，伸向广场的夜空，展示着比步兵武器更直接的一种暴
力。你想，国庆游行，如果把士兵手里的步枪，换成大刀长矛，或者
钢管铁棍，可能更威风，更有震摄力。暴力，来自原始；越直接，越
原始，越能摧毁文明。在这接近原始暴力的步兵方阵中，在钢管树阵
之间，突然响起了“钢铁的部队，钢铁的英雄”一类的军营歌声。这
是各个连队之间在拉歌，鼓舞士气，作战斗前的精神准备。

那个女人已经到了军队的散兵线前面，连比带划地诉说着。你情知不
妙，趋身上前，还没走拢，就见她被几个士兵挥起枪托，打倒在地。
你把她扶起来，才看清楚，这是一位年约40岁的中年妇女，胖胖的
圆脸上满是血迹。他们打我。我看见了。别理他们，我们走。

广场方向，有照相机的闪光闪过。接着，跑来几个大学生，还没跑到
散兵警戒线，就被冲过来的士兵打倒了，至少有两个照相机被当场砸
碎。几个大学生被士兵扭着胳膊架走。其中一个学生，匆忙往你手里
塞了一把东西——一张名片和一个红布条。名片上是香港大学学生会
主席×××，后来丢失了。红布条，你至今留着。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　

（中）

　　　　　　　　　　　　跟丫的死磕！

15天前。你冲着那个越过全国人大的违反宪法的《戒严令》，来到
北京，准备在这里抛洒你的一腔热血。八十年代的思想解放运动，确
实让人以为，为了国家民族的进步，为了民主自由的文明社会早日到
来，任何牺牲，都值。在当时，这是最后一批传统型知识分子的最高
境界和最后选择。所以你来了，带着眼睛，手捧着心。

5月21日，初到北京，你在广场上游荡了一天。傍晚，在一个叫
“京前餐馆”的小店吃了第一顿饭。餐馆老板20多岁，一口京片
子。他见你一边喝着啤酒，一边记着笔记，便上前问，是记者吧？接
着滔滔不绝地讲起了动而不乱的北京，和令他敬佩万分的大学生。正
是在他嘴里，你第一次听到北京“小偷罢工”的消息。

邻座五个大汉正在吃饭，老板说是“雷子”，却没有压低声音的意
思。接着，他拎出两瓶啤酒，要请客。见你谢绝，他说，请老师写几
个字，写“北京市民死磕队”。说着拿出半截白床单铺开。不懂北京
方言，不知道“死磕”的意思，急得老板连比带划，才搞清楚，死
磕，就是“拼了”。你想，“拼命队”，大概就是敢死队的意思吧。

没有毛笔，就手抓抹布蘸着墨写，一气呵成。未了，老板要加上一
句：跟丫的死磕，写上去。“跟丫的”是什么意思，更难解释了。你
想，管它呢，喝了人家的酒，就得办事。再次手抓抹布，蘸墨，写
了。半截床单变成了一面“旗帜”，上面写着：北京市民死磕队——
跟丫的死磕！人民必胜！旗帜展开，包括那五个大汉，齐声叫好，小
店里响起一片掌声。

后来，在广场上，在帐篷村，你多次见到这面高高飘扬的“旗帜”。
“旗帜”下面，是一辆免费送饭的平板车；“旗帜”旁边，是这位年
青老板——当时叫个体户——的幸福的笑脸。

自此15天后，6月5日，你见到了另外一条白布标语。标语下面，
是一位15岁的北京女孩的脑浆和鲜血，血泊中泡着一只白色女鞋。
离地1.5米的墙上和报亭，密集分布着38个弹孔，背对着复外大
街。人们说，当兵的追进小巷，从里面往外面打，女孩躲在报亭后面
的死角里，被削去半个脑袋。这是一条居民小巷的巷口，复外大街
22#楼西侧，巷口悬挂的白布横幅写着：民不畏死，奈何以死惧之！

这是挣脱了樊笼的国家暴力的利爪，给古城北京抓出来的伤痕之一。
这个案例表明,在崇尚暴力的铁血政策下，人民处于弱势。

　　　　　　　　　　　坚守，还是撤离？

像一缕游魂，你在黑暗的广场上飘来荡去，哪里有枪声去哪里，可是
子弹抛弃了你。丧钟没有为你而鸣。

躺在广场地砖上面，你摆出一个“大”字，双目紧闭，休息。广场北
面传来骚动和响声，站立了五天的民主女神轰然倒地，预示着,一个
结束正在开始。

那天黄昏的晚霞特别壮观，你满心感激着这最后一天的美丽，于是给
广播站送去纸条，要求播放《让世界充满爱》。不久，广播里传出寻
找歌曲磁带的呼声。你想象，歌声响起的时候血肉横飞的场景，以
及，嬉皮士给警察的枪口上插满鲜花的那种美丽。歌声终于没有在这
个注定进入历史的广场之夜响起，此刻，只好躺在这里，在心里一遍
又一遍地唱：啊，一年又一年！啊，我们拥有明天！啊，一年又一
年！啊，我们拥有明天！

　　　　　　　“明天”到来的方式很奇特：熄灯。

凌晨4：30分，在再次广播了《紧急通告》后，广场上的灯光全部熄
灭。恐惧随着黑暗降临。有人点燃了垃圾。像战士牺牲前，总要先砸
烂武器，有人把收集起来的棍棍棒棒扔进火堆，烧了。围坐着
3000~4000名大学生的纪念碑底座上静得可怕，大家在等，等那最后
时刻的来临。

大会堂前，聚光灯开亮，照着一个步兵方阵。方阵闪开之处，一只小
分队，弓着腰，端着枪，直插纪念碑而来。瞬间，散兵线包围了纪念
碑，有人喊话：市民都出去，离开这里！士兵们开始动手，把不象学
生的人从队伍里拉出来，推出去。不一会，就有人拎着衣领，把你推
到了包围圈外面。被拉出来的市民并不走开，他们站在包围圈外面，
齐声高喊：学生无罪！学生无罪！

有人对着纪念碑碑体射击，打得火星直迸。很快，大喇叭被打哑了。
然而坐在底座台阶上的大学生们，一阵骚动之后，仍然坐着，沉默不
语。你佩服这些孩子们，他们已经战胜了恐惧。这时有人建议表决，
以喊声来表决留守，还是撤离。

其实这类的广场表决，早在“戒严”第一天就预演过了。5月22
日，“广场将遭到空降袭击”的传言不径而走，动摇着大学生们坚守
广场的决心。这时，绝食团广播站在广播里举行了公开辩论。正在
“坚守派”和“撤离派”难分胜负之际，广场西南角悄悄出现了一支
队伍，打着横幅，挽起袖子，在深夜的寒风中默默地站立。人们走近
一看，好家伙，全是新闻媒体的国家队：中央人民广播电台、中央电
视台、新华社、人民日报社、北京日报社……掌声响起！大学生们热
泪飞迸！北京市民组成的摩托队，插着旗，编着队，绕场巡行，给大
学生壮胆打气。那时起你开始相信，中国的光明未来，要靠知识分
子。

那时的知识分子，确实可以感天动地，就是没有感动政府。当时，你
的母校华西医大，老师们上街游行，举着的标语是：“课，我们可以
补！”而你的右派父亲工作的学校，四川大学的老师们更直接喊出：
“我们就是一小撮！”应该相信,无论将来社会怎样发展,这样的知识
分子，都是民族挻直的脊梁，是可以信赖的社会良知。

你没料到的是，知识分子也可以被集体收买并集体作弊，成为组织起
来的少数人和极少数人欺负没有组织的多数人的帮凶和工具。短短十
多年，中国很大一部分知识分子就摆脱了千年传统，完成了一次“伟
大”的转型：从此没有善恶是非对错，只有贫富强弱输赢，以发财致
富为最高理想，以最大利益为终极价值。首先坏起来,才能富起来,不
能富起来,也要坏起来。这是悲？还是喜？你认为，知识分子如果放
弃理想和价值的坚守，无异于犯罪。广场的坚守意义，就在于精神的
守持。这一代大学生作出了正确的选择：坚守。守住的不是广场，而
是人的尊严和价值。这是发展中的中国,最为欠缺的东西。

　　　　　　　　　　　没有敌人和仇恨

大学生“留下”坚守的选择刺激了“清场”的士兵，他们开始对纪念
碑体密集的点射，来增加压力。你仿佛看见，纪念碑浮雕上的五·四
青年，正圆睁着困惑的双眼。因此你穿过散兵警戒线，又一次回到了
纪念碑——要死，要和大家一起死。

记得13岁时，文革变成了武斗，你躲在家里看书。《巴黎公社
史》、《一八七一年公社史》、《法国大革命》、《世界通史》，在
世界革命的宏大叙事中完成了你的启蒙教育。那时，中国整个是革命
大熔炉，50多年的党文化熔化了个人，铸成了集体——镰刀与斧
头，或者剑与犁，不是齿轮，也是螺丝钉——总之都是铁做的。所以
不少人羡慕“老一辈革命家”赶上了好时光。“给我们创造了幸福生
活”，却夺走了我们牺牲的机会。因此，文革中的红卫兵，赶着趟的
争相赴死视死如归。那时个人的最高价值，只是奉献生命，而不是丰
满美丽人生。

选择重新回到包围圈里，主动去承担危险，说不上有什么英勇，但很
有意义。当时，一大批中国知识分子的精英，都毫不犹豫地跳进大
火，净化了自己的灵魂，把自己还原为人。6月2日，当广场的坚守
已十分困难，而当局的镇压意图已十分明显的时候，专门从美国赶回
来的文学博士刘晓波，与侯德建，周舵、高忻发起了新一轮的绝食抗
议。“广场四君子”的《绝食宣言》说：“中国几千年的历史，充满
了以暴易暴和相互仇恨。为此，我们绝食，呼吁中国人从现在起逐渐
废弃和消除敌人意识和仇恨心理，彻底放弃阶级斗争式的政治文化，
因为仇恨只能产生暴力和专制！我们必须以一种民主式的宽容精神和
协作意识来开始中国的民主建设。民主政治是没有敌人和仇恨的政
治。”八九年那一代知识分子，不仅急公好义，具有舍身饲虎的勇
气，而且思想深刻，目光远大，完全能够担当推动中国历史前进的使
命。事实上，任何史家都无法回避的是，中国六·四运动，以石头翻
身引起的雪崩效应，关闭了冷战之门，开启了一个全球化的新时代。
它的历史意义，并不逊于那倒塌的柏林墙。

就一般的意义而言，人民可以选择政府，而政府不能选择人民。就法
律的意义而言，主权在民，人民可以做不被禁止的事，而政府不能做
不被授权的事。这是“人民共和国”的基本常识。“共和”的意义就
在于，人民应该选择一个拥有政府的国家，而不是接受一个拥有国家
的政府。不幸的是，当时的中国人民，面对的是一个“拥有国家”的
情绪化的威权政府，它象一个封建家长，威严有余，信心不足。常常
把功劳归于自己，把过错推给人民，推给人民中间永远消灭不完的
“一小撮”。因此，一九八九年，仅凭着几双干枯的手，就又一次关
闭了中国人民通向未来的幸福之门。

射向纪念碑体的跳弹，不时制造着新的伤员。不一会，四个人抬着一
个脖子上喷血的学生，从纪念碑顶层跑下来。出于医生的本能，你跑
到前面开路，带领着他们去博物馆急救站。到了那里，你傻眼了：长
期停在那里的几辆救护车，不见了！救护车！救护车！救护车！你们
拼命呼喊着，寻找着。

那天晚上，广场上最忙碌的地方，就是博物馆前面的临时救护中心。
一整夜，警铃声声，车轮滚滚，不停地转送着广场伤员和来自周边路
口的伤员。而现在，它们竟然悄悄消失了。你向广场北面望去，没有
看到救护车，却看到了坦克车和装甲车。在初现的天光辉映中，一字
排开着大约四十辆装甲车，像一群蹲伏着的怪兽。

突然，怪兽们一声嘶吼，发动机喷吐的浓烟，顿时遮暗了初现鱼肚白
的天空。

　　　　　　　　　　　　九个太阳

你紧盯着200米外的装甲车，下意识地数着，刚数到第28辆的时
候，它们轰鸣着，隆隆向前开进了。这时你想到了帐篷村，和熟睡的
孩子们。

广场熄灯前，你又一次走进帐篷村。因为你知道，外地高校的学生，
有很大一部分没有坐在纪念碑底座上，而是呆在帐篷里休息。狭窄的
过道里，你听到从帐篷里传来的鼾声，还有轻轻的谈话声。你来到一
所天津高校的帐篷前，听到传来交谈声：你什么时候回去？天亮就
走。回家吗？回学校。

几天前，这个帐篷里传出来的是早期的摇滚乐声。当时六个年青人拍
打着脸盆、背包，唱着《九个太阳》，一遍又一遍地重复着尾声：
哦……哦，九个太阳！哦……哦，九个太阳！你依窗望着他们，不由
热泪盈眶。

现在你没有眼泪。十个小时你没有流过一滴泪水。你只是纳闷。

你没有看到有谁在检查帐篷。当你还在想“帐篷里还没有人”的时
候，装甲车已经到了面前，并且快速越过你，推进到纪念碑正面的旗
杆前面，随着加大马力的轰鸣声，把碗口粗的铁旗杆推到了。中间几
辆车，把帐篷顶起来，蒙在头上前进。这时纪念碑上，还有超过
2000名大学生，周围，还有不少学生和市民并没离去。而你，站在
广场东路，博物馆前面，眼见装甲车队越过你，一直前进。车队开
过，车队后面的帐篷村，矮了一半。

现在想来，争论这个细节已不重要。因为重要的是杀没杀人，而不是
杀多少人、怎样杀人和在哪里杀人。真正重要的，是为什么杀人，过
失杀人还是故意杀人。更加重要的，是杀人过程中双方乃至多方应检
讨的过失和责任，包括良心和道义的责任。没有这种检讨，所有牺牲
的人——包括大学生、士兵和市民，永远不会闭上眼睛。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　杀死李鹏！

有秩序的广场撤离开始了。说有秩序，是在坦克的大炮直指鼻子，重
兵重重围困，东南角留下唯一通道的情况下，你唯一的生路，是走
人。所以最后一刻，的确和平，有序。

士兵们采取了紧逼战术。大学生退出一层，士兵们占领一层，不多
时，纪念碑上已全是士兵。为了搞清状况，你甚至爬上了一辆装甲
车，看到大学生撤退的头队，已到了前门大街，扫尾的刚出了包围
圈。人数估计有1000多人。时间是6月4日凌晨，五时十分。

你跳下装甲车，去追队伍。早起的市民向广场拥来，他们表情沉重，
却鼓着掌，夹道欢送——不，是悲送你们。你追上队伍问，后面还有
人吗？有同学答，还有人在纪念碑上，他们坚决不走！这时，一个胖
胖的戴眼镜的女生冲出队伍，蹲在地上嚎啕大哭，两三个女生去拉
她，她却抱住道旁的小树，死不起身！两个男生又过来劝，也拉不起
来。几个人蹲在地上，哭成一团！

这时你听见了你喊的却不属于你的嘶吼声：杀死李鹏！杀死李鹏！杀
死李鹏！大学生们跟着，喊了三声。队伍继续向前门行进。

这时你相信，此刻如果有个代表李鹏的东西站在面前，无论它是一个
士兵还是一辆坦克，你都会毫不犹豫地撕碎它。如果手里出现机关
枪，你会毫不犹豫地扣动扳机。此刻，你完成了一个知识分子向精神
暴徒的转变。再跨半步，你就是街头暴徒，就是暴政制造出来的暴民
了。如是，你输了，手握权柄和武器的人，赢了。

多年后你想，其实这场“动乱”正如那个人所言，是早晚要来的。这
是中国二千多年的历史大循环，近一百年来的社会大变革，以及四十
年来的国家发展史的必然的历史节点，是中国社会进步历史改写，以
及世界历史的上升阶梯。李鹏和赵紫阳，包括邓小平和胡耀邦至多是
其中的一些诱因而已。可惜这个千载难逢的国家大机遇，被一心为私
的封建顽固势力扼杀了。中国政治体制的艰难改革，被自私的人们推
给了下一代人。近百年来，大大小小的“群众运动”，真正重要的推
手，是人民选择制度和人民选择政府的权利没有得到体现，更没有得
到保障。如果这个问题不解决，如果没有切切实实的还权于民，将来
还不知道有多少士兵、大学生乃至各族人民，将会成为牺牲。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　（下）

　　　　　　　　　　有一天，我也要拿起枪！

前门大街，一支部队正在向东奔跑，这是去“堵口子”的队伍，填补
学生们退出后的广场东路。而市民们追打着他们，扔着砖头瓦块，他
们毫不理会，只顾跑。一些士兵身上，血迹斑斑。还有两个掉队的士
兵，抬着箱子，喘着粗气，一瘸一拐地，被人围打，逼上了街沿，躲
进了小院。

回望广场，火光熊熊，浓烟滚滚。你担心着纪念碑北面，那留下来的
同学们的命运，却又无力帮助他们。一种失落感痛彻心肺！

天色已经大亮，大学生的队伍正在远去。你慢慢走着，脚步沉重，心
中茫然，万念俱灰。

在石碑胡同南口，你被一群人截住了。早起的市民围住你，询问浴血
的广场之夜——你双手血污，满身血迹，似乎成了血战的证明。你平
静地讲述着。一位戴眼镜的中年人，不停地抹着眼泪，然后说：请相
信，有一天，我也会拿起枪的。他掏出了自己的证件：×××，武警
中校。你哭了。十个小时以来，你第一次哭出声来。你蹲在地上，
哭，一个女大学生揉捏着你的肩膀，劝你。这是中国政法大学的学
生，住在附近，半夜里，才被家里人从广场上强拉回去。劝不住你，
大学生也哭起来。一个警官，一个大学生，还有你——已在华西医科
大学工作十年的临床医生，各自捏着自己的证件，抱拥着哭成一团！

其实你哭，不是悲痛，是感动，是人性臻于善境的满心感激。

前门方向，传来密集的枪声。不一会儿，有人扶着一位头上流血的老
太太奔过来。武警中校和女大学生招呼住一辆环卫工的平板三轮，帮
助你把老太太扶了上去。

坐着平板车，扶着老太太，你来到不远处的红十字医院。医院里遍地
是人，诊断室、门厅里、过道上、天井里，躺满了受伤的人。当你把
伤员交给大学生志愿者，离开医院时，又有几拨伤员送来。前门方
向，枪声不断。你明白了，暴力并没有结束，而是正在开始。

　　　　　　　　　　　北大的精神气质

按照事前约定，打散以后，到北大某楼某室会合。你拖着双腿，向北
大方向走去。手里高举着，你在急救中心门厅里匆匆写就的标语：今
晨7点，军队还在前门屠杀市民！！！严惩杀人凶手李鹏！讨还血
债！一些路人，讶异地看着，有人在拍摄你。

此刻的你，早已没有了思想。在精神上，你已经成为一个标准的暴
民。你心里反复叨念着，是金斯堡的名句：我披头红发升起，我吃人
如呼吸空气。双手举着牌，一路来到宣武门。几个上班的工人拦下
你，问清去哪里后，争着用自行车驮你，把你送到了学院路。北钢学
院，哀乐声声，门前摆着花圈和罹难学生的照片。走不多远，一位大
学生过来问：广场下来的吧，先去休息休息。一路把你领到了林业大
学。宿舍里，同学们拿来了牛奶和面包，可你喉咙冒火，难以下咽。
你讲述着“清场”经过，十多个同学和老师陪着你，抹着泪。

后来，北京林业大学这位赵同学借来自行车，把你驮到北大某楼某
室，找到了全国维宪联席会议的同志。用了一个多小时，你向他
（她）们完整叙述了广场的一夜，并且说出了你的初步估计：这一夜
双方的死伤，至少1000人。北大同学，外地同学，还有一位女老
师，端来开水拿来饭菜，招待你并为你放哨，让你休息。

终于，你来到了仰慕已久的“革命圣地”——北大三角地。你感到欣
慰的是，三角地对暴行作出的反应，一夜之间，这里贴满了公开声
明：退党，退团，女的剃光头，男的留胡须……虽然第一次见面，虽
然第一次来这里，你却感到，北京大学，象家一样，亲切、熟悉。也
许，你们有着同一样的爱；也许，你们追求的，是同一样精神气质？

风声越来越紧。有人说，军队要来清校，所以不准收留外地人。深
夜，你被转移到北大招待所，那里是外地同学的大本营，因为害怕被
抓而来不及说出真相，所以你对着两个录音机，再次陈述了你所看见
的事实，并坦言，对这一切言论，承担责任。来京半月余，你以真姓
名真证件真面孔，真实的想法和目的，真实地生活在这座城市，打量
着这座城市。你的手，没有沾血，也不是黑的，一直都不是。

那一夜，老天爷忍了很久，压着呜咽，然后淅淅沥沥，开始小声哭
泣。雨水，悄悄冲洗着血迹和城市的伤痕。远处不时传来枪声。

　　　　　　　　　　走，咱们别理他们！

6月5日，雨过天晴。一觉醒来，人们的惊慌还没有消退。传闻，北
大今天要军管。你不愿束手就擒，所以一大早就离开了。

一夜休整之后，体力基本恢复，沿着海淀路南行，不知不觉已到甘家
口。日上三竿，又饿又渴，买了几只蕃茄，坐在路边，吃。四个人围
住了你，干嘛呢？吃饭。哪儿来的。成都。干嘛来了。旅游。“站起
来！”一声大喝！你慢慢站起来，干嘛？问你呢？说着就动上了手，
要搜身。你拼命抗拒，双手已被扭到背后。干嘛干嘛！跑过来几个行
人，和这几个人推搡起来。一个国字脸的大汉围护着你突出重围。
走，咱们别理他们。“咱们”拉着你快步离开“他们”，其它行人用
力拦住了那几个便衣。

你得把衣服换了，他说。低头一看，可不，满身血迹，凶手似的，走
不多远就会被抓。这位工人大哥把你带到甘家口百货商店，给你买了
一件肉色的衬衣，16元。正掏钱，被你止住了。我还没谢你呢，咋
能让你买。你说。后来的经历，证明这位工人大哥至少救了你两次
命。上午在甘家口，把你从便衣手里救出来。下午在西单路口，如果
你穿着那身血衣，定会被当场打死。

可惜，你没有记下这位救命恩人的名字。但你知道，北京工人和北京
市民，是世界最好的人。89年的北京，透着圣洁，闪着人性的光辉
和美丽。谢谢北京！

后来的一整天里，你巡视着曾经的战场，抚摸着北京的伤痕。直到你
被打负伤，送进医院为止。

在军博，你跳上6月4日下午毁损的装甲车队，焚烧的浓烟还没散
去，而70余辆装甲车被毁损的原因，至今未明。

在木樨地，一个小小的地铁窗，密布着二十多处弹孔，靠在旁边的一
辆自行车的钢管上，洞穿两处。在燕京饭店，五楼至六楼之间的墙
上，六十多处弹孔历历在目。看来，以地下到天上，无处不遭射击。
复外大街一路走来，所有用作路障的公共汽车都弹痕累累，且遭焚
毁。正面受到攻击可以理解，然而街道两侧建筑物，都遭受过弹雨的
洗礼，子弹飞进居民家里，令人费解。

“人民军队人民喂，人民军队为人民；人民叫它它不应，党叫咬谁就
咬谁。”当时的广场民谣，真切地反映了没有实现军队国家化，军队
的职能，己经被严重扭曲。军队，成了少数人的工具和武器。

这是一座受到了侵犯的城市，这座城市的忠诚儿女们，用自己的生命
和鲜血，反抗过侵犯，拒绝了屈辱，保卫了一座城市的尊严。但他
们，至今仍顶着“暴徒”的恶名。这座城市，不应该忘记他们。

“战况”的惨烈在复兴医院得到了你亲眼的证实。这是距木樨地最近
的一家街道小医院，没有胸科和脑科，只有普通外科。一位护士说，
当晚，至少有一百多个颅脑外伤和胸腹贯通伤伤员。在此作了简单的
包扎或止血处理后，被立即转送出去。即使这样，这里当晚就停放了
四十多具尸体，绝大多数送来时，已经断气。有些家属害怕受到清
查，连夜就把尸体领走了。现在临时改作太平间的大教室里，并排躺
着的尸体，是三十八具。这仅仅是在一个路口一夜之间发生的情况。
北京，究竟有多少个这样的路口呢？

　　　　　　　　　　　人啊“人”

从军博到木樨地，绕过复兴桥，沿着复外、复内大街。你踏着遍地瓦
砾，向广场接近。你步行，在空无一人的死寂的大街上，像穿过大战
之后的废墟。

西长安街像战场，每一个路口，都堆积着焚毁的车辆。地上砖头瓦块
铺了密密的一层。这时你才明白，真正的“战场”，不在广场，而是
在整个北京。而且可以肯定的是，不管是市民还是士兵，都付出了重
大的牺牲。

下午5点，在六部口，首都电影院前面，你见到一辆烧毁的大轿车横
在路上，还冒着烟。你转到轿车的东面，看到了一个悲惨万分的场
景：一具焦碳似的尸体，伸开两腿坐在地上，靠着轿车的车轮，远
看，像一个人在休息。然而，这个曾经的人，昨天的士兵，已经难以
辨认。“他”的皮肤像大火烧过的树皮，低垂的光头上盖着军帽，胸
前堆着，自己体内流出来的肠子……，你受到震憾，立在那里，足足
站了十多分钟。这个造型如此熟悉，使你想到了成都画家苟乐嘉的一
幅名画《人》。

《人》的创作年代是文革后期，反映的是文革中，造反派头头宋立本
被对立派的中学女红卫兵抓住后，练刺刀，挖膝盖，点天灯的惨景。
被虐尸后的“宋立本”，靠坐在那里，尸体摆成一个“人”字型，无
声地控诉着另一种“人”。

眼前这位士兵——后来知道是“共和国十烈士”之一的刘国庚，在文
革整整20年后，坐在西长安街上，用自己凝固的躯体，又一次发出
了声音：为什么啊，人？

为什么，人们在一夜之间变得如此仇恨，对立？为什么一夜之间，军
队和市民，学生与士兵成了死敌？为什么，人们忽然都成了暴徒，而
把人变成暴徒的那些人，却从不承担任何责任？为什么啊？

强者的残暴只能换来残暴，而弱者的残暴，往往触目惊心。

强烈的阳光下，长安街上空无一人，你和他在对视，倾听。你噙着眼
泪，向“人”鞠了一躬，心里百感交集！

两天前，就在这里，在六部口，你和大学生们站在一起抗击着暴力。
6月3日凌晨，一辆载着武器的大轿车在六部口被截停。为了防止武
器丢失，大学生们上了车，坚守了二十多个小时，直到一车军火被安
全转移。面对汹涌而至的人浪，大学生们手挽手围在大轿车前，你也
挽起了大学生的胳膊，守护着大轿车，守护着八九民运的底线：非暴
力。事后查明，大轿车上，装载着机枪×挺，手枪××支，冲锋枪×
××支，子弹×万发，电台×部……这些军火如果流入市民手中，不
可能帮他们“打赢战争”，却很可能造成市民和士兵的更大牺牲。

暴力的逻辑是武器的批判，而不是批判的武器。当有人轻率地释放着
国家暴力，又怎能指望，它会与被激发起来的社会暴力和平共处，相
安无事？

勿庸讳言，社会暴力是一种无序的社会破坏力，是有序的国家暴力压
制的对象和存在的依据。然而，当国家暴力脱离了正义的目的，背离
了国家利益，抛弃了法治的轨道，而沦为少数人的政治工具，它就成
了比社会暴力更加可怕，更加危险的破坏机器——因为国家暴力破坏
的，往往是国家民族的发展历史，以及文明社会的核心价值。

曾经，鲁迅先生不愿意忘却的纪念，是段麒瑞政府制造的三·一八惨
案。在那47名殉难者当中，有先生敬重的青年学生。据说，当时不
在北京的段麒瑞知道自己的手下开枪打杀了大学生和市民，竟在地上
长跪不起，磕头谢罪。段后来很快退出政坛，在天津当了寓公，并从
此终生吃素，不沾晕腥。

知道羞耻，知道忏悔，段麒瑞在怜悯别人的同时，救赎了自已。

　　　　　　　　　　　感谢北京

枪声再次响起。从复兴门换防回来的装甲车队，远远地已经发现了
你。你缓步跨过大街，在西单路口一棵大树前面坐下。当兵的没有放
过你。五、六个士兵围上来，刚问两句，就枪托横劈，把你打倒在
地。捣蒜式的打击落在背上，开始并不感到疼痛，甚至还有些舒服，
不多久，你就喘不上气，意识也有些迷糊了。迷糊中一闪念，幸亏，
换下了那件血衣……

后来在北医大人民医院，处方笺上写的是：肩、背，右下8、9肋软
组织挫伤。脾破裂？气胸？处方是留观一夜，红药一瓶。医生好心劝
你，能走尽量走，因为，部队每天来医院，抓走伤员，提走病历。搞
过十年外科临床，你清楚外伤和内伤的关系，不想冒失，所以仍在医
院呆了一夜，第二天才离去。

难忘的是，当你倒在地上，承受连续不断的打击之时，西单路口探出
几颗头来，向你招手，要你爬过去。这时你开始感到剧痛传来，已经
动不了了。士兵们刚一转身，两位市民就沿着墙根爬过来，从地上架
起你一路飞跑，一辆板车早等在那里，他们七手八脚把你甩上去，大
喊着“闪开，闪开”，把你送到了人民医院急诊室。

你没有来得及道谢，甚至，连救你的人们的长相，也没有看清。

这就是89年的北京，人类的丑恶和人性的美丽交织在一起，都充分
表现出来，释放到了极致。15天来，你看到了太多的混乱场面，而
永远感动你的，是街头救助。那奔跑着，挽扶着，呼喊着，围护着的
救死扶伤的场面，成为北京街头最为壮丽的人性景观，长留在每一个
目击者的心里。那些日子里，你救人，人救你，人们互助互救，活得
真实，一种崇高净化着人，提升着人，使人们在街头成为兄弟。

十八年来，你无数次冲动着写作的念头，无数次提起笔来，却写不下
字。因为长期以来，你只是一个用脚来写作的行动者，而不是一个写
作者和讲述者。你对写作，没有自信。

但是这次，你要写要说了。这要感谢一位叫做马力的香港先生，因为
2007年5月15日，他用一些不负责任的言论，侮辱了你的智力，践
踏了你的记忆。他让你想到了恶，而不是美。你要告诉他，你想记住
的，只是美。八九年，是中国当代史上的美丽；八九年的北京，更多
的是真理的价值和人性的光辉。

因此你说了。你说了，不为拯救灵魂，只为感谢人生，感谢北京！

6月10日，在回家的列车上，你拿出了笔记本。上面记着，5月21
日，来到北京的第一天，你在纪念碑上抄下的一首小诗《对话》。八
九民运，从对话的初衷走向对抗的结局，固然有太多太多的问题可以
反思。然而《对话》的精神，却永远是那么美丽！

所以在西去的列车上，你给大家读了这首小诗，表达了对一个时代的
最后美丽的深深感激。

　　　　　　　　　　　对话

孩子：妈妈，这些小阿姨，小叔叔为什么不吃饭

妈妈：他们想要得到一件礼物。

什么礼物

自由。

谁送给他们这件美丽的礼物

自己。

妈妈，广场上为什么那么多，那么多人

这是一个节日。

什么节日

亮灯的节日。

灯在哪儿

在每一个人的心里。

妈妈妈妈，救护车里是谁

英雄。

英雄为什么要躺下呢

好让后排的孩子看见。

看见什么

七种颜色的花。

　　　　　　　2007年5月22日成都

作者联系：谭作人（028）85415735 13308030863

为追求民主，他们曾流血牺牲

2007-05-18T15:08:00.000-07:00

——纪念八九"六四"十八周年

王超华

在多年回避之后，中共官员今年重新在公开场合拾起民主改革的话题，似乎时光和谎言已经堆积出足够的屏障，可以保证他们的听众不至于再把"民主"这个字眼和八九年的运动联系在一起，他们也不必再面对自己曾依赖"六四"血腥镇压维持统治的尴尬史实。

但是，象王维林那样独立长街的个体公民，以及八九年千千万万和平示威者与正规军机枪坦克的对峙，将会在历史上留下永久的巨大问号：当时支撑这些人与暴力专制工具相对抗的，究竟是什么样的政治信念？

"一时冲动"之类的说辞，绝对无法解释那些曾经震惊世界的历史景象。自八九年至今，我始终相信，这是一场追求民主的群众运动。

一、参政议政的动员潜力

从民众的参与方式和动员方式看，八九年时大多数民众白天上街游行，都会打出工作单位的旗号，似乎这样能让人们感觉更加理直气壮，反映出在当时社会条件下，参加者希望集中表达的政治意愿，是在增加"参与"的机会，而不是推翻现政权。注意到这方面，才能更准确地理解持续一个多月的运动，为什么会有那么强的自律品格，而且当时的自律并非出于对官方"秋后算账"的恐惧，毋宁说是带有极强烈的自豪和对官方强迫治理方式的挑战意识。其核心精神正是民主所依赖的广泛参与。

而一到晚间，人们就更多地以个人身份走上街头，更为畅所欲言，也更加频繁地与官方代表发生正面冲突。这种日夜两面的参与方式，到运动后期逐渐溶合，越来越向抛弃单位面具的方向发展，既提醒我们当初"四二七大游行"时那种铺天盖地、完全不借助于"工作单位"的民众参与，也说明，即使学生曾试图以唤起"同情"为主要手段，当时真正有效的动员机制却远远超出同情和声援。"同情"只是表象，无论是"四二七"，是戒严令，还是六三夜间开枪，最大规模的参与，总是发生在直接反对政府强硬措施的时候。不妨说，八九民运和今天的维权很相像：被粗暴否决的公民权利，总是能最有效地实现对民众的最大动员。动员的真正基础，则是对民主参政的向往和要求。

绝大多数六四死难者，都是以普通公民的个人身份，因为不能接受当局对公民权利施暴，而在致命时刻出现在致命的地点。纪念"六四"和要求"还政于民"，从来难以分割。在这个意义上，我们可以毫不含糊地说，他们是为追求民主而流血牺牲。

二、"如果学生成功了⋯⋯"

不愿正视或有意掩盖八九年民主内涵的人，总是回避运动当时的全民性质，只看着学生，并经常根据各种细节，振振有词地质问：如果学生上台，不是会比共产党更独裁吗？这完全是无中生有。

八九年不但民众追求民主参政，学生也决不仅仅是在博取同情，更谈不上要挟政府、妄图取当局而代之的问题。尽管由于长期钳制而缺乏建立组织的实践经验，八十年代毕竟有其开放反思的社会背景，尤其是方励之等人关于民主改革的言论广泛流传，自治和公开的原则逐渐得到重视。胡耀邦逝世不到一周，经由悼念活动开始的学生运动已经形成很多自治组织的萌芽。一旦个别活跃分子（刘刚）牵头，跟上来的就不光是匿名的队伍，而且各校都有以真名实姓站出来的学生代表，这是与以往学运的最大不同之一。

以学生证为证明，用真实姓名参加运动的学生，首先面临的是自己言行的责任，其中包括与本校学生群体的关系。当时高度压缩的时间空间以及巨大的政治压力，为学生组织民主程序化带来重重障碍和阻力，使这种关系常常停留在经不起检验的虚拟状态。即使如此，一直到运动后期，甚至到天安门广场清场的最后时刻，广场指挥部的封从德等人仍然以公开"投票"的方式决策，就说明当时学运内部对民主授权方式的高度依赖。

再看一直为人诟病的学生"排斥民众"，如果以学生组织为当时全民运动的自觉领导者，这自然是非常错误的倾向。可是如果是看学生对授权来源的自觉，这又正表现出基于民主原则上的不肯越权。其实，以"文革"历史验证，学生运动被"摘桃派"劫持的真正危险，恐怕来自不排除知识精英并有实权的既得利益集团，而不是站在抗议前列的学生组织。根据八九年的认知和实践水平，我们可以十分肯定地说，假若那时政府在民众抗议面前垮下来，接踵而至的，决不会是学生组织的独裁和专制。学生组织将会第一个要求各界通过选举授权来分担学生已不堪负担的过重的社会责任。而全国人民代表大会，将最有可能成为承担下一步民主进程的代理机构。

三、民主这个好东西

关于民主的言说层出不穷，尤其是在今日中国，颇有越说越糊涂的趋势。其中很重要的，就是模糊民主的基本含义和功能，使其陷入相对主义的不知所云。在简要说明这个问题之前，我想也许有必要先厘清"共和"和"民主"的基本差别。我以为，所谓"共和"（republic），强调的是参与者的自愿结合与起始授权，而"民主"（democracy）则侧重于结合后的政治操作程序。中国早已废除君主制，建立"中华人民共和国"，只有承认"共和"在前，才能实现"民主" 于后；只有实现"民主"，才能保障"共和"的原始精神。二者并非相互排斥，而是互证互补，同样强调社会成员
相互之间平等的政治地位和政治参与权利。

例如，八九年绝食学生内部就类似于一个小共和团体。但如果他们以各校一般代表的名义发言，就会在"共和"和"民主"的意义上同时发生越权危机。这是当时已经意识到的。至于说"民主"，虽然实践中有很多重大问题，可那时学生和民众已经有共识，相信民主的基本功能就在于选举和决策，在于保证不同主张的人都有机会充分说明立场，供参与者选择。这应当就是对民主最简要的认识了。

以此衡量，则国内政治现状距离实际民主相差甚远。这正是新的社会冲突和矛盾的根本原因。中共当局持续反腐败，为什么收效甚微？就是因为干部选拔制度已经退到比皇朝科考举士还靠不住的"政绩"考核。一方面无法控制任命体制下传统调任和回避制度的节节退缩，退到只有省市高级领导能被"空降"的孤家寡人地步，一方面又拒绝民主选举和监督，难怪腐败网络乘隙孳蘖。同时，地方决策权随着经济高速增长而扩大，官员利益地方化掌控下的决策机制，不断激化民众和地方官员之间的冲突，达到不胜防堵的程度。中共当局一天不开放民主决策的渠道，一般民众
与地方和中央特殊利益集团之间的突发性冲突，就永无消减的可能。

民主这个好东西——八九年的学生曾直觉地珍视他们尚不完善的民主实践；八九年的民众曾勇敢地以热血和生命捍卫他们追求的公民权利。在纪念八九"六四"十八周年之际，我期待着当年的精神再次张扬，让中华各民族的每一位公民早日实行自己民主选举和民主决策的权利。

2007年5月7日
于美国洛杉矶

马力的言论是对受难者的侮辱

2007-05-18T14:57:00.000-07:00

我看到马力关于六四的言论，特别是他谈论惨死在坦克轮下的受难者时的轻佻口吻，非常气愤。六四当时，不但天安门广场和长安街，而且北京各大医院也都有不少照片和录象流传于世，尸体堆积的惨景，相信有良心的人看过以后都不会忘记。

镇压时，中共当局使用大规模正规军开火镇压和平示威的学生和民众，而且大量证据表明，并非只是威慑性，而是存在严重惩罚性杀伤，例如从背后杀伤或向路边居民楼开火等等，其中就包括六月四日清晨，坦克在长安街六部口路口碾压十一名学生的事件，受难者之一的方政先生，至今仍持续受到中共当局迫害。马力的言论，是对六四死难者及其亲属的侮辱，也是对我这样的六四幸存者的侮辱。

对平民施以这样的惩罚性杀戮，英文使用 massacre 一词理所当然，中文使用‘屠城’，也正说明当时正规军接管北京城那个过程的实质。

与此同时，我认为，六四究竟是不是‘屠城’，绝不仅仅是一个如何定义如何避免‘错误信息’的问题。

首先，六四是中国当代史上的重大事件，下一代中国人有必要了解，学校里的历史教育和研究既不能回避也不应掩盖。1989年，中国政府和执政的共产党对最后清场过程和后果负有不可推卸的直接责任。可是，‘天安门母亲’等受难者及其家属持续要求了将近二十年，中共当局仍然拒绝公开并独立地调查真相，拒绝追究六四屠杀的责任。在这种情况下，马力对中共当局不发一言，却把矛头对准坚持历史记忆的学校教师，根本丧失了谈论六四所必须的最基本的公正立场，更不必说谈论学校教育中有关六四的内容了。

其次，历史事件作为下一代公民应该了解的基本知识，公正原则是首要的，‘正名’与否是次要的。例如，美国在二战期间设立集中营，关押大批日裔美国人，经过多年民权人士的努力和抗争，最终迫使美国政府作出正式道歉，这段历史也随之进入美国学校关于二战历史的教学内容。马力本人没有亲身经历六四镇压，又不肯要求中共当局允许公开独立的调查，却斤斤计较讨论六四时的措词，他的呼吁，最起码也是用‘谨慎措词’的借口压抑公正原则在学校教育中不应动摇的地位。

最后，历史教育，虽然有教科书，但最重要的是让学生学会独立思考。政府和执政党的历史观，只能代表一种立场。不能代表知识的终极。如果北京中央政府面对丁子霖先生等民间查访受难者的努力都如临大敌，封锁堵截，香港特区政府又有什么依据可以为六四定调，来决定教师应该如何讲授？！在中央执政者拒绝真相的时候，何谈政府决定下的‘正确信息’‘错误信息’？特区政府真正‘谨慎’的选择，只能是不介入不影响教师，决不是为教师‘定调’。

我认为，马力和香港民建联，必须就这些言论向香港公众道歉。

——王超华

～～～～～～～～～～～～～
附录：

据香港《明报》报道，今年是「八九民運」18周年，本港第一大政黨、民建聯主席馬力昨日與傳媒會面時談及，不滿近年有教師授課時，將「六四事件」形容成「北京屠城」、「血流成河」。他強調，不應該說共產黨屠城，若真的屠城，柴玲怎能在六四凌晨平安離開？4000名學生也應該全都死光了！

馬力更質疑當年指解放軍把學生「輾成肉餅」的傳言是否屬實，稱不如找隻豬做實驗，看看若被坦克車輾過，是否真的會變成肉餅？馬力要求特區政府為六四「定調」，以免教師各自表述，向學生傳遞錯誤信息。

对以上报道，王丹表示：
我的回答是：

1.不知馬力是不是有宗教信仰?如果他有,用豬做比喻來講死難者,難道就不怕下地獄嗎?
2.關於"碾成肉餅",有照片為證,很多相關書籍都有引用,香港可以很容易看到. 如果馬力不信,他自己可以躺到坦克車下面,如果沒有變成肉餅,我向他道歉;
3.中共殺人主要在長安街上,廣場學生能夠撤出,並不代表別的地方就沒有死人.
4.馬力以上說法,喪盡天良,對于這種人,我不期待他會道歉.

(ZT) 跨国公司到中国后为什么会腐化变质？

2006-12-09T09:31:00.000-08:00

梁治

西安有许多家大超市，象人人乐、家世界、好又多、麦德龙等，但唯
独麦德龙比较特殊，因为它实行所谓的会员制，开业那天许许多多的
慕名而来的西安人被拒之门外，被那些老外和“汉奸们”推来搡去
的。为什么会这样，而其他大超市却不敢如此，恐怕重要的原因之一
就是它是一家德国企业。“外国人就是尿的比中国人高。”许多西安
市民这样说道。

如今在中国十分崇洋媚外，这不光从国民心态看出来，就是政府的政
策也是“一国两制”，不一视同仁。这种纵容客观上促使了一些跨国
企业变质。前一段的富士康事件虽然草草了之，但有一个声音却始终
响在我们的耳边：富士康在它的本土台湾难道也象在大陆这样飞扬跋
扈？近日，多家媒体又同时披露，中国建设银行前董事长张恩照受贿
案的判决书中提到，ＩＢＭ曾向一位协助行贿张恩照的销售代理支付
了22.5万美元。ＩＢＭ的一位发言人表示，该公司尚未看到法庭判
决，无法对此发表评论。据报道，判决书中还提到了日本电子企业日
立公司的香港子公司。日立公司的一位发言人表示，已对此事进行调
查。而无论是ＩＢＭ，还是日立公司在它们本土都是经营的典范，可
是进中国内后为什么会腐化变质呢？

当然，毋庸置疑的是许多国际巨头公司为世界的经济发展做出了巨大
的贡献，比如微软、沃尔玛、雅虎等等，然而，令人匪夷所思的是许
多跨国公司到了中国后却腐化变质了。诸如残酷剥削工人、延长劳动
时间、行贿、把当地官员拉下水等等在本土连想都不敢想的事情，在
中国都发生了。近年来，跨国企业在华行贿的事件一直在上升，中国
在10年内至少调查了50万件腐败案件，其中64%与国际贸易和外商有
关。这些跨国企业行贿招数越来越高明，屡试不爽，被业内人士称为
“完美行贿”。据透露，这些跨国公司或赞助受贿方的子女出国留学
或为其安排工作；或承诺待受贿方退休后，聘请其担任自己企业的顾
问，“顾问费”非比寻常；或对政府高官、企业高管“助学”，提供
ＥＭＢＡ免费进修；或在合同签下来后，将部分工程发包给受贿方家
人、朋友投资的公司做等等，显得非常隐蔽。而在另一些方面，素以
强调“企业社会责任”著称的跨国公司及其产品一旦进入国内，也往
往发生严重的“酱缸化”变质现象。比如拒建工会，忽视劳工福利；
严重的产品质量问题；破坏与污染环境等等。还有一些政治上的恶性
事件，比如屡见不鲜的雅虎等网络公司将用户的私人资料提供给中国
国安局，为中国政府残酷迫害政治异见人士找到了理由。这同样在他
们本土是绝对不允许的，无论法律上，还是道义上。

为什么会这样的呢？很多跨国公司的成长壮大，很大程度上就缘于其
守法经营和强烈的企业社会责任。可为什么到了中国后就会发生南橘
北枳的情况？

我想主要有以下几个原因，一是中国的支持，当然主要是指政府的支
持。这些年来中国为了追求片面的经济增长率，什么样的资金都要引
进，而且采取了各种优惠条件，中资能办的，外资能办，但中资不能
办的，外资照样可以办的。对外资的一些特别要求睁一只眼闭一只
眼，比如在盘剥工人上，政府往往持默许的态度。这样没有政府的干
预，当然会使得跨国企业进了中国后，唯利是图，把一些不受限制的
恶性发挥了出来。二是适应中国国情。大家知道，在中国办事人情第
一，做生意更是这样，吃请回扣比比皆是，尤其是对政府官员，更是
如此。外资虽然享有许多特权，但面对这种情况，也难免入乡随俗。
比如前些年的麦德龙进驻西安，就邀请了省长出席，实际上在国外一
个企业的开业省长出席并无关紧要，麦德龙之所以拉大旗做虎皮，还
不是随应中国国情吗？

三是“汉奸”作祟。许多跨国企业进了中国后并不是外国人在其中打
理，而是中国人在其中管理。大家知道，往往“汉奸”整起中国人来
更坏，更了解中国的情况。所以，象行贿等腐化事件一般都是中国人
出的主意，否则外国人怎么知道这些门门道道呢。

第四，也是最重要的一点，那就是再强大的经济实力，都无法改变和
决定“上层建筑”；相反，一个国家和地区的政治和法律环境，却可
以迫使最强大的经济实体乖乖就范。这不是资本的“原罪”问题，而
是政治和经济的必然逻辑。

可见，跨国企业要出污泥而不染，几乎是不可能的。唯有在根本的法
律制度建设上确实走上民主法治之路，才能获得经济利益增长和自身
形象良好保持的双赢结果。

[RFA]

(ZT) Demonstration in HK 香港举行示威请愿，要求言论自由

2006-12-03T06:05:00.000-08:00

支聯會將於12月3 日向出席「世界電信展」的國家信息部部長王旭東和參展商請願，要求中國政府停止監控網上言論及停止迫害網絡作家，抗議外國網絡供應商只顧商業利益，與中共同流合污，自我審查，泄露用戶私人通訊資料等。以下是活動安排，誠邀抽空出席參與──

The Hong Kong Alliance is going to hold demonstration to appeal to the Mr Wang Xudong, Minister of Information Industry and host of ITU Telecom World, to demand that the Chinese government stop internet censorship and stop the persecution of internet writers, and to protest against foreign Internet Service Providers who, unscrupulously caring only about their commercial interest, collude with the Chinese Communist Party in self-censorship and in disclosing to the latter personal data of users of their services. You are sincerely invited to cover these demonstrations, details of which are as follow:

向「世界電信展」國家信息產業部部長王旭東和參展商請願

Appeal to Mr Wang Xudong, Minister of Information Industry, host of ITU Telecom World.

主題 theme：停止監控網上言論，停止迫害網絡作家
Stop internet censorship. Stop persecution of internet writers.
日期 date：１２月３日（星期日）3rd December 2006 (Sun)
時間 time：下午５時３０分 5:30pm
地點 place：灣仔家計會外(灣仔地鐵站B1出口)集合，遊行往會展中心 Gathering outside the Family Planning Association, Wanchai (B1 exit of the Waichai MTR), and marching towards the Convention Centre.

　　以下是請願活動的新聞稿－－

NO to internet censorship in China! FREE internet writers!

停止監控網上言論！停止迫害網絡作家！
　　香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會藉著在港舉行「世界電信展」，向中國及外國網絡參展商請願，要求中國政府停止監控網上言論及停止迫害網絡作家，抗議外國網絡供應商只顧商業利益，與中共同流合污，自我審查，泄露用戶私人通訊資料等。

On the occasion of the 'ITU Telecom World' hosted by China, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Democratic Patriotic Movements of China (hereafter the Alliance or the Hong Kong Alliance) appeals to Chinese and foreign participants of the exhibition and convention to demand that the Chinese government stops internet censorship and stops persecution of internet writers, and to protest against foreign internet service providers (ISPs) who care only about their commercial interest and hence collude with the Chinese communists in self-censorship and in disclosing to them the data of private users of their services.

　　根據《中華人民共和國憲法》、《聯合國人權宣言》和《公民權利及政治權利國際公約》，人民享有言論及通訊自由，公民有權在互聯網建立網站、網頁，有權在任何公開發佈的互聯網電子公告欄發佈個人意見。公民也有權瀏覽任何網站、網頁，亦有權通過電子郵箱、電子公告欄等交換資訊。

According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the people have the right to the freedoms of expression and communication, the right to set up web sites and web pages and the right to post opinions on any internet forums. The people are also entitled to browse any web sites and web pages, and exchange information through emails and internet forums.

　　然而，一直以來，中共嚴密監控互聯網，過濾電子郵件，侵犯私隱權，扼殺網絡自由，剝奪通訊自由。更對在網絡發表及登載「反動文章」的異見人士拘禁和判刑，即使從互聯網閱讀及下載資料也會被以「顛覆罪」定罪，嚴重侵犯人權。

Nevertheless, the Chinese communists have all along meticulously monitored the internet, filtered emails, infringed on the people's privacy, strangled internet freedom and deprived the people of their freedom of communication. Furthermore, they have arrested and imprisoned dissidents who posted so called 'reactionary articles' on the internet. They have even convicted people for subversion who read or downloaded information on the internet, seriously breaching their human rights.

　　中國目前有3萬多名網絡警察監控互聯網信息，有20多萬人在網上受到嚴密監管，涉及眾多專業領域包括作家、藝術家、記者、律師、社會工作者，以及知名人士等，當中不少從未涉足政治敏感層面人士亦受到監控。他們的hotmail和Gmail郵箱裏的電郵，只要涉及到胡錦濤、江澤民、六四等字眼，不是發不出去就是顯示「被退回」。有些時候，一個電郵往往要發半小時至一小時，比寫一篇文章的時間還長。有一半的郵件無法收到，即使收到也顯示出被看過。部分被視為「反動」和「敏感」的網頁，包括支聯會（www.alliance.org.hk）和法輪功等，均被中共封鎖，內地網民無法瀏覽。網上論壇如出現批評中國政府的內容，更會被即時封閉。

China has over 30,000 internet policemen who monitor and control information on the internet. More than 200,000 people are closely monitored on the net, including many writers, artists, journalists, lawyers, social workers and other well-known figures, many of whom have never even stepped into any sensitive political areas. Whenever keywords like Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin or June 4th are mentioned, their emails in Hotmail, Gmail and the like either fail to be delivered or are shown to have bounced back. At times, an email often takes as long as half an hour or even an hour to get delivered, longer than the time to write an article. Half of the emails of the people monitored fail to deliver, and even if delivered, it is evident that they have been read. Some 'reactionary' or 'sensitive' web pages, including those of the Alliance (www.alliance.org.hk) and the Falungong, are embargoed by the Chinese communists, becoming unavailable for internet users in mainland China. When criticism of the Chinese government appears on internet forums, the forums are immediately closed.

　　有關當局更在兩年前開始在各大門戶網站如新浪、網易、搜狐等，對個人郵箱進行過濾。最近一年開始，雅虎中國、Gmail、hotmail等跨國網站的私人郵箱，亦加入當局監管行列。雅虎中國發言人也承認：「信息產業部（內地互聯網主管部門）今年初啟動淨化活動（『陽光綠色網絡工程』），要求網絡供應商配合。個人電郵、論壇、博客（網誌）等，如果出現敏感信息就會被過濾掉。」新浪網亦表示已成立專門監管網絡的部門，對「內容涉及非法、暴力等不正常的郵件」進行處理。

Two years ago, the Chinese authorities began filtering personal email boxes in the various portal sites in China, like Sina, NetEase, Sohu, etc. Just last year, the personal email boxes under multinational portals such as Yahoo China, Gmail, Hotmail, etc. also joined the official list of censored categories. The spokesman of Yahoo China admitted, "The Ministry of Information Industry (the authority that oversees the internet in mainland China) launched its sanitization program early this year (the 'Sunny Green Internet Project') and required ISPs to comply. In personal emails, forums, blogs, etc., sensitive information will be censored away if it appears." Another ISP, Sina, also said that they had set up a special department to monitor the internet, to process 'abnormal emails that involve illegality or violence'.

　　另外，外國網絡供應商，為了中國市場，不惜泄露用戶私隱，捨棄商業道德，向中國政府提供用戶通訊資料。其中雅虎的表現最令人不滿和憤怒。雅虎向中國內地安全部門提供的網絡作家資料包括：網絡作家師濤於「六四」十五周年前夕將中共中央有關要求嚴防紀念「六四」活動的文件摘要所使用的IP（用戶名）、發信時間、用戶上網的電話號碼等；王小寧於2001年至2002年間在雅虎中國網站發表連串不滿共產黨的政論文章的相關註冊資料；四川達州市前官員李智在網絡上批評中國政府腐敗的文章紀錄；遼寧民辦企業老闆姜立軍在網上主張推翻共產黨、倡建自由民主黨的文章。最終導致師濤、王小寧、李智、姜立軍分別被判囚10年、10年、8年和4年。

Besides, foreign ISPs, abandoning commercial ethics for a position in the Chinese market, have been providing the Chinese government with personal data of their users, which is an infringement of their privacy. Yahoo has been most blatant and enraging, for having disclosed to the security departments of mainland China the data of various internet writers, including (a) the IP address, the user name, the telephone number for internet connection, and the time of posting of a relevant article of Shi Tao, who posted the summary of a document by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre that laid down strict cautionary measures against activities commemorating the June 4th incident; (b) the registration data at Yahoo China of Wang Xiaoning, who posted various political articles expressing dissatisfaction of the CPC on the website of Yahoo China; (c) the records of the articles written by Li Zhi, a former government official in Dazhou city, Sichuan, who criticized the corruption of the Chinese government on the internet; and (d) the articles written by Jiang Lijun, the owner of a private enterprise in Liaoning, who advocated the overthrow of the CPC and the establishment of a Liberal Democratic Party. In the end, Shi Tao, Wang Xiaoning, Li Zhi and Jiang Lijun were sentenced to imprisonments of 10, 10, 8 and 4 years respectively.

　　外國網絡供應商更自我審查，在MSN中國版（http: //cn.msn.com）搜尋一些「敏感字眼」時，在頁底出現「已刪除部分結果」。另外，即使一些字眼能夠顯示，亦與原來的意思不同。如搜尋「六四」，結果卻顯示出「國際象棋六十四格網」、「全國大學四、六級考試」等。又或者只有某些立場的結果可以顯示，如搜尋「法輪功」時，大部分的結果皆屬批評法輪功的網頁。微軟、雅虎、思科和Google美國四大網絡公司對中國政府的壓力「卑躬屈膝」，幫助中國進行網絡審查，違反言論自由原則。

Foreign ISPs have also engaged in self-censorship. In the China version of MSN(http://cn.msn.com), the phrase "Part of the search results have been deleted" appears at the end of the page when 'sensitive' key words are searched. Even if some search results appear, they miss the point. For instance, for the key words "June 4th" (or 'Six Four' in Chinese) concerning Tiananmen, the search results show only the 64 boxes of the chess board, or the 6th and 4th level of university examination in China. Sometimes, only the results of a one-sided position shows. For example, the key word "Falungong" would yield search results of mostly webpages that criticize Falungong. The big four of US internet companies, Microsoft, Yahoo, Sisco and Google have thrown the principle of freedom of speech down the drain by kowtowing to pressure from the Chinese government, colluding with them in internet censorship.

　　支聯會敦促中央政府落實人民在網絡上享有言論和資訊自由，立即釋放師濤、王小寧、李智、姜立軍、孔佑平、寧先華、李大偉、徐偉、靳海科、張宏海、李建平、張林、黃金秋、陶海東等。支聯會呼籲外國網絡供應商不要唯利是圖，停止與中國政府同流合污，捍衛電郵用戶的私隱權。

The Hong Kong Alliance urges the Central Government to put into effect the promised rights of the people to freedom of speech and access of information, to immediately release internet writers Shi Tao, Wang Xiaoning, Li Zhi, Jiang Lijun, Kong Youping, Ning Xianhua, Li Dawai, Xu Wai, Jin Haike, Zhang Honghai, Li Jianping, Zhang Lin, Huang Jinqiu, Tao Haidong, etc. The Hong Kong Alliance calls upon foreign ISPs not to seek profit unscrupulously, to stop colluding with the Chinese government and to protect the privacy of their internet users.

　　停止監控網上言論！停止迫害網絡作家！

No to internet censorship! Stop persecution of internet writers!

　　釋放師濤！釋放所有被捕網絡作家！

Free Shi Tao! Free all jailed internet writers!

Activist Couples with Courage

2006-12-03T05:59:00.000-08:00

Mr. Chen Guangcheng became blind after a severe childhood fever. Nonetheless, the peasant boy from a village in Yi'nan County, Shandong Province in east China went on to train himself as a legal expert. Energetic in his late thirties, he had since helped people, similarly disabled as himself, to obtain government benefits that had never come to realize for many living in the countryside.

In 2003, the central government ordered cancellation of all agricultural taxations, which cut short the income for many of a local government. Consequently, as reported by Chinese agriculture scholars from various locations, a new phenomenon arose, whereupon local government officials turned their attention in extracting illicit extra income from the peasants to increasing penalty fees on supposed "violation" of China's family planning policy.

Chen Guangchang was caught by the suddenly increasing coercive approach local officials adapted against peasant women and their families in his home town. Working with warm support from his young wife, Yuan Weijing, he gathered huge amount of information on systematic abuse of power, against poor peasants and their families, by the family planning authorities in Yi'nan County and exposed the case to the national family planning office in Beijing in summer 2005. He was awarded by the national office with honor, covered by newspaper articles and television programs. Eventually, he was named one of the one hundred people who influenced the world in 2005 by the Times Magazine in the U.S. in early 2006.

By then, Chen had lost his freedom of movement for months. Local police had placed him under house-arrest since August 2005.

Chen Guangcheng has been formally arrested in summer 2006, being charged for "obstructing public traffic and damaging public property" in March 2006, when he was still under house-arrest and followed step by step by police whenever he left his home.

He was tried earlier this year and retried on November 27. A sentence of four year and three month has been uphold by the second trial.

While Chen was taken away, Yuan Weijing has stood up to speak to the outside world on Chen's behalf.

Speaking out truth to the outside world - this is what the Chinese regime fears the most.

To make a long story short, after Chen's case was retried, Yuan was taken by police for "questioning." Hours later, she was spotted being dragged out of a police car and thrown to a dirt ditch outside her village, unconscious. She's been hospitalized for exhaustion.

Luckily for Chen, a group of courageous lawyers from Beijing have taken up his case and vowed to fight for justice for him to the last minute. Chen Guangcheng, Yuan Weijing and the lawyers have all agreed they will appeal the case at court of higher levels.

Unlucky for Chen, the most famous and outspoken lawyer coming to his aid earlier this year has disappeared behind the bars himself.

This is Gao Zhisheng, who, too, self-taught himself to become a licensed lawyer and was once honored as one of the top ten best lawyers in China, most of all for his achievements to win huge compensations for poor families, without charging them legal service fees. Actually, he helped many of the poor families with money from his own pocket.

Gao was taken away by police in August, when he was preparing for Chen Guangcheng's initial trial, while taking a break to visit his sister's family that is also in Shandong, a province located between of Beijing and Shanghai, along China's northern coastline.

The scene was rather dramatic, as a group of men rushed into the courtyard of Gao's sister's home, putting a black hood over Gao's head, dragging him into a car and driving away, without giving any legal document to his relatives, nothing to the effect of an arrest warrant.

Since then, he has been held without the permission to see a lawyer and with only one meeting with his wife. It has been nearly four months.

Worst of all, his whole family has been harassed constantly since he was taken away. His thirteen-year daughter was followed by three police members continuously, at home and on campus. They are sitting outside her classroom as well as following her to the campus restroom every single time. They have also taken insulting the poor girl as their pastime.

Nowadays in China a suspect arrested by police is entitled by law to hire defense lawyer(s), as long as the documents are signed by her- or him-self or the family members of the concerned. The Chinese State Security Ministry (SSM), having blocked all contacts to Mr. Gao and put his wife and children under virtual house-arrest, also set out to block his family members in northern Shaanxi Province from signing any legal documents. The whole episode reads like a detective story, albeit more by a second rank author than a master-piece (unlike the one being investigated by the Scot Yard in London at the moment, concerning Russian interest).

Thanks for firm support from his brothers, nephews, and long-time friends, Gao has got legal support from one of China's top lawyers, Mr. Mo Shaoping, who has represented many civil activists and political dissidents in the past two decades. Unfortunately, Mr. Mo has not been able to secure a meeting with Mr. Gao. The authorities have bluntly defied legal requirements stipulated by China's laws to grant such a meeting as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, let me come to the other key figure referred in the title of this blog entry. This is Ms. Geng He, Mr. Gao Zhisheng's wife.

Geng He has been suffering from police coercion, ever since her husband was taken away in August.

Her home was not only raided by police repeatedly, it was simply occupied by them - several of them, moved in to stay there on shift. Her daughter, mentioned above, and her three-year-old son have been living under constant harassment for past months. When her daughter couldn't take it any longer and ran to a friend's home, Geng He was under tremendous police pressure to bring the girl back - under the name of behaving for the sake of her husband's uncertain fate.

So, she weighed the options in hand and kept silent, not contacting any of the family's old friends in the small but comradely community of Chinese civil activists. She, as the best a Chinese woman could think and do, decided to take all the pressure on her own, simply hoping this will help to secure relatively lenient conditions for her husband suffering in the hands of the SSM.

We would not have learned all of the above, had it not been the physical assault on her a week earlier. She went to shopping and, as might be expected, brought with her at least three "tails" of the plaincloth police. When she protested - not against the "tails" per ce - that the police walked right into her back at every turn, two of them, both tall and strongly built, started hitting her on the face and holding her back by twisting her arms. She ended up with a bleeding mouth, shaking teeth, bloody face and injured finger-nails.

This incident broke the ice. Geng He telephoned their old friend, Mr. Hu Jia.

Now, the world has the evidence. Shall we add that all of these happened when it was the World Day to protect women from violence?

Mr. Hu Jia is the husband of Ms. Zeng Jinyan, whose blog I wrote about in September. Another courageous couple, loving and intelligent.

I am proud of China, for I am proud of the wonderful Chinese couples:

Ms. Yuan Weijing and Mr. Chen Guangcheng;
Ms. Geng He and Mr. Gao Zhisheng;
Ms. Zeng Jinyan and Mr. Hu Jia.