Social Stability - 87. page

RFA reported that on August 16, Guizhou University dismissed a college professor from its School of Economics claiming that the professor has been “making false political statements” for a period of time. On the termination statement, the university asserted that the professor often told the class about content that was not related to the course, published sensitive comments on the Internet, and had a bad influence on the school and society. The Professor told RFA that all he had been saying during his lectures was the truth and that should not have a negative impact on society. He thought the University was not happy with him because he criticized the government, but he will appeal his case. According to RFA, this professor published an article criticizing the government for paying 20 million yuan (US$2.92 million) a year to support party officials. The burden of the cost to society of paying these officials could be as much as 20 trillion yuan (US$2.92 trillion) a year. He also reported that the school leaders were suspected of plagiarism.

Source: Radio Free Asia, August 17, 2018
https://www.rfa.org/cantonese/news/professor-08172018092321.html

163.com recently posted a video program under its military segment titled, “If a war were to start, how much of your savings would you be willing to donate to the motherland?” In the video it stated that every time after a war was over, the U.S. economy didn’t collapse but became stronger because the American people actively donated money and supplies during the war and their sons and daughters actively joined the military. The video then posed the following question: “Even though China was able to build an aircraft carrier . . . the problem is that China has a large population. Will that be a driving force or a source of pressure for our national policy? If at that time there was shortage of national financing during a war, would you be willing to donate money and supplies like the Americans have done?” This video has currently been taken down and the responses that were posted were deleted. Epoch Times published a list of screen shots of the responses and below is the translation of some of the responses:
1. Our motherland is so wealthy. Why do you still need me to donate? The corrupt officials are involved in hundreds of millions of funds from corruption and I couldn’t even come up with the down payment for a house.
2. Who would we have the war against and why? Is it for high housing prices, medical expenses, education or a different retirement system?
3. For sure I will donate US$10,000 to the U.S. As for other people, let those people who are among the elite or the special power class or the second generation of the rich and powerful people take care of it. We, the bottom class, have no idea.
4. If we won the war, housing prices would double, earning would be cut in half; if we lost the war, housing prices would be reduced by 80 percent and salaries would double. You decide whether to donate or not to donate.
5. I can’t even afford a loan for housing. Where would I get the money for a donation?
6. I am not qualified to enjoy any benefits. I would be even less qualified if I were to donate. Don’t count on me.
7. What donation? I wish that day would have arrived sooner.
6. Agree! I am willing to be an informant for the U.S. military.
7. I would donate US$1,000 to the U.S. even if I had to sell what I have.
8. Everyone is responsible for the fate of the nation. If the nation is prosperous, you claim the ownership; if the nation is dying, we, the little people, should take the responsibility?
9. We are not the umbrella. When it rains, you bring us out. When it is sunny, you leave us in the corner. If there was a war, those who receive special treatment should be in the front and the public servants should pick up the cost.
10. Looks like everyone gets the point now. I feel relieved.

Source: Epoch Times, August 13, 2018
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/18/8/13/n10635467.htm

Wang Zuo’an, deputy chief of the Chinese Communist Party’s Department of United Front Work and director of the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA), published an article in the official Qiushi magazine, asserting that foreign forces are not allowed to dominate China’s religious affairs; he called for “Sinicization.”

The article stated that there is no affiliation between Chinese religions and foreign religions. Chinese religious groups and religious affairs are not subject to foreign influence. “When dealing with religious relations, one must uphold the leadership of the Communist Party, insist on the separation of church and state, and make sure religion must not be involved in administrative, judicial, and educational functions.” “It is necessary to persist in resisting foreign forces that use religion as a means of infiltration.”

According to the Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News), by the end of this month, all Catholic parishes in China must submit a five-year plan to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA) and the Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC) and report on the work of “Sinicization.” The CPCA and the BCCCC also drafted a five-year national work plan with the objective of accepting the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. All measures of “Sinicization” ought to be under the leadership and supervision of the CPCA and the BCCCC. UCA News expressed the belief that the plan and measures are intended to control and deal with opposition from nonconforming Catholic followers in China.

Source: Radio Free Asia, August 19, 2018
https://www.rfa.org/cantonese/news/religion-08192018101150.html?encoding=traditional

In July, the Student Association of Sun Yat-Sen University, one of the best universities in southern China, issued an “Announcement of the Appointment of Cadres for the 2018-2019 Academic Year.” Among the nearly 200 positions, there were 23 secretarial organizations, 12 functional departments, and 144 working offices. In addition to the sheer size of the student union, the school’s announcements mimicked the rankings of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese government officials, such as “ministerial level” and “deputy ministerial level.” This invited ridicule from many netizens. An example of some online posts are below:

A. It is not a naive imitation. It is the quintessence of the real society.

B. Cultivating officialdom worship at a young age. This is truly great.

C.  … haven’t learned much knowledge, but perfectly grasped the bureaucratic stuff!

D. When administrative power can so easily infiltrate into student organizations, one can imagine how full of administrative stuff their daily operations must be.

On August 17, the Chinese Education Daily newspaper carried an opinion article that criticized this phenomenon. “On the campus, young students are keen on inter-personal relationships, playing the bureaucratic jargon, and vying to be a student cadre. This is a revelation that a few young people have the mentality of officialdom worship, that they are so skilled at calculation that they pursue an official position, and that they have an incorrect understanding of power.”

Source: Education Daily, August 17, 2018
http://www.jyb.cn/zgjyb/201808/t20180817_1193645.html

Recently, large numbers of P2P sites (Peer to Peer online Lending sites) have been shut down. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of investors losing their investments overnight. The victims planned a petition in front of the China Banking Regulatory Commission in Beijing on August 6 but the Beijing Police Force blocked them. Nevertheless, over 2,000 victims successfully arrived at the China Banking Regulatory Commission or at a nearby location. Epoch Times published an article which provided a first-hand account of P2P (Peer to Peer Landing) victims who were at the scene. The article contains photos and videos that the victims took. Below is the translation of two of the victims’ personal stories.

One victim, Mr. Li arrived in Beijing on August 5. He stayed in a family hotel about 10 minutes away from the Banking Regulatory Commission because it didn’t require personal identification during check in. After they arrived, Mr. Li and another victim who is a college professor walked around to check out the surrounding situation. Mr. Li told Epoch Times, “August 6 was intense as they were waiting for us, which brought us little hope.” On the morning of August 6, they left around 7:30 am in the rain. The rain had almost stopped by the time they arrived across the street from the China Banking Regulatory Commission. He observed that there might have been a whole army of police officers around the financial street, with one police officer every three steps. The atmosphere was very tense and very scary. At the intersection, they saw a large number of police officers wearing gray-black raincoats interrogating pedestrians, especially those carrying backpacks. The police told them to stop and show their ID cards and swept the ID cards with the machine in their hands which contained a blacklist of petitioners’ names. They were quickly able to determine whether the person was a P2P petitioner, and then the petitioner was taken to dozens of buses parked on the street. Mr. Li and his friend found a corner to the right side of the Banking Regulatory Building and waited there for more petitioners to arrive. By 10:00 am, they realized that most of their fellow petitioners had been stopped at the train station, bus station, airport, or their home before they could leave. “There was a wide range of delays in trains and planes in Beijing on August 6. All of those were planned to target us,” Mr. Li said. He saw that the police used force to take many petitioners away from the scene. Eventually, shortly after 10, Mr. Li and his friend were also arrested. They were taken to a bus which took them to the Jiujingzhuang Petition Office in the Fentai district of Beijing. After they arrived at the petition office, the police first scanned their IDs and then sent them to individual rooms where the police or work unit from their hometown could pick them up. The guard at Jiujingzhuang told them there were over one thousand petitioners who had arrived on the buses. Beijing Police prepared 120 buses to transport the petitioners on that day, but Mr. Li thinks that the number of arrested petitioners was larger than that. One person with inside information posted a message on social media stating that over ten thousand police officers had been dispatched to deal with the petitioners. Another Petitioner Ms. Jin told Epoch Times that she was arrested at the Beijing train station while waiting for other petitioners. She was warned ahead of time that they couldn’t go to the government agencies in Beijing to file a petition but she said she still went because she was desperate. Ms. Jin said that, at the local police station, they were treated like criminals. They were told that they were inciting and spreading rumors and could be detained for crimes at any time with no explanation. Ms. Jin told Epoch Times that she went to Beijing to find out the truth. The Banking Regulatory Commission was supposed to have managed their investments. The government was supposed to have backed them. Where did the billions of dollars go? Mr. Li said the crash of the P2P lending site was a clear violation of citizen’s rights. He pointed out,“They took our money and then wanted to silence us. We were raising our voices as citizens to protect our own property.”

Source: Epoch Times, August 7, 2018
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/18/8/7/n10622691.htm

Because China faces issues related to its aging population, it has changed its one child policy to encourage the younger generation to have more children. However, recent statistics show the childbirth rate is slowing down. People’s Daily published an article calling for the government to establish plans to ease childbirth concerns; it has been saying, “Childbirth Is a National Matter.” However People’s Daily’s statement drew a fair amount of criticism over the Internet.

According to the People’s Daily article, in the 1980s, China’s one child policy resulted in 400 million fewer newborn babies, which eased the resource and environmental pressure. In 2013, the policy was changed to allow parents who are the only child in their family to have a second child. By 2015, to deal with the aging population issues China was facing, the policy was changed to allow all couples to have a second child. The statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics revealed that there were 17.23 million newborns in 2017, down 63,000 from 2016. The childbirth rate was 12.43 percent, down 0.52 percent from 2016. Many cities and provinces issued policies to increase the rate of childbirth. In urban regions, however, many young couples still chose not to have children due to the high cost of raising a child, including education, medical, and public services. However, the decrease in the childbirth rate is having a negative impact on society, including an aging population, higher labor costs, and an increase in the pressure on social security. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, the government needs to come up with a plan that will ease the concerns of the younger generation so they will be encouraged to have more children.

Following the People’s Daily‘s statement, people responded with criticism over the Internet. One posting stated, “Having a child is a basic right for a human being. The party wants to manage everything. They didn’t allow more than one child before. Now they want people to have more children. The situation is that people could afford more than one child back then, but the reality is that now, they can have a baby but are unable to afford raising the baby.” Another posting commented that there were so many tragic incidents when the Party forced women to abort their babies and never took any responsibility. “The Party never cares about the livelihood of the people.”

Sources:
1. People’s Daily, August 6, 2018
http://politics.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0806/c1001-30210179.html
2. Epoch Times, August 13, 2018
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/18/8/13/n10635706.htm

In July, Chinese vaccine maker Changsheng Biotechnology was found to have fabricated records and arbitrarily changed the process parameters and equipment during its production of freeze-dried human rabies vaccines. Substandard diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccines that Changsheng produced were administered to 215,184 Chinese children. Another company, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products, produced substandard DPT vaccines and sold 400,520 of them to the public. China’s drug regulator launched an investigation and arrested 15 people from Changsheng Biotechnology, including the chairman.

About a month after the outbreak of the scandal, the Chinese government offered to re-administer the vaccine without charge to people who had been previously vaccinated with Changsheng’s rabies vaccine. However, according to Radio Free Asia, few people have gone to get vaccinated and some no longer trust domestic vaccine manufacturers.

On August 10, a nurse at a hospital in Shenzhen that provides free re-administration of vaccines told the reporter that the hospital uses the vaccine of the Liaoning Chengda Company, a vaccine manufacturer not struck by the scandal. Individuals did go there to get vaccinated, but not many.

A gentleman, Mr. Zhang from Guangdong, had his child vaccinated with Changsheng’s vaccine. He said in an interview that he no longer has confidence in domestically made vaccines. If a company has not been exposed, that does not mean that it has no problem. He would rather choose to use imported vaccine.

“In my situation, I will not dare to get vaccinated again. It is useless. I really worry about domestic vaccinations. I will try as much as possible to get imported vaccines; otherwise there is no guarantee. Companies that have not been exposed may still have a problem. In the case of Changsheng, one employee exposed the problem, right? If he hadn’t done it, we would never have known it. As a matter of fact, they had detected the problem before, but they chose not to publicize it. We don’t have the right to information. So if domestic things are not exposed, it does not mean that they have no problem.”

Some netizens expressed ridicule: Is the vaccine used this time not fake? Will we still have to get vaccinated once again?

Source: Radio Free Asia, August 10, 2018
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/huanjing/yf2-08102018100530.html

RFA reported that the Guangdong Lawyer’s Association issued an “Internet Code of Conduct for Lawyers in Guangdong Province.” The regulation specifies that the lawyers should “abide by the Constitution, must not deny China’s fundamental political system and basic principles, and must not endanger national security. The specific contents include the following things that lawyers can’t do: publish anything on the Internet that denies the leadership of the Communist Party of China; incite dissatisfaction with or opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and the government; initiate, support, or mobilize participation in organizations that endanger national security; publish political statements or articles that are unconstitutional; use the Internet to influence administrative, supervisory, judicial, and procuratorial organs on certain legal cases; disclose state secrets, trade secrets, and information pertaining to non-public trials; and they cannot use the Internet to publish false or distorted facts that will create social conflicts and affect social stability. The RFA article quoted comments that several dissidents living in China made. They stated that the Lawyer’s Association only serves the interests of the government and has been suppressing the freedom of the lawyers for a long time.

Source: Radio Free Asia, August 3, 2018
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/renquanfazhi/yf2-08032018100520.html