Skip to content

Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Contingent Gains Strength

December 10, 2006, marked the close of elections for members of the Election Committee of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Of the 137 candidates recommended to the Election Committee by the pro-democracy camp, 114 won.

This was the first time that the pro-democracy camp, made up of the Democratic Party and the Civic Party, has ever won more than 100 seats on the Election Committee. It was a significant victory because, by law, one must receive at least 100 nominations from the Election Committee to be eligible to run for chief executive.

A Huge Victory

According to The Epoch Times, with 114 newly elected pro-democracy members, plus the 20 already on the Election Committee, the pro-democracy camp took control of 134 seats. It is almost certain that Alan Leong, who was recommended by the Civic and Democratic parties to run for the Chief Executive office, will earn the needed 100 nominations to become an official nominee.

Alan Leong of the Civic Party, encouraged by the results, remained optimistic about his nomination, stating, "The election results have two implications: First, it is clear that the people of Hong Kong have shown that they want the election for chief executive to be competitive; and second, those who came out to vote cast a sacred vote for the future of Hong Kong. These two messages are clear and indisputable."

The results of the voting came as a surprise for the pro-democracy camp. Mr. Ronny Tong of the Civic Party said, "The election system is so distorted that it was very difficult for us to have a fair election. Even under these circumstances, we made such a great achievement. We must thank our constituents and apologize to them for not being confident in the beginning."

But Mr. Sen Yang, another democracy representative, criticized the so-called small-circle election, "It is not fair that only 220,000 people are allowed to vote. In a society as mature as Hong Kong, everyone should have the right to vote."

The "Small-Circle Election"

In past years, the people of Hong Kong have asked for a general election for the position of Chief Executive of Hong Kong. But this never became a reality due to suppression by the mainland Chinese Communist Party. The election game was only played by the 800-member Election Committee, which consists of two parts: the current representatives, who are very small in number and dubbed the "small circle," and the new members elected by about 200,000 constituents from various sectors of Hong Kong assigned by the Hong Kong Administration. A majority of those elected were from pro-communist sectors.{mospagebreak}

Anyone who wants to become a formal candidate must first get at least 100 nominations from the Election Committee. The 800 members will then vote to elect the chief executive. This was generally viewed as a way for Beijing to guarantee a pro-Communist Party chief executive to rule Hong Kong, where the "One Country, Two Systems" policy must be applied and can therefore maintain tight control.

According to a Voice of America report by Ya Wei, some analysts have said that, although Alan Leong could run for the election as a formal candidate, the Election Committee, which has always been considered loyal to Beijing, will choose a candidate whom they think will be loyal to Beijing.

Pro-Democracy Camp Breakthrough

According to Dong Xiang, a well-known Hong Kong magazine, although incumbent Chief Executive Donald Tsang will win the election in March 2007, the practice of having only one candidate run for election was brought to an end by the victory of the pro-democracy camp in the Election Committee. There will now be a competitive election.

The magazine disclosed that, before the election, Chinese leaders Hu Jintao and Wu Bangguo had warned Tsang to "take good care of the election," which meant preventing the pro-democracy camp from gaining more than 100 seats on the Election Committee.

Beijing Regime Is Furious

According to Apple Daily, just like what happened in the voting for the Election Committee, the pro-democracy camp won all members in the legal field. However, none of the 12 lawyers from the Hong Kong Bar Association who were supported by the Chinese Communist Party made any inroads in the elections.

An unidentified source told Apple Daily that Beijing felt it lost face on this issue. Beijing was furious about the results of the election. The state-controlled Xinhua News Agency posted election-related news in a very low profile.

Rise of the Pro-Democracy Camp In Hong Kong

In the past, pro-democracy camp candidates have been reluctant to run for election. It was not feasible given the nature of the "small-circle election." It has been hard to move the election process forward while the Chinese Communist Party has controlled the Hong Kong elections.{mospagebreak}

Last year, Anson Chan, the famous former Hong Kong Chief Secretary for Administration, stepped forward to advocate general elections. She even attended the parade on July 1. Some analysts said that she intended to run for election, but she announced that she would not because, as an analyst conceded, Beijing did not favor her.

For a long time, the pro-democracy camp has made up only a fraction of Hong Kong’s legislative council. The surprising win in the vote for members of the Election Committee is regarded by many analysts as a "rise" of the pro-democracy camp. It may very well be true, as the pro-democracy camp will now play an increasingly important role.

On December 17, 2006, Mr. He Junren was elected president of the Democratic Party. Not long ago, this former vice president was beaten by gangsters allegedly with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. He has vowed to continue his support of mainland China’s human rights and conscience movement. He will also continue to support Alan Leong.

"The Democratic Party will become not only the largest opposition party in Hong Kong, but also the largest opposition party in (mainland) China," said Mr. He.

From the Editor

Few things ruffle the Beijing regime’s feathers more than the idea of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Beijing’s regime may tolerate Hong Kong’s capitalist reality in a business context, but the idea of a free election in Hong Kong is an anathema to it. When Christopher Patten, Hong Kong’s last governor-general before China’s takeover, loosened restrictions for the election of the 60 legislative council members, China’s state media accused Mr. Patten of trying to sabotage Hong Kong’s integrity and stability. When Hong Kong’s citizens went to the streets to demand a general election of their own Chief Executive and legislative council members, the communist-controlled media called the demonstrators "unpatriotic (traitors)."

The 1984 Sino-British Declaration, a treaty registered with the United Nations, guarantees Hong Kong with a "high degree of autonomy" except in foreign affairs and defense. The Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, empowers it to work out how the council members are elected after 2007 on its own. Of course, Beijing has its own interpretations and repeats two mantras through foreign ministry spokespeople: "Hong Kong’s elections fall entirely within China’s sovereignty. Hong Kong’s affairs are China’s internal affairs." Indeed, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress has already said no to universal suffrage in 2008.

In recent years, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China on July 1 has become an annual event for Hong Kong’s citizens to call for the free elections of their own leaders. The plot thickened when the pro-democracy faction won 114 seats on the Election Committee of the Chief Executive on December 10, 2006. Under the Basic Law, one must receive at least 100 nominations from the Election Committee to be eligible to run for the Chief Executive position, so this marks the first time that it could be filled by someone not designated by Beijing.

It is highly unlikely that Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp will succeed in winning the upcoming election, since a vast majority of the 800 members of the Election Committee were designated by the mainland and remain loyal to Beijing’s communist government. By stacking the Committee, Beijing’s communist regime has all but ensured that the Chief Executive will continue to be under its firm control. However, the recent development has emboldened Hong Kong’s pro-democracy activists and sympathizers, which in turn could have ramifications for its mainland counterparts. With more support for Hong Kong’s efforts toward democracy from all corners of the world, universal suffrage may come sooner rather than later.

On Foreign Corporations

China’s State Media Comments on World Fortune 500 Companies: Avoid Taxes, Pinch Pennies, and Abuse China’s Natural Resources

[Note: Below is a commentary from China’s state media on the world’s Fortune 500 corporations that are doing business in China. The article was initially published in Beijing Times after an investigative report on the "2005 Ranking of the World Fortune 500 Companies with Investments in China" organized by Southern Weekend was released on December 6, 2005, and posted on Xinhuanet on December 7, 2005. The article, titled "World Fortune 500 Companies Avoid Taxes in China; Some are Penny-Pinching and Abuse China’s Natural Resources," is translated below.]

"Among World Fortune 500 companies, which ones are the best investors in China? What kind of impacts do their investment activities make on China? The "2005 Ranking of the World Fortune 500 Companies with Investments in China" published by Southern Weekend on December 6 answered these questions. However, this list also revealed some of the dark secrets of these international corporations’ operations in China: Some corporations are extremely stingy, avoid taxes in China, and abuse China’s resources."

The List Focuses on the Corporations’ Responsibilities and Contributions; the World Fortune 500 Companies’ Scores Are Consistently Low

"According to Southern Weekend‘s evaluation criteria, Samsung won first place as the best investor on the list with a score of 70.409 points, followed by General Motors (57,206 points) and Philips Electronics (53.783 points.) Nearly 400 corporations participated in the evaluation. Because many corporations had a very low score, Southern Weekend decided to publicize only the top 70 best investors in China. The 70th on the list was Astra Zeneca, a U.K. pharmaceutical company, scoring 13.783 points.

"In terms of the evaluation criteria, Mr. Cao Xing, a chief supervisor at Southern Weekend, explained that there were five categories of evaluation criteria, including the amount of investment in China, the business operations in China, the social responsibilities, the local contributions, and the brand image in China. The amount of investment in China constitutes 20 percent of the score; the business operations, 25 percent; the social responsibilities, 20 percent; the local contributions, 25 percent; and the brand image in China, 10 percent. ‘This ranking emphasizes responsibility, development, and harmony with the environment,’ Cao explained.

"In addition, Southern Weekend also published four related rankings. Samsung in China won first place for its best business operations in China. Nissan Investment Company, Ltd., in China is ranked first as the best employer. General Motors in China is ranked first for its local contribution. And Proctor & Gamble in China wins first place for its best public image in China.{mospagebreak}

"To emphasize the objectivity and fairness, Cao said this evaluation project does not accept any corporation’s sponsorship or advertisement. ‘We have an allocated budget for this project,’ said Cao. The data used for the evaluation came from the Chinese government and public sources. For example, they looked at the top 500 corporations published by the Chinese government every year, the public information of all the corporations with stocks, etc. In addition, Southern Weekend conducted an investigation of these companies. They also verified all the data used for the evaluation."

Decoding the List

1. Most corporations are not good taxpayers in China

"One surprising data is that the majority of the world’s fortune 500 companies score low on paying taxes [in China]. The result has once again proven the common knowledge that not all international corporations are model taxpayers.

"Samsung, which ranked top on the list, scores 1.203 points on paying taxes, and General Motors has a full score of 10 points. Of the top 70 international corporations on the list, only 21 of them score above one point while the rest score lower than one point.

"Even though international corporations score extremely low on paying taxes in China, some people question whether some companies are given too high a score in this category. Some reporters say that some international corporations are very good at taking advantage of China’s tax policies to get tax returns, to get tax exemptions, to avoid taxes, and to use some regions’ favorable tax policies to reduce taxes."

2. No Corporation Stands Out for Charity Donations

"Besides taxes, international corporations in China are not generous in giving charity donations. Many corporations are penny-pinching. Samsung in China scores 0.877 point in charitable giving. IBM ranks number one in charitable giving with a score of 4.653 points. Twenty-seven corporations score zero."

3. Exploiting Workers

"Some international corporations in China are shameful in using the labor resources. Mr. Xi Guoming, chairman of International Corporation Research Center at Nankai University, said that larger international corporations in China are better in that they pay their employees better than domestic companies. They also provide medical insurance, employee training, and educational reimbursements, and so on. Some smaller international companies are not good to their human resources. In some regions in southern China, the average salary was about 500 yuan (US$63) [per month] during the late 1980s. According to research in the past few years, the average salary in these regions remains the same. This means that employees did not obtain benefits proportionate to the value they have created. The benefits went to the international corporations."{mospagebreak}

4. Leave Environment Problems to the Chinese Government

"This list also indirectly exposes the truth about another problem: The demand in China has created the acceleration of consumption of the world’s energy resources. Actually, the large quantity of energy and resources consumed by international corporations are calculated as China’s consumption. In addition, when these corporations use China’s resources, they fail to pay the costs.

"At the press release, Mr. Xi Guoming pointed out directly, ‘It’s undeniable that some foreign corporations are abusing China’s resources.’ For example, China transferred land or rented out land to international corporations at a very low price, causing an imbalanced price for using the land, which is unfavorable to the use of China’s resource.

"Xi said that foreign corporations intentionally move their factories with pollutant products or pollutant manufacturing environments to China. On the other hand, some local Chinese governments neglect the environmental protection regulations when inviting foreign investments. Hence, some corporations … moved the pollution problem to China and the Chinese government."

Translated  by CHINASCOPE from  http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2005-12/07/content_3886247.htm

China’s State Media Identifies "Anti-China" Scholars

[Note: The article below, titled "Who is Viciously Attacking China?" was original published in Global People (the magazine under Chinese Communist Party media People’s Daily group). The article was reposted on Xinhuanet on December 18, 2006. The article identified seven Western scholars from the United States, Japan, and Russia as "vicious attackers (against China)."]

"For several years, absurd theories like ‘China Threat,’ ‘China Collapse,’ ‘China Split,’ and ‘Yellow Peril’ have continually attacked China from the West. These arguments and rhetoric are not worth refuting, since they have never been real and will not become reality in the future. However, they have harmed China’s international image and have disrupted China’s efforts at development and engaging the world, and for this reason they should be taken seriously by Chinese people.

"So who are the people planning and disseminating these irresponsible opinions? How have they maligned China, and what is their goal in doing so? For the answer, you must look to ‘China’s vicious attackers.’ Only by gaining a deep understanding of their words can you truly uncover the means and motives of those attacking China, and by doing so lay bare their sinister machinations. Therefore, Global People has selected several ‘attackers’ from the United States, Japan, and Russia:{mospagebreak}

"Bill Gertz, The Washington Times: For 20 years he has been spinning the ‘China Military Threat Theory.’ Bogus news stories like ‘Chinese submarine tracks American carrier’ and ‘China paid millions to steal B-2 bomber stealth technology’ were entirely his creation. Most galling, this forger has won the support of the Pentagon and some members of Congress.

"Larry Wortzel, former assistant army attache at the U.S. Embassy in China [1988-1990]: This is a man who detests China to his very bones. He worked within the military intelligence system monitoring China for 25 years. In his eyes, China’s planes and guided missiles come from Chinese exchange students and computers, and pose a ‘serious threat’ to the United States. In the first half of this year, the U.S. State Department’s purchase of Lenovo computers was scuttled by him at the last minute.

"Michael Pillsbury, Pentagon consultant: His greatest trait is that when he is in China, he speaks of ‘friendship,’ but when he returns to the United States, he talks of ‘threat.’ He claims to have ‘a good deal of understanding of Sunzi’s The Art of War,’ but the strange thing is that he ‘discovered’ from The Art of War a ‘threat’ coming from China. He was the main author of the Pentagon’s 2005 Report on the Military Power of the P.R.C. that trumpeted the ‘China threat.’

"Gordon G. Chang, Chinese-American opportunist: ‘China’s economy is in decline and has begun to collapse; the time will be prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympic games and not after….’ His ‘China collapse theory’ is so much sensationalism. Though he is ‘besieged’ at every turn because of the utter nonsense that issues from his mouth, his wacky theories still find purchase across the globe.

"Shintaro Ishihara, Governor of Tokyo: Chief among the anti-Chinese in Japan, he started on the anti-China road 40 years ago. By cursing China to ‘split apart’ and calling for a re-invasion of China, he has become a classic representative of vicious attacks on China. Worth being aware of is that his anti-China ideas run deep in the fringes of Japanese culture and have extremely negative effects.

"Mineo Nakajima, ‘anti-China hero’ of Japanese academia: The earliest person in Japan to put forth the ‘China collapse theory,’ and an advocate of the ‘China split theory,’ he goes traveling every month for exchanges with anti-Chinese elements in other countries and to spread his anti-China fallacies. However, nothing that he has predicted has come to pass, so he had no recourse but to return to the ‘China threat theory.’

"Evgeniy Nazdratenko, Russian official: He is one of the leading modern drum-beaters for the ‘Yellow-Peril Theory.’ ‘China has plans to expand its population across the Russian border,’ ‘Russia will inevitably fall to become a raw-material tribute-state for China’— during his tenure as governor of Russia’s Maritime Region, he not only made noise about this sort of twisted theory but also instituted discriminatory policies toward Chinese people and gave orders to expel tens of thousands."

Translated by CHINASCOPE from http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2006-12/18/content_5501723.htm

Reclaiming Chinese Culture

If it’s true you can learn a lot about someone from who are his enemies (even if imagined), then so too, it would seem, can one learn a lot about a nation-state. Or Party-state, as in the case of mainland China, which has been ruled by an unelected Communist Party (the CCP) since 1949.

One needs look no further than the bizarre (un)diplomatic efforts of Chinese officialdom over the past couple of weeks for confirmation. For around the world, embassy officials and consuls of the Chinese state have been putting the Chinese people’s hard-earned tax dollars to work trying, oddly enough, to bring down a cultural show. And a Chinese cultural show, at that—New Tang Dynasty (NTD) Television’s Chinese New Year Spectacular.

What would prompt such abnormalities, then, as crank calls to the show’s hotlines trying to crash the phone system, threatening letters to show sponsors, and even attempts to pressure venues into canceling the event? Granted, communist rulers sometimes find enemies in strange places—witness the notorious campaign to once "eradicate sparrows," or the branding of the Mary Kay cosmetic company as an "evil economic cult."

But isn’t NTD’s show itself Chinese culture—a shared, collective good? Isn’t this something for everyone, especially officials, to be proud of? What could be threatening to a powerful regime about petite ladies prancing about doing innocuous things like a fan dance?

The answer, I would suggest, cuts to the heart of a fascinating set of issues, not the least of which is who is "China," who gets to be "Chinese," and whether it’s possible for a Chinese cultural space to exist that is not managed and orchestrated by Beijing’s rulers.

Since the ascendancy of the Communist Party in China, "culture"—defined locally as performing arts, shared stories, traditions, etc.—was seen as means par excellence of disseminating ideology among the less (and sometimes more) literate. Performing troupes would thus bring the message of the Party to the masses through various theatrical shows. Values such as "struggle" and the demonizing of new social pariahs such as "landlords" were standard fare.

Traditional culture, meanwhile, became the unlikely fodder for these tellings; traditional stories and themes were refashioned in barbarous, if unlikely, ways. This gave way to all-out hostility toward and assault on China’s traditional past by the Marxist rulers during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), which was more akin to cultural insanity: Imagine Red Guard troops taking baseball bats to Buddha statues.

With the death of Mao in 1976 things normalized, but only slightly, perhaps. While artists were no longer jailed or beaten publicly, the arts, or Chinese culture proper, remained quite firmly in the Party’s hands. New contortions of the past have marked this (the "post-Mao") era, with most instantiations being contrived, if not for purposes of ideology, at least to cater to the imaginations of tourists from afar (something like Confucius meets Colonel Sanders).{mospagebreak}

In each case, the Communist Party has wed itself to Chinese culture, and claimed it for its own—and as its sole, self-proclaimed, proprietor, felt a sense of entitlement, if not possessiveness.

With the arrival of NTD’s first Chinese New Year production in 2003, the Party-state’s monopoly on culture was faced with—in its own words—a "crisis." The people now had an alternative, as it were. How so?

First, the formation of NTD as a media entity marked, judging by scholarship on Chinese media, one of the first Chinese-language media ventures truly independent of China’s Communist Party. Confirmation of this is found quickly in the stunning extent of efforts by Chinese authorities to thwart the station. Many of its New Year performers, like the station’s founders, could be called Chinese communism’s discontents—people who have seen and gone through a lot. Several I have interviewed were abused something horrible for being artists (and thus "bourgeoisie") under communist rule. They strike me as an uncompromising, determined bunch. Whereas indicators are that many Chinese media outlets have been bought off or bought out (call it the CCTVization of the world), these folks are dogged.

Secondly, the NTD New Year’s show is very much Chinese. Positively so. And that makes it fundamentally different from the Party’s brand of communist culture. (As to the latter, one almost has to see for oneself the uniformed Chinese PLA soldiers dancing ballet to believe it.) The latter is the brainchild of a German figure, Marx, that came by way of the then-Soviet Union.

By contrast, the NTD show envisions itself as a return to, and draws inspiration from, China’s golden age—the Tang Dynasty (617-907). The Tang was a time of tremendous cultural diversity, tolerance, and religious devotion; note the contrast to China’s contemporary autocratic state. The show seeks to, like NTD itself, empower its viewers insofar as it reaches back to a shared past—unmediated by Party or state—for common values, ideals, and inspiration.

(And given that it was NTD that broke the SARS story—fully three weeks before China’s state media admitted to a top-down cover up—you might call NTD "the people’s station." It was, unlike Beijing, more concerned with the Chinese people’s welfare than the Party’s image.)

The show amounts to nothing less than a refashioning—or recovery—of Chinese self, I dare say. It suggests, tacitly, that there are other interpretations and visions of Chinese culture available, and that venturing in such directions need not be feared. It’s part of a process of becoming.{mospagebreak}

When we hear communist officials thus denounce the show as being "anti-China" (which is often), it is the highest form of flattery, it would seem. For in that ironic accusation is confirmation that NTD has ruptured a five-decade-long conflation of Party with China, of Communist Culture with Chinese Culture, and with being patriotic with loving the Party. One is tempted to say that these are two visions of Chineseness—one meant to control, one to empower.

Nobody can say for sure how all of this will play out, but for the historically minded it is a fascinating, hopeful moment. Until all is said and done, I’ll be enjoying the show.

Matthew Kutolowski is a Ph.D. student studying Chinese religion and culture in the department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia University.

China’s Top 10 College Scandals of 2006

1. Shanghai Jiaotong University

In February 2003, Chen Jin, a testing engineer at Motorola, hired another person to remove the original logo on the MOTO-Freescale 56,800 chip that he purchased in the United States and to replace it with his own logo. This way, he appeared to have "developed" the so-called China Chip No.1. Because of his "outstanding research," he was offered the titles of professor, advisor of doctoral degree students, and president of the Microelectronics Institute. Thanks to "China Chip No.1," Chen Jin applied for dozens of heavyweight research projects and received grants totaling 1.1 billion yuan (US$140 million) for his "research." In January 2006, his plagiarism was exposed, shocking the whole country.

2. Beijing University

Shing-Tung Yau is a renowned professor of mathematics at Harvard University. In July 2006, in an interview with reporters, he claimed "most of the talent that Beijing University allegedly imported from abroad is bogus." According to a New York Times article published on October 17, 2006, "For the last year Dr. Yau has carried on a campaign against Beijing University, accusing it of committing fraud by padding its faculty with big names from overseas and paying them lucrative salaries for a few months of work."[1] Many other media outlets picked up this report.[2]

A survey in Science magazine showed that the number of such part-time professors in China had grown from 6 to 89 over the last six years, while the number of full-time professors had risen from 66 to 101. The arrangement allows Chinese universities to piggyback on the glory of work these people do in their other jobs. Dr. Yau pointed out that it also drains resources that should go to young researchers.

The authorities at Beijing University subsequently accused Dr. Yau of distorting the facts. At once, Dr. Yau, Beijing University authorities, many scholars, and China’s Ministry of Education all began hotly debating this issue. According to the online comments, most people agree with Dr. Yau’s allegations.

3. Nanjing Normal University

On September 27, 2006, university authorities "forced" 10 female students majoring in choreography at its College of Music to come to a party to dance with the high-level leaders who were visiting the school. The notorious scandal is that China’s education system is ultimately joining the tide of degeneration. They had to happily accommodate the desires of these corrupt officials.{mospagebreak}

4. Sichuan University

In 2006, a number of bogus academic research results at Sichuan University were exposed. In January, before Professor Qiu’s fake research was exposed, the bogus research of another scholar, an academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences, was revealed, as was that of the university’s vice secretary of the Party. The Ministry of Education promised that the authorities of Sichuan University would investigate the incidents and disclose their findings to the Chinese people. As of today, no such information has been published.

5. Shanghai Normal University

In June 2006, the theses of 12 undergraduate students majoring in Oil Painting were rejected. The root cause: University President Xu Mangyao had a major academic disagreement with Liu Dahong, the thesis adviser for the 12 students. Sadly, all of the 12 theses became the sacrificial objects of the academic conflict.

6. Beijing University of Foreign Languages

On April 18, 2006, the college authorities accused Wei Yin (nickname), a Ph.D. candidate in 2002, of harassing, humiliating, and cursing her dissertation adviser using mini ads and e-mails. Because she also allegedly harassed another two faculty members, she was expelled from the school based on "sufficient evidence." After she failed in her appeal to the college, Wei Yin presented her case to the Education Committee of Beijing. The committee rescinded the decision for expulsion that the Beijing University of Foreign Languages authorities made. The media reported that nobody knows whether it was Wei Yin or the authorities at her college who misbehaved. In another scandal at Beijing Jiaotong University, exposed in 2005, a female graduate student allegedly used her body to get the admissions exam professor to let her see the graduate admission exam.

7. Huazhong University of Science and Technology

In June 2006, Professor Xiao Chuanguo of the college formally filed a lawsuit at Wuhan City Intermediate Court against Fang Zhouzhi, a scholar "renowned" for being against fake science, often called the "anti-fake science knight." Professor Xiao complained that he was not promoted to be an academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences because Fang slandered him in an anti-fake science article that he published on the Internet. This was unprecedented news in Chinese academic circles as it forced a judge, who knows nothing about science or medicine, to make a judgment on an academic issue.{mospagebreak}

8. Lanzhou University

As a key college in greater northwestern China highly supported by the Ministry of Education, Lanzhou University has a lot of privileges regarding various aspects of state policies. In October 2006, however, a major scandal involving commercial bribery was exposed. Two high-ranking officials from the university—the president and the Party secretary—exploited their power in regard to a residential project and a new hospital building project to amass as much as 15.93 million yuan (US$2.0 million) in bribes.

9. Tianjin University

In November 2006, Shan Ping, the former president of the university, lost his title as representative to the 10th National People’s Congress. The reason was that Hong Jianmin, the vice president in charge of the university’s finances, abused the school treasury by borrowing money to trade in stocks. He lost 37.5 million yuan (US$4.7 million) of the school’s money, breaking the Chinese college record for the largest amount of college money to be diverted to the stock market.

10. People’s University of China

While extravagant construction in China’s colleges is no longer news, this latest incident demonstrates how today’s colleges in China are meticulously looking after their campuses instead of the fundamentals of college education. In August 2006, People’s University of China reportedly spent several million yuan to install two luxurious "tourist elevators" in a three-story cafeteria building. The "tourist elevators" outside the wall of the three-story building are to "demonstrate the scale of internationalization."[3]

Translated by CHINASCOPE from CReaders.net February 9, 2007.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/
17yau.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5088&en=d9355e80aff72279&ex=1318737600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[2] http://www.danwei.org/scholarship_and_education/peking_universitys_fake_sea_tu.php
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/17/content_3367440.htm
[3] http://news.creaders.net/breaking/newsViewer.php?id=70716

Authorities Find Scapegoat to Blame For the Death of a Sixteen-Year-Old

On January 16, 2007, following the news of the death of 16-year-old former hotel waitress Yang Daili, more than 10,000 angry civilians flocked to the Lai Shi De Hotel in Zhuyang Town, Dazhu County, Dazhou City, Sichuan Province, to call for the arrest of the three suspects who are high-ranking Party officials in Sichuan.

Civilians Protest the Death of 16-Year-Old

By afternoon, as the situation grew beyond control, local authorities dispatched large contingents of policemen to suppress the angry civilians. According to witnesses, besides being beaten up and threatened by the policemen, numerous civilians were also arrested, including local students and children. An infuriated resident then set a fire in the hotel, which lasted for the next five hours.

An agitated worker at the Lai Shi De Hotel revealed: "It is a known fact that Yang Daili was gang-raped by the three officials who visited the hotel on December 29. We have witnesses and material evidence to prove this. That is why we are so angry. To make matters worse, the local authorities have done all they can to cover up the incident and destroy all the evidence. Many websites and forums where we have posted related news have started censoring our voices.

"Moreover, I’ve heard that Yang’s family has also come under surveillance by the authorities. I wonder how things will turn out."

According to a worker at the Zhuyang Town Police Station who wishes to remain anonymous, "More than 10,000 civilians have come to protest over the past two days. Many police officers have already been beaten up.

"After the incident, Party officials from the provincial Public Security Bureau, the Provincial Party Council, and the Municipal Party Council all met together. I heard that the central government has also caught wind of this. So far, they have settled it by arresting the bartender of the hotel, Liu Zhikun."

The anonymous worker also revealed that the hotel is run by Xu Feng, son of the chief of the local West District police station.

Yang Wanted to Quit Her Job

Yang Daili, 16, was from Luojia Village, Dazhu Town, Sichuan Province. After graduating from middle school, she decided to start working, and on December 1 she formally began her employment at the Lai Shi De as a waitress. Yang’s father, Yang Wanguo, revealed: "On December 20, she told her mother that she was not going to work at the hotel anymore after collecting this month’s salary. She said that there were a lot of unusual management practices going on in the hotel and that there were a lot of drug addicts."{mospagebreak}

On December 29, three high-ranking Party officials in Sichuan Province came to Lai Shi De. They spotted Yang Daili immediately, named her as their waitress, and wanted to take her out. The next day, Ms. Yang was found lying in one of the hotel rooms. A worker at the Lai Shi De found that she had been drugged, a tooth was missing, her tongue was cut, and a nipple had been sliced.

Local Authorities Cloud Her Autopsy Results

Yang Wanguo continued, "The hospital gave me a report saying that she had died before arriving at the hospital. Even though the Public Security Bureau sent someone to perform the autopsy the same day afternoon, I have yet to receive a report. I checked her body in the hospital and saw no signs of injury except for some blood in her mouth. Later, in the autopsy, they said that they found some marks on her neck and back, as well as some blood in her genital area. The county government told me out of nowhere that my daughter had been raped before she died.

"The next day, however, I sensed something had changed. Initially they told me that there were four needle holes on her arms, but when the Provincial Judicial performed a second autopsy the next day, they told me that the four needle holes were fake. And as of today, I haven’t seen any report on her being raped. They’ve got us all confused."

"Liu Is Not The Culprit"

A local state-run media proclaimed the next day that the "collective mass event" had been basically settled and that "the hotel bartender, Liu Zhikun, the prime suspect in this rape-and-murder incident, had been arrested."

However, Ms. Yang’s family feels that Liu could not be behind the murder. A source pointed out: "They simply refused to do anything for 10 days after the girl’s death. Only after the civilians got all worked up and set a fire in the hotel did they finally, and very suddenly, arrest a suspect. Weren’t there three officials who raped the girl? What has it got to do with the bartender?"

Moreover, another anonymous source said: "An emergency meeting was held at 4:00 a.m. on January 18. It was the bartender who found the girl, so they decided that he was the best scapegoat. Every civilian knows that it is definitely not the bartender. The guilty ones are the three officials."

Indeed, the Internet community is far from satisfied with the result. An anonymous post was found on the Net: "I’ve heard that there are people in the county Party council involved, and there are quite a number of people in the provincial government backing it up."

Hundreds of other angry posts have emerged: "The officials all ganged up with each other," "Chinese law is no longer the law of the people, it is the law of the government," "Corruption! Even when they commit a crime, they can make use of all their power to cover themselves up," "To think that the Provincial Party Secretary Wang Wei proclaimed that Yang Daili’s death is just ‘the size of a butthole!’" "What kind of world is this! The powerless civilians are worthless in the eyes of those officials!"

Can Sun is a correspondent for Chinascope.