[Economist has an article on the legitimacy of private wealth in China. The article highlights the risks of being rich, especially for those with their names on the Forbes list. ]
The stigma of wealth in China
Sep 3rd 2009 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition
China debates whether its richest citizens earned their fortunes fairly
MOST Chinese assume it is something of a mixed blessing to appear in the annual rankings of China’s wealthiest citizens published by Forbes magazine. Early this year a novel with the title “The curse of Forbes” was syndicated in a Chinese magazine before being published as a book. Anyone on the list, its protagonist warns, is “dead meat”. The rankings are widely known as “pig-killing lists”—a reference to the fate the authorities are thought to have in mind for those who appear on them. In a review of the book, Forbes reflects on the fact that many people on its Chinese lists have indeed been detained or arrested, and asks whether “anyone in China is safe from the curse”.
(more…)
At the very heart of Gao’s book lies an absorbing question that has occupied numerous Chinese thinkers since the time of Confucius in the fifth century BCE, namely how to understand and deal with the moral ambiguities and practical inhibitions that arise if we choose to serve a tyrant.
–Quote from Jonathan D. Spence’s Remarks on Gao Wenqian’s book Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary: A Biography
The job of a stock market is to provide useful signals to help allocate capital. However thrilling, China’s market is a long way from doing that.
–Economist: Another great leap
Professor Bill Stuntz is interviewed by Jeff Barneson on what he has learned from cancer.
Arbitration needed
Jul 30th 2009 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition
What lies behind the gruesome death of a manager at Tonghua Iron and Steel?
WORKERS’ opposition to privatisation and job cuts is widespread but rarely takes so brutal a form as it did on July 24th in northeastern Jilin province, when steel workers chased down and killed an executive who had reportedly come to tell them that an imminent privatisation of their factory would bring massive job cuts. Hong Kong-based human-rights monitors reported that 30,000 workers were involved, though Chinese officials insist the number was lower. By all accounts, the ugly scene at the Tonghua Iron and Steel Plant ended in the bloody beating and death of Chen Guojun, general manager of the private Jianlong Group which already owned a minority stake in the plant.
The incident highlights not only China’s labour discontent but the country’s difficulty in dealing with it. Last year, China introduced a series of labour laws that improved mediation and set up an arbitration process to give workers better formal recourse for their grievances, both individual and collective. Workers have indeed been using the process in greater numbers (see chart). But only a small share of disputes are taken up, whereas discontents are multiplying. Whether in factories, mines or construction sites, workplace conditions in China are often atrocious, and workers’ safety an afterthought. Nominal legal provisions calling for minimum wages and guaranteed rest days are routinely ignored. One of commonest complaints is the failure to pay wages. Workers go months without being paid, leading to frequent sit-ins or demonstrations.
None of these actions is organised by unions. In name, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a vast union bureaucracy running from the national level to small enterprises. In practice it is controlled by the Communist Party at the national level and, in companies, is mostly a tool of the management. According to Chris Xiaoyun Lin, a lawyer specialising in Chinese labour, unions may find ways to play a greater role in future, such as by drafting labour laws and representing workers in collective bargaining. But they are unlikely to gain independence from the party—or anything like the influence of unions in Japan or South Korea.
When Chinese labour disputes get unruly, local governments often respond by trying to placate the workers and maintain stability, according to Geoffrey Crothall of the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin. “They recognise that workers have legitimate grievances and are not rabble-rousers out to overthrow the government.” On the day of the Tonghua incident, the provincial government ordered Jianlong to abandon its plan to buy out the steel plant. Placating protesting workers may help calm a tense situation. But in the absence of genuine unions or better enforcement of the laws, it may also serve to encourage more protests.
Chinese government now requires all PCs install a software which blocks website the government dislike.
安守廉：应找适合自己国情的模式
时间:2007-01-17 16:39 作者: 新闻来源:正义网
很高兴与大家交流我自己的想法，我在这儿并不像各位都是残疾法方面的专家，我要介绍的主要是根据外国专家的文章介绍一下，主要讲五点。
第一点，是关于历史，温故而知新，我想这个历史对残疾人是不好的，是令人羞辱的。比如在美国，现在还在对智障人进行绝意。提到这些并不是想把美国至于不当的批评中，我想强调的是我们要全人类面临共同的挑战。
(more…)
Sina published an interview of Deng Yujiao’s new attorneys, namely Liu Gang and Wang Shaopeng, who claimed that they “disagree the police’s conclusion that the case is a murder case.” The interview seems to show that Liu Gang and Wang Shaopeng are following strategy set by Deng Yujiao’s previouse attorneys Xia Lin and Xia Nan, who argued that Deng Yujiao’s case is not a murder case, but a self defense of attempted rape.
The interview, however, never made clear that Liu Gang and Wang Shaopeng would argue for Deng Yujiao’s self defense. That they “disagree the police’s conclusion that the case is a murder case” could mean they agree that Deng Yujiao committed intentional infliction of bodily injury, or some other crimes.
The real question is whether they would argue for not guilty. Any guilty plea would mean their surrender of the local government and betrayal of their duty as her attorney.
新浪网发表对邓玉娇“新聘律师”刘刚和汪少鹏的采访《新聘律师：对故意杀人罪有异议》，文中说刘刚和汪少鹏认为“邓玉娇在案件中的行为不构成故意杀人，警方目前的这一定性不妥。”这似乎表明，刘刚和汪少鹏遵循了夏霖和夏楠律师设定的邓玉娇案辩护策略：邓玉娇行为是对强奸行为的正当防卫。
但请注意，采访从未确认刘刚和汪少鹏要以正当防卫来进行辩护。他们所认为的“邓玉娇在案件中的行为不构成故意杀人，警方目前的这一定性不妥，”完全可能指的是邓玉娇的行为构成故意伤害罪，或者是其他罪名。
真正的问题在于他们是否会为邓玉娇做无罪辩护。任何认罪都是向本地政府的投降和背叛他们作为律师的职责。
