In the interim, amuse yourselves with the writings of my cohorts over at the fledgling china/divide, and I will resume my inane ramblings upon my return.

Li Yinhe

Translation

When the whole family was together, my sister told me something my father had said after his cerebral embolism that really shocked me. He said: “In my whole life, I haven’t had a happy moment.” Such desolate words fit with my father’s consistent adherence to being rather extreme; I can imagine vividly what he looked like as he said this sentence.

I think there are two dimensions to people’s happiness (or unhappiness). One is subjective, the other is objective. Looking at things subjectively, people with higher goals for their lives have a harder time being happy. A muddled person who passes the days simply can frequently be happy, and someone who sets their sights too high will be unhappy, because he will feel he hasn’t realized any of his goals. My father definitely had great aspirations, and he didn’t achieve them, so he was unhappy.

But the objective dimension is also useful to examine: the champion is happier than the runner-up, the minister is happier than the director, the rich man is happier than the poor man. I think my father’s unhappiness was influenced by his objective circumstances.

For most people, the objective dimension might be summarized as having less than the most fortunate and more than the least fortunate. If you go back a hundred years, [by objective standards] only one person could be happy, and that was the emperor. Today, if you break it up into fields, there can be a few more happy people. In the economic sphere it’s Bill Gates, in the political sphere it’s Hu Jintao and Obama, in the artistic sphere it’s…no one else has any way to be happy.

So whether or not people live happily is primarily a subjective question. If you think happily you can be happy, if you think unhappily you may be unhappy, perhaps even for a whole life. I must learn a lesson from my father, and be a happy person.

What is “Group Licentiousness”?

According to this piece, group licentiousness is:

…the behavior of gathering in groups and participating in licentious activities. This crime is primarily characterized by its violation of social morality. Objectively, it is (1) a group of people together (often it is men and women mixed, but it could be all men or all women) and (2) they must be in the process of doing licentious things. This crime is mainly limited to the ringleaders and frequent participants [...those convicted may be sentenced to] under five years in prison, short-term detention, or surveillance.

What Does Li Yinhe Propose

Translated directly from Li Yinhe’s proposal:

Obviously [the law against "group licentiousness"] is out-of-date; I recommend it be abolished. Originally, this charge was classified under “hooliganism/indecency charges” [流氓罪] but when that charge was abolished the “group licentiousness” charge remained under another heading. It is already very rarely applicable in actual society, therefore I propose it be abolished.

Li Yinhe lists several of the biggest cases of “group licentiousness” tried over the past few decades. The following is just one example, but most of them are similar and do not involve anything happening in public:

Case 4: Defendant Wang XX, female, successively seduced many men into having sexual relations with her. The procuratorate lodged a complaint under the indecency laws, and the court used these same laws to come to a verdict of guilty.

Li Yinhe then writes:

The cases above are the most serious sex-related court convictions [under this law] in China. So-called “group licentiousness” is nothing more than the “sex orgies” common in Western society. For example, case three resembles the American “swinger” trend of the 1970s. In Western personal ads, one can often see advertisements by swingers looking for lovers [...] at present, there is much of this sort of activity in China as well.

As long as all the participants in these activities are consenting, the law should definitely not regard this as criminal. Citizens have the rights to do what they want with their own bodies [...] If a person wants to play poker in private while wearing clothes, he has this right. If a person wants to play poker in private while naked, he has this right, regardless of how many people are involved. National law interfering in this kind of private activity makes it seem as though people’s bodies belong not to themselves but to the state [...] this kind of legislative thought is, in and of itself, wrong, it is a mistake about who a person’s body belongs to.

Some reporters have raised questions about the proposal, and Li Yinhe has drafted a thorough response to the most common among them. In defending her proposal, she makes five main points (which I am rephrasing slightly in some cases):

1. Decriminalizing “group licentiousness” does not mean [the government will be] advocating it.
2. The law should not be used to resolve issues of morality.
3. You cannot assume one group of people’s way of living to be normal and thus deem and punish another group’s way of living as illegal.
4. The decriminalization of “group licentiousness” will not have a negative affect on people’s social conduct.
5. Abolishing this law may have an upside no one has thought of in that it guards against the kind of violent trampling of people’s rights that occurred during the Cultural Revolution.

I expect this proposal will be ignored, just as Li’s yearly proposal to legalize gay marriage is. But Mrs. Li is correct in thinking this issue is of vital importance, and that the law should be abolished for the sake of protecting people’s right to do what they please with their own body (assuming all involved parties are consenting adults, and the activity is behind closed doors, of course!).

Do you think the “group licentiousness” laws should be repealed? Why or why not?

For more on sex in China see my recent post on china/divide, “Pornography should be Legal in China”.

Fifty Cents Party is now a well-known satirical term for online commentators employed by the government to guide public opinion. In an article written last week, Xiao further classifies the Party into three types according to income and professional standing. Below are some translated extracts.

Type 1: New-Rich Fifty Cents

This type of fifty cents usually appears university professors, experts (like legal experts and economists), researchers, media professionals and political commentators. They have good image and usually appear on TV, newspapers and headlines of official websites. Their arguments are full of concepts and seem logical, but with only one aim: to prove that the government actions are correct, legal or great, even though they are often unjust, unfair and inhuman. Their opinions enable them to get rich within the establishment; what they receive far exceed fifty cents per comment. Therefore they are the most expensive type of fifty cents; they are the new-rich. They can further be classified into two types: academic (represented by university professors), or popular (represented by political commentators and media professionals).

Type 2: Occupational Fifty Cents

This type of fifty cents, with lower IQ and abilities, would be very satisfied if they get the job of ‘internet commentators’. Everyday they roam around the major forums, criticizing anti-government comments once they see them. Their major task is to use rude languages to condemn anti-government opinions; those more professional would call on the public to love the country and the party, i.e. to be patriots. Every time they submit a comment, they will accumulate their income: fifty cents, one dollar, one dollar and fifty cents, two dollars, two dollars and fifty cents…… Each day they can earn two hundred and fifty dollars if they submit over five hundred comments. As a result, they can sustain a good monthly salary. However, the reward for each comment has recently been reduced to ten cents, multiplying their workload. Very hard work, God bless them.

Type 3: Free Fifty Cents

For some reasons, the education system does not destroy the talents of all students. As a result, they are good in some respects. Many of them become bachelors, masters or PhDs; some even study overseas. But after all, they are under a spoon-fed system, which means their thinking is dysfunctional in some ways. Their qualifications enable them to get well-paid jobs. However, once the discussion involves politics, they always stand on the side of the government, whether it is logical or not. This is almost a knee-jerk reaction when they see a critic of the government. But because their reaction purely comes out of loyalty and ignorance, their comments are more persuasive than those of the occupational fifty cents.

My thoughts

The author goes on to discuss the logics used by these fifty cents, similar in tone to the Fifty Cents Party Training Manual. To be fair, the phenomenon of Fifty Cents Party is not limited to China. Noam Chomsky has long exposed the responsibility of intellectuals and mainstream media groups in Western democracies for their tendencies of self-censorship. Whether democratic or authoritarian, people rationally invest in the political institutions as long as they last. The Occupational Fifty Cents party is a crude form of manufacturing of consent, while the other two types are probably more ‘successful’ products produced under the education system or vested interests. To different degrees, dissent voices are harmonized (to use the popular Chinese term) in all societies. But one important difference is that in free societies you can speak what you want, while in China you risk yourself being imprisoned.

Translation

[Note: Han Song typically posts giant blocks of text, and doesn't differentiate paragraphs, but I've tried to make some paragraph divisions here where they seemed appropriate, for the sake of reading ease.]

Chinese Premier: Grandpa Wen

I feel this reflects that the domestic situation is already rather grim. For example, there’s the issue of housing prices; how many years has it been since he made promises [to resolve the issue]? Or another example, [the issue of] access to the education system; it’s been ten-plus years and the issue still isn’t resolved. Then there’s the medical system; farmers, half of whom are still at the mercy of the seasons for food; commodity prices and corrupt officials that affect social stability, the [uneven] distribution of wealth, etc. China has to solve so many domestic issues, and “there aren’t many opportunities”, so there’s probably no way of dealing with international issues. It definitely also hints that China still is not a real international or global nation.

Many countries feel China is incompatible [with the rest of the world] and that it lacks justice, and they are concerned about this. Foreigners praising China is still rare. Many cadres knowledge of the world is still quite shallow. But in truth, the world’s impact on China has already been massive. But in terms of the meeting that’s about to happen [i.e., the meeting of the NPC], most of the representatives discuss international issues infrequently, not like American legislators, who have been gossiping about other countries for years.

Additionally, on the education issue and the issues of the next generation, the Premier spoke at some length, showing his concerns about the future. Speaking on studying, [he] criticized that Chinese people already have stopped studying hard. He wants more people to look to the sky, it seems looking at the ground too much makes people sulky*. Also, since while in the process of the chat we got the news about the 8.0 earthquake in Chile, if the moderator had directed Wen to express his feelings on this that would be good.

*Note: I think what Wen meant by “look to the sky” is something like “reach for the stars” but Han Song may be employing a bit of double entendre here, too; taking “sky” to refer to the future and “ground” to refer to reality, i.e. China’s present situation.

The (Fake) Walls Come Tumbling Down

Tiger Temple reported recently about one of the unintended aftereffects of Beijing’s rush to make itself pretty in the run-up to the Olympics in 2008: the fake walls constructed to make buildings look better in areas of the city expected to receive lots of Olympic traffic have begun to fall apart.

First, a video of the area recorded before the Olympics, when the fake walls were still being constructed. You can see that the backside of the building looks normal, but the front is covered with green scaffolding as workers hastily construct better looking walls for the side of the building facing the Bird’s Nest Olympic Stadium:

But, according to Tiger Temple, the walls are already starting to fall apart:

one year later

Obviously, as far as evil goes, making fake walls ranks pretty low on the scale. Tiger Temple’s concern, I think, is that the Olympic committee took something that originally looked decent, and made it look good, but in such a haphazard way that less than two years later, neighborhoods look worse than they did before the Olympic projects started. As he writes,

All the disguising done before the Olympics has already become an international joke [...] I think I have the responsibility to lay all of this bare, and make it return to its original, true state.

Winter Olympics in China

Elsewhere in Olympic news, Shanghaiist reports that China wants the Winter Olympics, but doesn’t mention a city. You heard it here first: Harbin will get it. The city has made an effort once before, but not a serious one, and last year it played host to the Winter Universiade, an international college athletic competition many felt was a sure sign the city was trying to prove that it can pull off a major international event. Just as Beijing did in the summer, Harbin pulled out all the stops, restricting traffic and creating special lanes on major roads in preparation for the event, and shutting down bars and clubs to keep the city from looking bad (read: drunk). Since everything went according to plan, the stage is very much set for a Harbin Winter Olympic bid.

Harbin is the obvious choice for the Winter games in China anyway, as the city is deeply associated with winter. It is nicknamed “Ice City” in Chinese, and is most famous for its spectacular Snow and Ice Festival, during which massive lighted ice sculptures dominate all the city’s major parks. Holding the Winter Olympics there could be a tourist bonanza for China, as the international crowds would undoubtedly also be drawn to the ice sculpture parks and the area’s many ski resorts.

(Full disclosure: I lived and studied in Harbin for over a year, and consider it to be one of the best cities in China, so I may not be entirely objective in my assessment of its merits).

Translation

Actually, the American NSA agents made themselves up as Chinese netizens and asked around [about the hacking] on internet forums about military affairs: ‘who were the hackers behind Google?’ A Chinese netizen became aware of their identity, and cursed, responding, “Stupid c**t American spy, LXJX”, and after that all the replies below it were similar to that one.

[LXJX is an acronym for 楼下继续, or lou xia ji xu, i.e. "the next person (person posting next on an internet forum) continue".]

The American department, having found a rare treasure, researched all day but couldn’t understand what LXJX meant. So they searched on Google, and the first result was Lanxiang Vocational School, so they went with that!

If you don’t believe, you can try it:

Google search for LXJX, Lanxing is the first result

Thoughts

Some netizens, including our own commenter Wrath, seem to be taking this post at face value, but it is rather obviously a joke. The lack of a link to the original thread makes it dubious enough — certainly, if it had actually happened, someone would be able to find it online. More damning, though, is the fact that “LXJX” isn’t actually a particularly common acronym on Chinese forums. It’s nowhere to be found on the rather exhaustive ChinaSMACK glossary of internet slang, and Baidu returns precious few results (5,140) for the term, most of which have to do with this joke specifically. For comparison’s sake, “LZ” (an internet slang term for 楼主, equivalent to OP in English internet slang) returns over 35 million results. But perhaps the strongest evidence against it being real is that many Chinese netizens clearly don’t get it: the first result for “LXJX” on Baidu is by a netizen who had read the joke asking what LXJX meant (and he wasn’t the only one). In fact, pretty much everything Baidu turns up for “LXJX” is a reference to the post translated above, not a usage of LXJX as actual online slang meaning “next poster, continue”.

It seems infinitely more likely that the joke was reverse-engineered. Netizens figured out what search term would lead to a #1 hit on Google.cn and designed the joke from there, settling on LXJX as it is Lanxiang’s URL address and also easily converted into a short acronym.

In short: interesting, yes. Amusing, yes. But true? Not even a little bit.

china/divide is a group analysis and commentary blog that currently features Stan Abrams (of China Hearsay), Kai Pan (of CNReviews), and me. It will also — like every site I write for — feature original translations.

Why another China blog? My friends, you have got the question all wrong. This is not another China blog, this is the China blog, and the fun part is, we want you to come along for the ride. We want to pool the talent of the China blogosphere to create a one-stop site for anyone who is looking to try to bridge the gap — the divide, if you will — between China and the West (see what I did there?).

muhahahah

Whoops, got sidetracked there.

Anyway, please add the site to your bookmarks and RSS readers, and check back frequently because we’ll be updating it daily. Also pass it on to your friends and readers via your own blogs, Twitter, carrier pigeon, etc., and we will be very grateful. There’s going to be some great stuff on there, so be excited. Also, feel free to add the china/divide Twitter, which will announce all new posts like some kind of robotic herald.

(And read it on the real internet, not an RSS reader. Kai has put a ton of time into the design and there’s some really cool stuff in there that will make itself known once we have a few more posts under our belt)

What does this mean for ChinaGeeks?

In short, nothing. This blog will continue to run as usual, and hopefully you won’t even notice the difference. I may occasionally point you in the direction of especially good china/divide pieces, but the two sites remain separate and will have different content. ChinaGeeks continues to grow in terms of traffic and visibility and will be here, I hope, for many years to come.

The ChinaGeeks Twitter will probably also announce my pieces on china/divide just as it announces my translations on CNReviews and ChinaSMACK.

As for the next, and possibly final part of my plan for world domination? That, my friends, you’ll just have to wait and see.

Wang's Grief-stricken family

According to the Lushan county public security bureau, the young man named Wang Yahui was taken away on suspicion of theft on February 18. On February 21, the police interrogated Wang at the detention center. “At the time, he said that he was thirsty. The police poured some boiled water for him, but it was too hot. Meanwhile another policeman was drinking water mixed with cold medicine and offered the mixed drink to Wang. When Wang drank this mixed, he reacted badly both physically and psychologically. He was quickly taken to the hospital where he died.”

Wang’s family was notified. They went to the hospital morgue and saw Wang’s body. They found multiple wounds on the body. The photos showed bruises and wounds on his back and arms. There was a hole in his head. His nipple was cut cut. Even his penis showed injury signs. This raised many questions with the family. “The public security bureau told us that he was healthy while in the detention center. He was healthy while he was interrogated. But after the interrogation, he experienced a sudden stomach ache and then he died.”

The Lunshan county public security bureau chief said that the police officers in charge of the case are suspected of committing a crime while on duty. He said: “If they committed a crime while on duty, the procuratorate will definitely set up a case for investigation.” He also said that the four police officers have been detained.

Wang’s family are working with the police to determine the real cause of death.

The real cause of death? I’m no doctor, but if pressed, I think I would go with hole in the head. I hear the head is one of those parts of the body we ought to keep from being punctured.

Lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan has also commented on the case:

A reporter asked me: “Wang Yahui drank water and died, but his whole body was covered in scars, could this be another case of ‘hide-and-seek’*?”
I said: Wang Yahui had only been with the police for three days, and as soon as he has to appear in court he suddenly gets ill and dies, the corse is covered in scars, there is a hole in his head, his nipples are cut off, his penis is scarred; he was obviously beaten to death by them, he didn’t just die of a cold!”

When the police send criminals to jail before their court appearances, they must undergo a physical examination. If, after the police arrested Wang Yahui, they beat him black and blue, the jail would normally write this down in his physical report, because they would fear having to take responsibility. As his whole body was covered in injuries, we can see there’s a possibility Wang Yahui was beaten by the other criminals in his cell.

But what can’t be explained is, if he was beaten by his cellmates, the police handling the case would likely react similarly [and report the beating] before the court date. Otherwise, the police would fear the jail putting responsibility for the man’s death on their shoulders. Of course, this is just [speculation] based on what usually happens.

Liu Xiaoyuan goes on to say that the matter should thus be simple to resolve if the police and the jail can be forced to produce their records. But he notes:

After last year’s ‘hide-and-seek’* case, the highest people’s procuratorate and the PSB began an investigation into the entire nation’s jails, and it seemed as if [the problem] was being taken seriously enough. What makes people hopeless is that this watchdog work hasn’t accomplished what it should, with the result that this kind of bizarre death often occurs.

Wang Yahui — who, oddly enough, shares the exact same given name I was assigned by my first-year Chinese teacher in college — obviously wasn’t killed by a glass of water. And as Liu Xiaoyuan points out, had he been killed by his fellow prisoners, it would make sense that someone would have reported that, if for no other reason than to save their own skin. That no one did indicates what everyone was already assuming: he was killed, probably during torture, by the police. Why? He was suspected of stealing sometime.

He is survived by his two children, ages four and two.

*”Hide-and-seek” refers to a famous case from last year where a prisoner in a police station died, and the police reported that he had died running into a wall while playing hide-and-seek. Netizens, and many other people who heard this news were, needless to say, pretty skeptical.

Translation

A summary of the story:

The Cangzhou, Hebei peasant Chen Tongmei repeatedly traveled to the capital to seek an audience with higher-ups [to report grievances against the local Hebei government]. After returning, the Cangzhou government made arrangements to compensate Chen (they agreed on 100,000 RMB), sort of like keep-your-mouth-shut money, the meaning was ‘don’t go report to Beijing again’.

At this point the story diverges: One country cadre says that Chen suspected 100,000 was too little, and demanded 200,000. Three village cadres say Chen Tongmei didn’t want compensation, only justice. Afterwards, Chen was arrested on suspicion of trying to extort money from the government, and sentenced to five years in prison.

At the same time [Chen was being sentenced] in Cangzhou there were all kinds of cases of rural citizens extorting the government or the courts. These peasants were all sentenced, just like Chen Tongmei.

What’s interesting is that after the Chen Tongmei case the government had tasted something sweet [and didn't want to let it go]. They started directly consulting with peasants who wanted to report things to Beijing, saying 300,000 RMB to not report [their grievances].

The peasants responded, and wrote guarantees [they wouldn't report to the Beijing if they received the money]. Then, out of the blue, PSB officers would appear and take the peasants away, saying they [were trying to] extort the government. This story seems familiar, obviously it wasn’t the Cangzhou government’s original idea, they’re plagiarizing the famous Shanghai “fishing method of law enforcement”.

Another story is that when they were being sentenced the peasants had no lawyers to speak in their defense. Their relatives [tried to] help them find lawyers but had their IDs seized or were taken to PSB substations and weren’t allowed to seek lawyers. At the same time, [the government] was also afraid they would continue trying to report to Beijing.