Position and Analysis

Due to the slowdown in China's economic growth and the growing domestic overcapacity in recent years, the Chinese Government and enterprises have participated in a number of overseas investment and construction projects. In December 2015, when Chinese President Xi Jinping attended the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, he promised to invest US $60 billion in Africa during the next three years and support local construction of roads and railways. Apart from Africa, Latin America is also the destination of China's production and capital. In this issue, we interviewed a German scholar Dr. Jörg Nowak (Assistant Professor (Visiting), Department of Asian and International Studies, City University of Hong Kong) who in recent years studied the process of strikes in India and Brazil, and witnessed Chinese enterprises attempting to invest or acquire Brazilian enterprises. 

 

 

Lately, the Brazilian government is actively preparing for a number of energy-related infrastructure projects. For instance, the current Brazilian government is studying the possibility of building dozens of hydroelectric power stations in the Amazon Forest, in order to solve the problem of hydropower generation in recent years. Leaving aside the impact of the plan on the environment, this plan is a good opportunity for Brazilian construction companies. However, due to the Brazilian political and business corruption scandal in 2014, a large number of Brazilian construction industry executives and bosses were exposed. Moreover, the Brazilian economy has been declining seriously since 2015. These Brazilian companies urgently need foreign investments to maintain business operations, so Chinese investments and acquisitions are welcomed by the Brazilian Government and businesses. "The ruling right-wing coalition has been questioning if the Rothschild government has worked too closely with the Chinese government to make Brazil a raw material supplier," Nowak said. "They think that Brazil should trade with the United States because the US deal was majority in industrial products, and I thought they were telling the truth, but after the right wing came to power, we did not hear them against the sound of Chinese capital coming into Brazil."

 


Chinese capital is currently investing in Brazilian energy companies or construction companies holding shares of energy companies. According to the International Energy Organization data, China's investments in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Uruguay's solar power generation is the largest in the region. "In 2016, China's total investment in Brazil's energy projects surpassed the US for the first time and there was a report published yesterday (January 25, 2017) that the State Grid Corporation had successfully acquired large-scale energy companies in Brazil." Nowak here refers to the central enterprises of the State Grid Corporation on January 24, successfully acquired more than half of the shares of CPFL company which was Brazil's largest private energy companies. The acquisition is also the largest foreign investment projects of the State Grid Corporation, making this corporation achieve a comprehensive coverage of investment in energy transmission, distribution, new energy power generation, electricity and other business areas in Brazil. In addition, there may be a new hydroelectric power projects launching in the near future. Chinese capital is expected to gradually increase its market share in energy industry locally.


However, Nowak believes that China will not copy their investment model in Africa to make a large-scale investment in Latin America. Instead it will selectively invest in projects based in areas that can gain bank financing nationally and internationally. For example, the above-mentioned two-phase railway, the hydroelectric power plant plans and energy companies, which are currently in the research stage. He believes that the cost of labour in Latin America is still higher than in Africa and South-East Asia. Therefore, the Chinese government will have more interest in investing in agricultural products, raw materials and some special projects rather than industrial investment projects.

Chinese Workers Become the First Victim

22

Mar 2017

of Continuous Foreign Investment Withdrawal

 
In mid-November 2016, Coca-Cola announced to sell its bottling assets in China to Swire Pacific Ltd and China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation (COFCO). Under the realignment, Coca-Cola will cease to run bottling operations in mainland China. Workers in its plants in Jilin, Chongqing and Chengdu became worried about if the new employers would alter their labour conditions after the acquisition. Thus, they demand a buy-out offer with full severance payments from Coca-Cola and a guarantee from the new employees to reemploy them with the same terms and conditions (known as retrenchment before reinstatement). Yet, Coca-Cola’s silence angered workers leading to a strike on 21 November 2016. Police stepped in and seized the Chongqing plant. Numerous workers were assaulted and seven workers, including an expectant mother, were detained.

 

 

As China’s economic slowdown deepens and local governments are pushing for industrial upgrade, foreign-invested low-end manufacturers are gradually leaving China and thus, labour conflicts surface. When foreign-owned plants are sold to Chinese enterprises, workers often demand a buy-out offer. Hong Kong workers might find it confusing, as they tend to prioritize job security and would be satisfied if they would be employed by the original terms and conditions and be allowed to keep their seniority under the new ownership. In contrast to that, the “China’s Labour Contract Law” guarantees that the change of investors would not affect the implementation of the original labour contracts. In other words, Chinese workers seem to have more job security even a new employer comes in. Why do they have to take it to the street and demand retrenchment before reinstatement?


The Coca-Cola case illustrates the fate of many workers in foreign enterprises in recent years. Change of ownership makes workers anxious, due to many previous examples of new owners forcing workers to resign or cutting the workforce down, making the “Labour Contract Law” a toothless tiger and costing workers to lose the seniority-based severance payments. Moreover, foreign enterprises are often better monitored and employees receive better wages and welfares when compared with their counterparts in Chinese-owned enterprises. When a foreign enterprise employs an employee, it is required to follow the OECD Guidelines and thus, the working hours and occupational safety policies provide better protection to workers. As they invest globally, their corporate conducts are monitored by consumers’ campaigns, NGOs and trade unions in the western world. Chinese-invested enterprises are not subjected to OECD Guidelines, which includes guidelines on labour conditions. For example, China Foods Ltd., a subsidiary of COFCO transferred the ownership of Leconte Chocolate to another COFCO’s subsidiary COFCO Property (Group) Co. Ltd. in March 2016. After the ownership transfer, the new employer closed plants, downsized the workforce significantly and sold all assets, except properties. An industrial action broke out in August 2016, but for a state-owned enterprise like COFCO, it can easily commission the local governments and labour authorities to take its side and launch repression against workers. The lack of protection of workers in Chinese-owned enterprises make workers come up with the “retrenchment before reinstatement” strategy, to first get the seniority-based severance payments before they become worth nothing after the ownership transfer.


Labour actions triggered by factory closures, relocations or redundancies have increased continuously in recent years. It is getting more difficult for workers to claim their missing wages and social insurance back and reemployment remains a challenge. At the same time, Chinese Government adopts heavy-handed measures to crack down civil society, increasing workers’ risks to fight for their rights; the Chinese trade unions fails to safeguard workers’ rights; all these make the future grim for Chinese workers.

International Labour Organization Urged the Chinese Government

22

Mar 2017

to Stop Suppression on Freedom of Association

 
In December 2015, the Guangdong Provincial Government launched a mass crackdown against labour activists, detaining over 25 volunteers and employees of labour NGOs. Some of them were released after interrogation, but six of them, Meng Han, Zhu Xiaomei, Tang Huanxing, Zeng Feiyang, Peng Jiayong, and Deng Xiaoming have been charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order”. Another detainee, He Xiaobo was accused of “embezzlement”. In September 2016, Zeng Feiyang was sentenced to 3 years in prison and suspended for 4 years; while Zhu Xiaomei and Tang Huanxing were sentenced to 1.5 years and suspended for 2 years.  Meng Han was later sentenced to 21 months in prison on November 2016.

 

HKCTU's press conference on introducing the details of the ILO Interim Report

 

In response, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) wrote to International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in January 2016, calling for them to file a formal complaint at the ILO’s Committee of Freedom of Association (CFA) demanding the Chinese Government to stop its repression on freedom of association, which the ITUC did in February, 2016. Subsequently, the CFA released an interim report in November, 2016 and stating their regrets that Zeng Feiyang, Zhu Xiaomei, Meng Han, Deng Xiaoming, Peng Jiayong and Tang Jian were detained for their involvement in the Lide Factory’s collective labour action between December 2014 and April 2015. Meanwhile, the CFA urged the Chinese Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that freedom of association is protected and labour activists are allowed to continue to provide advisory services to workers without hindrance. It demands the Chinese Government to conclude the pending investigations and provide court judgements of labour activists once they are completed. The report also reiterated that the CFA had repeatedly criticized the Chinese Government in previous cases of labour rights violations, but have yet to see any measure taken by the authorities to improve the situation.


HKCTU welcomes the judgements made by CFA and urges the Chinese Government to positively respond to CFA’s recommendations, namely to stop obstructing labour activists in safeguarding labour rights, respect workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining.

Torn Between Authoritarian Rule and Right-Wing Populism:

22

Mar 2017

The New Challenge of Hong Kong's Democratic Labour Movement

 

 

The democratic labour movement in Hong Kong encountered numerous challenges in 2016. At the eve of May Day 2016, the major student unions from nine universities, which had previously been on friendly terms with the HKCTU, released a joint statement, declaring their withdrawal from the Solidarity March hosted by the HKCTU. In their eyes, union struggles are “simply a matter of rituals”, “claiming to safeguard workers’ rights and interests, pleading the communist-run Hong Kong Government to pity and improve Hong Kong people’s situation, yet no improvement on labour rights has been achieved in Hong Kong.” Since its establishment in 1990, the HKCTU has always practiced social movement unionism. HKCTU is not only a crucial team-player in fighting for democratic movements, but also in student movements. Of the two major strikes of the last decade, namely the bar-benders strike of 2007 and dockers strike of 2013, student organizations also worked closely with the HKCTU to support workers’ struggles.

 

 

Dr. Chan King Chin Chris
(Associate Professor,
Department of Applied Social Sciences,
City University of Hong Kong)

 

However, after the Umbrella Movement in 2014, a structural change took place in the Hong Kong society. Disappointed by the “fruitless” Occupy Central Movement with some 200,000 participants and angered by China’s brutal repression against civil society in Hong Kong, people started to turn to right-wing populism. Thus, the call of “Hongkongers first”, local organizations and political parties with a pro-independence agenda come into existence and are supported by the youth, causing the traditional college student unions to change their stance on labour support. In discussing most of the social policies, the HKCTU upholds the principles of internationalism and criticizes the narrow-minded localism. For instances, the HKCTU fought with migrant workers for the right to abode in Hong Kong and it also supports new immigrants from China to be covered by social welfares. In the light of this background, HKCTU does not only fight for social and political reform in Hong Kong, but also cares and supports the development of labour and democratic movement in China. HKCTU’s general secretary Lee Cheuk-yan served as the second chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. The rise of right-wing populism is posing new political challenges to HKCTU’s internationalism and its perspective on China.


In the Legislative Council Election in September 2016, Labour Party, a political party established by HKCTU and other activists in 2011, suffered heavy losses and lost three seats with only one seat left after the election. One of the legislators who lost their seat was Lee Cheuk-yan, who has been in office since 1995. Replacing them were six young candidates who support “localism”, including three moderate-left localists and three extreme-right localists, who were all elected with high votes. Lee Cheuk-yan has been a well-respected leader in democratic movement and union movement. HKCTU and Lee played a major supporting role in the Umbrella Movement, despite they were not the leaders and founders of the movement. Yet, the pro-Beijing media keeps defaming them of receiving foreign fund to Occupy Central. Two years after the Umbrella Movement, Lee lost the election. This symbolizes the difficulties faced by the democratic labour movement, namely being suppressed by both the authoritarian regime in China and the local right-wing populism in Hong Kong.

 


After becoming a major economic power in the world, China is also changing its ruling policies, both internationally and domestically. Its policies on Hong Kong and Macau is a mix of both. Since he took office in 2012, President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign and Chinese Dream rhetoric have made him popular domestically and his “One Belt One Road” and “Free Trade” plans gained him a positive image internationally. However, he also tightened his grip on civil society and labour movement. China does not only deprive Hong Kong people of their right to universal suffrage, but also increasingly interferes with domestic issues in Hong Kong, such as interference in election, cross-border law enforcement and etc., more and more people start to doubt the existence of “One Country Two Systems”. In terms of economic development and livelihood, China continues and even strengthens the neo-liberalist economic practices inherited from the Colonial Era. This leads to a decline in Hong Kong’s social development, leaving it a less socially developed place than its neighbours, such as the Four Little Dragons in Asia and mainland China. In recent years, HKCTU and its partner organizations have been advocating for reforms in social policies, such as the legislation of standard working hours, universal pension scheme and etc. When the current Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was running for “election” five years ago, he promised to take these policies into serious consideration. Yet, with half a year left in his current term, these promises remain empty. Two major candidates of the upcoming Chief Executive election, who are both previous ministers, expressed their unwillingness to implement these two basic labour welfare policies. In short, this election has become a race between the vested interests of business sector and the Chinese Government, while labour rights fail to draw public attention as it did in the previous election.


Facing the enormous political repression and threat from China, supporters of the new localism and the traditional democrats are both exploring new strategies to survive and develop. Yet, none of them choose to combine democratic movement with labour movement, to push for social democratic reform. Instead, some opt to partner with local bourgeoisie. John Tsang, the former finance minister who runs for the upcoming Chief Executive election, successfully builds a “local Hongkonger” image while his policy programme reflects only the interests of Hong Kong entrepreneurs. A large number of Election Committee members, including from major democratic parties such as Democratic Party and Civic Party, and some independent members decided to endorse Tsang, despite their long term opposition to real estate hegemony. How the democratic labour movement would resist such an internal conflict and external repression, is a serious question to explore in future.

Foreign NGO Law

22

Mar 2017

A Spell over China’s Civil Society

“Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administration of Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations Activities within China” (hereafter Foreign NGO Law) came into effect on January 1, 2017. Together with the “Charity Law” which became effective since 1 September 2016, these two laws were implemented within a few months to regulate activities of civil organizations. In line with Xi Jinping’s approach of “governing the country by law”, they restricted citizens’ rights by legal frameworks to achieve political stabilization. The laws provided a more grounded legal base for arresting and prosecuting dissidents, so that it would not be necessary to use “pocket laws” such as “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and “illegal assembly and disturbance of public order” in prosecution.  The Foreign NGO Law is actually tightening up the space of civil society.  The purpose of its legislation and its potential impact could be considered from two aspects: 1) the set-up of monitoring system, and 2) regulations on business scope.

Dual-management by public security and administration department puts all NGO activities under surveillance

First of all, the law requires all foreign NGOs operating in China to register with the Public Security Department (Police) through relevant “professional supervisory units”. This requirement treats foreign NGOs as potential threats to social order and places the foreign NGOs under the management of the public security department.  At the same time, the foreign NGOs have to submit work reports and financial reports to “professional supervisory units” and declare their financial sources and transactions, and details of their funding plans (Article 19 and 20). In other words, all activities and financial information of the foreign NGOs are under close monitoring of government departments. Under this monitoring system, domestic NGOs receiving funding supporting from or cooperating with foreign NGOs are also under full surveillance. In a democratic and free country, an accountable NGO has the due diligence to disclose operations and financial details to public. However, in a totalitarian state ruled by persons, such as China, stringent monitoring systems are government’s tools to control domestic and foreign NGOs. Activities and projects operated by foreign NGOs in the country are under the regulation of Foreign NGO Law.

 

 

 

“Grey areas” disappeared as business scopes are regulated

According to Article 3 of the Foreign NGO Law, “foreign NGOs may carry out activities that will benefit the development of public welfare in such fields as economy, education, science and technology, culture, health, sports, environmental protection and in such aspects as poverty alleviating and disaster relief in accordance with this Law”. The Foreign NGO Law also states that foreign NGOs “shall not threaten China’s national unity and safety and the unity of all ethnic groups of China; shall not jeopardize China’s national interests”, and that “foreign NGOs shall not engage in or provide financial support to for-profit activities or political activities within China. They are also forbidden to illegally conduct or sponsor religious activities.” (Article 5) These clauses set limitations on activities of foreign NGOs and excluded political activities disapproved by Chinese Communist Party from legal framework. One can expect that besides socially high-risk organizations (such as human right or social advocacy groups), other foreign NGOs not working within the above business scope will also have difficulties in finding a “professional supervisory unit” and become legally registered for activities in China.

 

Civil society disempowered upon as new law takes effect

The purpose of the Foreign NGO Law is to screen organizations acceptable to Chinese Communist Party through “professional supervisory units”, legalize their status through registration and “file documentation”, and drive unwelcomed organizations out of China. As the Foreign NGO Law came into effect, civil society in China can no longer work under the “grey area”. All organizations which do not have the blessings from “professional supervisory units” are considered illegal. However, the law only listed general screening criteria (such as “shall not jeopardize China’s national interests” or “involved in political activities”) without elaborations or objective standards of these actions. The definition of eligibility would be fully controlled by local “professional supervisory units” and public security department.  The law has granted local government departments the “flexibility” which put many foreign NGOs in ambiguous situation.  The person-in-charge of an organization with projects in various parts of China said, “Sometimes the registration depends on the relations between the organizations and related departments, and how much the local government relies on the projects. For example, provinces relatively poor in resources usually hold more open attitude to NGOs.” Definition of sensitive issues also varies according to local politics. Some provincial or prefectural governments are more tolerant to environmental organizations investigating private enterprises which violated environmental protection laws, as they can maintain relations with the enterprises while meeting the directives handed down by the Central Government. However, similar behaviors may not be acceptable in other provinces or prefectures. In the future, one organization may be registered in some provinces and prefectures while forbidden to operate in other provinces or prefectures.  The risk of “making mistakes” would be much higher for some organizations which have been operating along the borderlines. For self-protection, these organizations may stop operation of high risk projects in the future.


The impact of enactment of Foreign NGO Law on those organizations working along borderlines may mostly be change in strategy or creation of more administrative workload. However, for those civil rights-based organizations, the law means “China does not welcome you to work in the country”. By excluding these organizations from the legal framework, it also raises their risk levels as they are considered illegal organizations in the country. In the future, if the Chinese government wants to outlaw these organizations or arrest their staff, there’s no need to use the “pocket laws” which are weak in legal basis. The basis for “law enforcement” will be stronger and the political cost will be reduced. This is in line with Xi Jinping’s approach of “governing the country by law” by limiting spaces of civil society with draconian laws. It also posts threats to foreign NGOs which are operating in “grey areas” or “restricted areas”. Some international organizations are preparing to withdraw from China and relocate their resources to regions with lower risks. The implementation of Foreign NGO Law has immediately resulted in self-censorship or relocation by some foreign NGOs, which has somehow weakened the strength of Chinese civil society and social reform.  No matter how the new law will be implemented and executed in the future, it is already creating more difficulties to civil society and NGOs in China.

Hong Kong-listed companies cheat Chinese workers out of their hard-earned money

24

Dec 2016

while the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the Exchange) turns a blind eye

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) has set up a “Monitoring Database of Hong Kong Enterprises in China” three years ago, to acquire information through media, social media, and interviews with labour organizations and workers in China. This year, the “Monitoring Report on Collective Labour Disputes of Hong Kong Enterprises in China” (Monitoring Report) covers from May 2015 to June 2016.  It documents large-scale labour disputes in Hong Kong enterprises and their labour violations, and aims to monitor multinational brands and Hong Kong entrepreneurs. It also advocates the Hong Kong Government to better monitor Hong Kong-listed enterprises’ conducts in other countries / territories. Last year, the Monitoring Report (2015) disclosed that many Hong Kong enterprises failed to pay for workers’ social security contributions and consequently led to a wave of strikes. This year, the Monitoring Report tells us about how these Hong Kong enterprises use relocation, equity transfer, restructuring, and prolonged wages arrears to force workers into “voluntary resignation”, in order to avoid paying severance compensation as required by law. Almost 60% (59.3%) of the cases of collective labour disputes are related to missing severance compensation and some of them involve listed companies in Hong Kong. Likewise, wages arrears take place in 56.3% of all collective labour disputes cases.

 

Hong Kong-listed Royale Furniture Holdings Ltd. is suspected to send triad members to dispense workers and avoid paying severance compensation

Among the 32 cases of collective labour disputes in Hong Kong enterprises, almost 60% (19 cases) are caused by unpaid or missing severance compensation. Over 20% of them involved subsidiaries of Hong Kong-listed companies. Royale Furniture Holdings Limited (HKG: 1198) is one of them. During the National Day holidays in 2015, Signature Enterprise Company Limited (Guangzhou), a subsidiary of Royale Furniture Holdings Limited, moved machineries to another production site, about two hours drive from its Guangzhou plant, without informing its workers. Such a secret relocation is meant to avoid paying severance pay to workers.

 

 

Hiding plan of relocation from workers and accusing workers of “voluntary resignation”

According to an online platform which documents collective labour disputes, Signature Enterprise deployed triad members to threaten workers. Workers recalled that their employer offered them an extraordinary long holiday and when they returned to work (the morning of 8 October 2015), they found the factory gate had been locked and over 100 men were blocking their entrance. These men were all uniformly dressed in black T-shirts and camouflage pants. Workers were stopped when they walked forward to ask for a reason and three of them experienced minor injuries when a conflict broke out with these men.


Workers then came with a banner to protest. They reflected, “the employer never asked us about the relocation.” Then the enterprise posted a “Notice of Return to Work” some days later, which ordered workers to take a coach organized by the enterprise on 19 October, to travel to work in the new plant in Zengcheng, approximately two hours drive one way. Xiao Liu, a worker of Signature Enterprise, explained, “we are not willing to go there because our families are here, we can’t just go there and work.” He pointed to workers who guarded at the factory gate, “these workers have aging parents, babies and primary school aged children to take care of. It is unrealistic that the employer simply asks us to go over.” After Signature Enterprise’s relocation, Royale Furniture dismissed workers who did not go to work in the new plant, accusing them of “voluntary resignation” after five days of “failing to attend work”.

 

Lack of transparency, the Exchange’s neglect to monitor listed companies

Johnson Electrics (Guangdong) Limited is wholly owned by Hong Kong listed company Johnson Electrics (HKG: 0179). The plant ignores occupational safety, violates the local work safety regulations, fails to provide appropriate protective measures or training on working with chemicals. At least six workers contracted leukaemia, which may have been caused by prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals such as benzene and thinners. However, Johnson Electrics refused to pay for their medical expenses or their wages. When Zou Xiuhua, one of the six victims, demanded the employer to pay for his medical expenses he was told by the company: “we have so many workers with leukaemia in the enterprise, if I pay for your medical expenses, what should I do with other sick workers?”

 

Currently, at least four workers from Johnson Electrics have officially been diagnosed with occupational leukaemia, by the Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment. Despite this, Johnson Electrics adopts delaying tactics and refuses to pay the related compensations. For example, Zeng Shumei, a female worker who entered the factory in 2009, was diagnosed with acute myeloblastic leukaemia M2a in 2013. The Guangdong Provincial Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment also identified it as a case of occupational cancer. Yet, Johnson Electrics appealed and delayed the procedure in providing related information for an official diagnosis, which kept her case in limbo. Likewise, leukaemia victims were offered a meeting with Liang Yanfan, general manager of Johnson Electrics’ Human Resources Department in Shajing Plant in Shenzhen, but they were physically assaulted after the meeting. Workers came to protest in Hong Kong twice. Johnson Electrics “agreed” to meet again with workers but continued using delaying tactics once the media stopped following the case.


The HKCTU lodged a complaint at the Exchange and provided evidence of workers’ official diagnosis of occupational disease, accusing Johnson Electrics of violating Chinese labour legislations and failing to pay workers their legal compensation. However, the Exchange refused to meet, not even with the severely ill victims who travelled to Hong Kong. The exchange wrote to the HKCTU, calling the complaint insignificant to Johnson Electrics and refused to further process it. In fact, the Exchange has never disclosed its investigation procedure or evaluation criteria. With such a lack of transparency, how can the Exchange be trusted that it would uphold public interests and monitor listed company impartially?

 

 

Listed Companies’ Disclosure of Information: a laughing stock

In July 2015, the Exchange amended its policies on listed companies’ disclosure of information and released a consultation paper “Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting Guide” (Reporting Guide). Amendments would then be applicable to the Listing Rules. Labour standards are included in the social aspect in the Reporting Guide. The Reporting Guide upgraded the disclosure of some aspects from “recommended disclosure” to “comply or explain”. During the consultation period, the HKCTU wrote to the Exchange and recommended “a set of clear disclosure guidelines and criteria” of labour standards for listed companies to comply with. A listed company has a responsibility to clearly inform their investors, employees and public about its labour standards and the compliance of labour protection, for the stakeholders to make informed evaluation of the impact of the company’s labour violations on themselves. The Exchange eventually demands listed companies to disclose “related policies” on labour rights and their compliance with labour legislations, but without the detailed records of the frequency of labour violations and related labour actions. For example, in Hutchison Whampoa Limited’s Annual Report 2014, the impact of Hong Kong Dockers’ Strike on its turnover was not spelled out. Though stakeholders might be aware of the labour action, they are not informed about the loss such an industrial action could lead to. As a fact, the amendments neither encourage listed companies to implement policies to protect workers, nor promote better governance to the public. They even fail to protect investors’ interests, as they lack details from the disclosure of information, if those self-proclaimed policies by the listed companies have been implemented or proven effective.  


This year’s Monitoring Report illustrates that in the midst of Guangdong’s economic transformation and as economic slowdown deepens in China, even Hong Kong listed companies would sacrifice workers’ basic legal rights and exploit them mercilessly. Labour conditions in small or medium-scale enterprises can only be more appalling. The cases described above also show that the Exchange connive listed companies, in both aspects of policy making and implementation. The Exchange’s lack of transparency is unhelpful in monitoring the listed companies’ compliance of corporate social responsibility and protecting the public’s right to know. As a result, the Exchange fails to provide concrete protection to both Chinese workers and investors.

Unusual Features of China’s Walmart Workers’ Resistance

24

Dec 2016

China has experienced an increasing number of strikes in the last few years. Among them, the Walmart workers’ protest that is now in its third month marks a new stage in post-Mao labour history. The protest exhibits a number of special features. First, while all of the strikes so far have taken place at single workplaces, coordinated strikes erupted at the same time this year at four Walmart stores in different cities. Second, these strikes, as well as protests at many other Walmart stores, were initiated and organized by workers themselves without prior contact with any labour NGOs. Third, the protests have been coordinated through the internet, using an on-line platform set up by two Chinese Walmart workers in 2014, The founders gave it a low-key benign name “Walmart China Workers’ Association” (WCWA). The two men serve as coordinators of blogs and chat rooms, with the intention of providing a platform for workers to exchange information, particularly on legal knowledge. The internet discussions have given workers a sense of collective identity as Walmart workers. Though the network does not have any formal organizational structure, it is has become a powerful organizing tool.

 

 

A question has to be asked: why is it that since almost all Chinese workers now have mobile phones, other protests and strikes in China tend to take place at single workplaces. The difference is that Walmart workers have an unusual sense of common identity since the problems they face at Walmart stores are very similar to the minutest details. This identity is a product of Walmart’s unique corporate structure and management method and style. Walmart through the years has always tried to build up a personality cult around its founder, Sam Walton. All stores have the same organization structure, the same number of hierarchical levels, the same rules and regulations, all workers are given an English name, and they all have to scream the same Walmart Cheer in unison every day and have the same message drummed into them they are “Walmart persons.” (沃爾瑪人). Even though many of the workers harbour a host of grievances against the company’s authoritarian management practices and low wages, they do think of themselves as Walmart workers. Walmart’s socialization process works, though not in the way Walmart would like it. This Walmart identity is also found in the United States. The American Walmart workers who organize themselves in a protest group call their association “Our Walmart”. In China, WCWA members have all shared similar experiences and speak the same Walmart language.


What sparked the Walmart strikes is a new company policy. In mid-May Walmart announced that it was going to use a “generalized work hour system”, which is very similar to American Walmart’s “open work hour system.” This allows extreme work hour flexibility. The Chinese Walmart workers were mortified. This would mean regular work hours are thrown out of the window and workers have to come to work anytime on call. Suddenly WCWA’s membership jumped to 10,000.



WCWA is not the first effort to organize workers at China Walmart. In 2006, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the biggest union in the US, was launching an international campaign against Walmart, and for its own reasons China’s official union, the ACFTU, was receptive. That year the ACFTU was under strong pressure from the Chinese government to deal with a rising number of strikes in the country. To gain influence among the workers, he ACFTU decided to do what it had not done since the 1950s: organize workers. The ACFTU experimented with organizing Walmart workers “underground”. In less than two months, without Walmart’s knowledge, the ACFTU was able to set up close to twenty democratically elected Walmart union branches. But afterthe ACFTU publicized what it had done and demanded that, under Chinese law, Walmart must accept the union branches, Walmart cut a deal with the ACFTU.  A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed with Walmart to set up union branches in all of Walmart’s 100-plus stores with Walmart’s active participation. Since then, Walmart union branches have been staffed by Walmart human resource (HR) managers.


Nevertheless, the initial 2006 spate of democratic union-branch elections had unintended consequences. Workers who had participated in those elections and are still working in Walmart stores want to get back their union. Not surprisingly, the main labour activists today in the WCWA are in their mid-forties. Other Walmart workers know that their own stores have union branches and they have some idea about trade unionism, even if their branches are being chaired by Walmart’s managerial staff. As wages and work conditions declined at Walmart, a few of them have tried to run for union election. Walmart management, with the tacit support of the official local unions, put all types of obstacles in their way.


In its campaign WCWA is very insistent in pursuing the ACFTU at national, provincial and city levels to support them in the fight against Walmart, because ten years ago they had helped workers set up democratic workplace union branches.


Pressured by the WCWA, People’s Daily and the Guangdong Provincial Trade Union announced that retailers such as Walmart are not eligible to use the comprehensive working hour system. But district-level trade unions and labour inspection offices continue to ignore these announcements. This is because in the Chinese political structure, their real superior is the local government, which is interested in attracting foreign investments and thus colludes with factory owners. But the two announcements gave the Walmart workers’ struggle legitimacy. Right now the activist workers are bringing their cases to court. WCWA is calling on the international labour community to support them in fighting this battle.

 

Anita Chan, a specialist on Chinese labour issues, is editor of The China Journal and a visiting research fellow at the Australian National University. She has published nine books and more than a hundred academic articles about China. Her books include, as editor, Walmart in China, Cornell University Press, 2011. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Wukan Village, a cry for democracy from the grassroots in China

24

Dec 2016

 

Wukan, a small village in Lufeng, Guangdong, became the focus of China politics again. Five years ago, large scale farmers’ protest broke out due to land dispute in Wukan village. More than 4,000 people went on the street, eventually forcing the Chinese communist regime to give in and allowed villagers to elect their village chief with equal and anonymous vote. Lin Zuluan, leader of the farmers’ protest and twice elected as the chairman of villagers’ committee, was taken away by police for “accepting bribery” in June this year. In September, Lin was sentenced to prison for 3 years and 1 month. The verdict has led to another large scale protest by the villagers.

 

Local government crackdown on elected village chief

The “Wukan Village Model” was once considered as an example of rational response to public demand for democracy by the Chinese government, a milestone of bottom up democratic development. But this new hope did not last long.  After being elected as the chairman of villagers’ committee, Lin Zuluan has vowed to take back villagers’ land unlawfully occupied or sold, but for years the demand did not receive response from the local government. Experts pointed out that many of the local officials, together with many other powerful people, were involved in the unlawful occupation and sale of farmers’ land, and that was why the local government did not want to touch on this sensitive issue.


With nowhere to turn to, Lin Zuluan planned to make a petition to higher level government with the villagers. But just before the date of their planned action, he was arrested for accusations made up by the police. In fact, before Lin Zuluan was arrested, two vice-chairpersons of the villager’s committee were arrested, and another member of villagers’ committee was seeking asylum from the USA government. The actions of the local government were to stop the Wukan villagers from demanding justice from the corrupted officials, which triggered large scale protest by the villagers. 

 

Accusations made up on villagers

The incident in Wukan village has outraged the villagers, who went on strike in the market and schools. A “marathon” rally of 80 days was organized in the village.  On 13 September, a large troop of armed police and public security entered the village. After serious conflict with the villagers in protest, the police dispersed the villagers with tear gas and plastic bullets, and arrested 13 villagers in home raid at dawn.  According to the public security office of Lufeng, these villagers were arrested for participating in unauthorized assembly, rally and protest, and have seriously disrupted public order. The local authority warned the villagers “not to be agitated by the unlawful ones, stop participating in unlawful assembly, rally and protest”. After the crackdown, the local government drove away Chinese and foreign media to blockade the news. Five reporters from Hong Kong were detained and beaten up by police during detention.

Comparing to the Chinese central government under Hu Jingtao’s leadership which sent communist party committee of Guangdong Province to Wukan to mediate the situation in 2011, Xi Jinping’s used high-handed approach to Wukan as if he was dealing with close enemies. The all-round crackdown in Wukan and unlawful arrest of human right activists and lawyers by central and local governments are indicators that China is entering iron-fist era under the Xi leadership.

 

Right to independent and autonomous organization

Incidents related to land disputes are happening daily in Mainland China, and Wukan is just a tip of the iceberg. According to the Institute of Sociology of Academia Sinica, among the 200,000 cases of large scale protests, nearly half of them were related to land disputes. Wukan was once considered a new model in practicing grassroots democratic election, which could hopefully be promoted in other villages for check and balance of local bullies. But the cruel reality told us the “Wukan Village Model” is still part of the “bird cage election” of the Communist Party of China. The chairman of villagers’ committee, though elected through universal suffrage by the villagers, was still under the leadership and surveillance of chief of village party branch. Leaders of county and provincial government have vested interest in a complicated network with local bullies, which prevented them from delegating actual power, making elected representatives at grassroots a nominal position.  


The failure of democratization of village elections is very similar to reform of grassroots unions in recent years. Though some grassroots unions have undergone “reform” and elected their workers’ representatives, there were repeated cases of reducing power or replacing representatives by the higher level unions. If the Chinese government does not open up right to free association and organization, democratic reforms at the grassroots would only become a tool for whitewashing and maintaining stability.

Johnson Electric neglecting occupational health

24

Dec 2016

Leukemia victim came to HK calling for compensation

 
Johnson Electric (HKG 0179) is one of the world’s largest manufacturers in motion subsystems and components for automotive and industrial applications, supplying to a number of well-known brands such as Audi, Porsche, BMW, etc. While claiming, as shown on its website, that ‘No harm to people working for us wherever we operate’ is one of their specific Environmental, Health and Safety goals, its words and performance surely lack consistency. A number of employees and former employees of Huaseng Motor (Guangdong) Limited in Shenzhen, a subsidiary manufacturer of Johnson Electric, have contracted leukemia due to prolonged exposure to hazardous chemicals (benzene) and lack of adequate protection equipment provided in workplace. Huaseng has also refused to compensate for statutory medical expenses and pay for original wages and welfare benefits as required by law.

 

On 14 July, 2016, three Leukemia victims (Xie Fengping, Zeng Shumei, Zhou Xiuhua) came to Hong Kong to protest against Johnson Electric at their Annual General Meeting demanding the company to immediately address and take responsibilities regarding the precarious Occupational Health and Safety conditions.

 

 

Victims in deep debt, weltering in tears

After working for five years at Huaseng from 2008, Xie was diagnosed with leukemia (acute myeloid leukemia subtype M2, AML-M2) in late 2013. In October 2015, Guangdong Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases confirmed her condition as occupational cancer caused by Benzene exposure. As pointed out by her husband, Mr. Lan, after her diagnosis, Huaseng has been failing to pay the original wage as required by law and refusing to compensate for medical expenses beyond health insurance. ‘Where did the sense of ethics and responsibilities go’, he denounced.


Another worker Zeng Shumei who worked for the company from August 2009 was also diagnosed with acute leukemia M2 in 2013. Despite the diagnosis provided by Guangdong Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases, the company has been deliberately delaying the submission of relevant information as an attempt to obstruct the assessment process. ‘I completely broke down and almost committed suicide’, Zeng said tearfully. She worked 11 hours a day in the Graphite workshop, with frequent contacts to soldering flux and white mineral oil. Now that she has been diagnosed, she needs to borrow ¥350,000 in order to cover her medical expenses, and in the meantime, she also needs to take care of her children and aged parents. ‘Every day in hospital, I welter in tears,’, she wiped.


Zhou Xiuhua, was another male worker who was diagnosed with acute leukemia M4 and is now undergoing chemotherapy. His occupational disease diagnosis assessment process was also procrastinated by Huaseng. His wife, a former employee of Huaseng, told us that Huaseng has never contained in labour contracts the potential health-threatening occupational diseases, nor has it provided protection equipment or safety training. The company refused to compensate, and now the family has no choice but to borrow money for her husband’s treatment.

 

Invisible killer Benzene; Tip of the victim iceberg

Benzene is a type of petrochemical material widely used for producing lubricating oil, thinner, paint, cleaning agent, industrial solvent, etc. Benzene is highly volatile and most exposure can be transmitted through skin and inhalation. Acute occupational exposure to benzene may cause headache, dizziness, drowsiness, palpitation acceleration, tremors and loss of consciousness and a long-term exposure could lead to blood related diseases, including leukemia, neutropenia and severe anemia, etc. The three workers from Johnson Electric only constitute the tip of victim iceberg. According to Zhou’s wife, there were at least six other workers in Huaseng had contracted leukemia. Moreover, Labour Action China (LAC) has pointed out that, in recent years, the number of occupational disease victims in China has risen exponentially and there were many cases received from Toys, Automobile Parts and Electronic Parts manufacturing sectors. Unfortunately, some of the victims in these cases already passed away due to the disease. Not only did the companies stall diagnosis processes, they were also in arrears with the salary, health insurance and medical compensations. Collusions between local governments and companies, and the deficient system, put the workers in desperation.


After the press conference, the three workers and their families, together with representatives of CTU and LAC, protested at the Johnson Electric Annual General Meeting in demanding the company to take responsibilities and make compensation. During the protest, the workers and their families repeatedly demanded the CEO of the company, Dr. Patrick Wang to address the problem Dr. Wang did not receive the workers on the occasion. The company only sent Ms. Kristie Leung, the general manager from its human resources department, to receive the petition letter. The HKCTU and LAC will continue to assist the workers in their demands and lobby Johnson Electric to terminate the use of benzene and other toxic chemicals.

Chinese and Hong Kong civil societies

06

Jun 2016

are interconnected beyond borders

 
Shortly before the 27th anniversary of Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Hong Kong Federation of Students decided to quit the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China despite being one of its founding members. The Alliance is the chief organizer of the annual vigil and march in Hong Kong to commemorate the Tiananmen Square Massacre and has been upholding “building a democratic China” as one of her principal goals. But such a goal is no longer a collective aspiration shared among all student organizations. Many students believe that Hong Kong people should prioritize their goal in building a democratic Hong Kong rather than a democratic China since Hong Kong is in dire straits. So, is “building a democratic China” really outdated?

 

Indeed, there is no doubt that Hong Kong is in dire straits. The Chinese Central Government has brutally broken its promise to give Hong Kong people genuine universal suffrage and kept intervening the internal affairs of Hong Kong. Chinese authorities were sent from the other side of the border to abduct publishers in Hong Kong. Obviously, the “one country-two systems” has turned into nothing more than a broken promise. In the past, the democratic camp in Hong Kong would demand the Chinese Government to keep her promise of “high degree of autonomy”. However, all these demands have turned into bubbles. On the other hand, the emergence of xenophobic nativism in recent years advocates a complete cut off from China and calls for full independence. However, under the current trend in “one country taking over two systems”, nativism also offers no way out. Despite their different demands, the traditional democratic camp and the xenophobic nativist groups are both restricted by their obsessions in “Hong Kong and China division”.

 


Obviously, if the current Chinese regime continues her autocratic rule, there is no room for Hong Kong to pursue democracy. Thus, to build a democratic China is no longer an old fashioned goal, but a solution for serious consideration. Likewise, it should not exist simply as a slogan. How to turn it into actions, to support the ever-growing civil resistance in China, is exactly what the Hong Kong democratic movement should look into and get involved.


In China, more and more common people have joined collective actions, to defend their rights when they become victims of corruption, environmental pollution, forced land seizure and labour rights violations, which are the by-products of China’s rapid economic growth in past years. Taking labour movement as an example, China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong based NGO estimated that in 2015, there were 2,944 strikes in China, a 10 times growth in just a few years. These collective actions, not only have stopped certain vicious exploitations, but also helped certain groups of people in developing their rights awareness. Relatively independent civil society organizations have come into existence in the fields of environmental rights, human rights, religious rights, women’s rights, labour rights and etc. in the last decade. They continued to struggle for breathing space in between grey areas to test the tolerance of the authority. With their continuous participation in collective actions, they have accumulated certain social support.


Since Xi Jinping took office, the Chinese Government has taken a heavy-handed approach to suppress the civil society. In March 2015, it launched sweeping arrests, targeting many activists of women’s rights and labour rights, human rights lawyers and etc. This marks the “political dead-end” of civil society movement, which has been tolerated by the authority in the past. It is obvious that Xi is anxious about the growth of civil resistance, especially when he sees the examples of Eastern Europe and Northern Africa. He is worried that civil resistance would evolve into a force of political opposition.


In April 2016, a court in Guangzhou handed down severe prison sentences to three Chinese citizens who showed their support to the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Such sentences only indicate how paranoid the Chinese Government has become. If Hong Kong and Chinese resistance movement would join hands, domestically and internationally, it will threaten the governance of the current regime and becomes the regime’s worst nightmare. In fact, with a lack of experience and resources, many Chinese organizations have taken Hong Kong as a hub to seek local and international support. When Chinese organizations and their staff members were harassed, suppressed, or arbitrarily detained, the news would first travel to Hong Kong and subsequently release to the international community, which would then monitor the deeds of Chinese Government. Under this background, Chinese Government passed Regulations on the Administration of Foreign NGOs in April 2016, attempting to legally subdue foreign (including HK) support to Chinese organizations and isolate the latter.


If the democratic movement in Hong Kong is to turn its back to its Chinese counterpart, it means each of us will fight our own battle and might run the risk of getting insolated. On the contrary, if Hong Kong civil organizations would use its strength and break through the geographical barriers, to develop better linkage with Chinese civil society and bring in practical support, to help and guide them to an independent and self-sufficient approach, together we will become a democratic force to challenge the autocratic regime eventually.

Xi Jinping’s Battle to Rule:

06

Jun 2016

Interview with senior journalist Bruce Lui

 
Mr Bruce Lui, is a prominent journalist and a senior lecturer at the Hong Kong Baptist University. He used to serve as the Principal China Reporter of the Hong Kong Cable TV before switching to train the next generation of journalists. He continues to stand out for persistently seeking the hidden truths of contemporary Chinese politics. So when HKCTU invited him to speak at our “June 4 Forum”, Mr Lui immediately granted our wish as he has a clear conscience to expose the truths of the Xi Jinping’s regime to the Hong Kong people.

Growing up as a Party’s Crown Prince, “Xi Jinping’s logic of his governance can be best described as a top-down battle to defend his regime.” Mr Lui comments. The objective of this battle is to defend the power consolidated by their revolutionary fathers. After having meticulously studied the collapse of the Soviet Union, Xi considers that the decentralization of power, economic downturn, the rise of civil society and middle class were the forces that brought the Soviet Union down to her knees and gave birth to Colour Revolution. As a result, the master plan of his battle is to crush all potential challenges, no matter how insignificant they are. This explains why Xi is so eager to eliminate the power of other standing committee members in the Politburo since he came into power (such as weakening the functions of the Premier and Committee of Politics and Law). Furthermore, Xi attempts to subdue the civil society so as to prevent the potential risks of an economic downturn. In fact, the scale and scope of the suppression under Xi’s regime is far broader and deadlier than the two previous administrations. In 2015, the mass arrests of human rights’ lawyers was the deadliest of the same type of suppression over the years. Meanwhile, the crackdown of the labour activists later in the same year is also catastrophic.

 

Mr Lui believes, Xi’s power will further be consolidated after the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party, which will be held next year. Among the seven current standing committee members of the Politburo, all will have to retire except Xi himself and Premier Li Keqiang. Thus, Xi is expected to bring in more of his own henchmen into the Politburo to further strengthen his regime. At the same time, Xi has accumulated considerable political reputation among the general public from his anti-corruption campaign. Couple with China’s current economic power, it is expected that the current administration can continue to suppress civil society free of domestic and international pressure. In short, the civil society may face a dim future as Xi continues to pursue his political battle and expand its political censorship.


Regarding the nativism movement in Hong Kong, which has been fuelled in recent years; Mr Lui emphasizes that since Hong Kong has strong institutional, geographical, and cultural tides with the Mainland, it is impossible to isolate Hong Kong from the ongoing changes in China’s political landscape. In such a chaotic time, Hong Kong people would find themselves losing out if they are unable to gain a better understanding of China. For example, the National Security Law (2015) has clearly defined areas of national security. So in future, if the legislation of Article 23 of Basic Law is introduced in Hong Kong, we could only do it under the framework already laid down by the National Security Law. Thus, Hong Kong people should know China better to counter the Chinese Government’s tactic to subdue “One Country Two Systems”. Although he was often labelled as a “moron who supports Greater China” (a term often used by the nativists to insult people who are concerned about China issues), but Mr Lui would continue to expose the hidden truths of the Chinese regime with reasons and facts, to enrich our knowledge in fighting against the battle initiated by Xi Jinping.

Chronicle of Suppression against Civil Society in Recent Years

05

Jun 2016

 

2014


Since 2014, top provincial official, Xia Bolong, strictly implemented a “Three Rectifications and One Demolition” campaign in Zhejiang Provincial, which was the centre of Chinese Christian Churches, to demolish crosses or churches. Up to date, more than 2000 crosses were demolished or removed, influencing several hundred religious sites.

 

On January 2014, Xu Zhiyong, the key proponent of the New Citizens’ Movement in China was found guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison for "gathering crowds to disrupt public order." by the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

 

On April 24th, 2014, a Chinese journalist, Gao Yu, was arrested. On November 26th, 2015, the Beijing's high court reduced the sentence of Gao from seven years to five years in prison and deprived her of political rights for one year in an appealing trial.

 

On June 13th, 2014, human rights defense lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was arrested by the Beijing police on suspicion of "creating disturbances and illegally obtaining personal information.” In December 2015, he was given a suspended three-year prison sentence. In April of the following year, he was disbarred by the Justice Bureau of Beijing.

 

2015


On January 1st, 2015, French "Le Nouvel Observateur" Beijing correspondent, Ursula Gauthier, was expelled from China.

 

From March 6th to 7th, 2015, five feminists Wu Rongrong, Zheng Churan, Li Tingting, Wang Man and Wei Tingting were arrested. The five was later released on April 13th in the same year.

 

On May 30th, 2015, Guangzhou labour activist and former member of Workers’ Autonomous Federation, Liu Shaoming, has been arrested and detained until now. The authority charged Liu with“Inciting Subversion of State Power.”The trial was ended on April 15th, 2016 without a verdict. 

 

On July 1st, 2015, the National People's Congress passed the “National Security Law of the People's Republic of China” (New Security Law) to further expand the scope of the definition of state security. And the law clearly stipulated to adhere to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (Article 4 of Chapter 1 and Article 15 of Chapter 2). In other words, it integrates the safety of CCP into state security. 

 

Since the first half of July 2015, hundreds of Chinese lawyers, social activists, petitioners and relatives of rights defenders were suddenly being arrested, subpoenaed and criminally detained by the police. Some of them are still missing nowadays. The number of people who were criminally detained, taken away, gone missing, interrogated, subpoenaed or temporarily lost of freedom were countless and spread out to more than 23 provinces.

 

From December 3rd to 5th, 2015, a large scale of government suppression against labour organizations in Guangzhou occurred. At least four labour organizations with a total of 25 staff and volunteers were detained and interrogated by the police. Seven of them were even detained for a long period or missing. Up to date, two of them were still under detention.

 

 

2016


On January 1st, 2016, famous pastor Joseph Gu of the state-sanctioned Chongyi Church in Zhejiang Province was detained on suspicion of “embezzling funds”. According to Reuters, he was arrested after his opposition against the removal of church crucifixes.

 

On January 29th, 2016, a registered church pastor in Shuzhen City of Zhejiang Province, Ji Hua, was placed under criminal detention along with his wife Zhang by the county police and charged with accepting bribes and embezzlement. 

 

On April 8th, 2016, The People’s Procuratorate of Guangzhou convicted supporters of umbrella movements, Xie Wen Fei, Wong Mo, and Zhang Sheng of “inciting subversion of state power”. Wang Mo and Xie Wenfei were sentenced to four-and-a-half years while Zhang Shengyu received four years on the same charge. They will be deprived of political rights for three years.

 

On April 28th, 2016, the National People’s Congress approved the “Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Activities of Overseas Non-Governmental Organizations within the Territory of China” to strengthen the state control on NGOs including source of fund and the areas of activities, that further suppresses civil society in mainland China. The law will be effective on January 1st, 2017.

 

 

 

 

Liu Shaoming was Charged for

04

Jun 2016

“Inciting Subversion of State Power” with Articles Memorizing June 4th

 

57 year-old labour activist, Liu Shaoming, was charged for “inciting subversion of state power” by the Chinese Communist Party. His indictment was based on his two articles related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square Movement which were published in April 2015, as well as some messages posted on WeChat (Weixin). He was tried at an Intermediate People's Court in Guangzhou in mid-April of 2016. The trial ended within one day and a verdict is still pending. Until now, Liu has been taken away and criminally detained by the Guangzhou police for more than a year. Liu is not allowed to meet with his lawyer by the authority due to claims that he is a “repeated offender” and should be punished harshly. Liu’s defense lawyer objected all such allegations.

 

According to Wu Kuiming, one of Liu’s defense lawyers, all allegations placed by the authority were based on the contents of Liu’s speeches, which implies that Liu’s prosecution is “basically a charge against speeches.” Liu Shaoming pleaded his innocent in court and both Liu and his lawyer belief that he was simply exercising his rights to freedom of speech and did not constitute a criminal offence.


Lau Shaoming was a member of Workers’ Autonomous Federation who went to Beijing before June 4th, 1989 to support the students’ movement in Tiananmen Square. He had been charged by “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement,” and was sentenced to one year in prison and deprived of political rights for one year. In recent years, he participated in many workers’ right defending actions and formed a group namely, “Workers Defenders Volunteers” that supported more than 10 workers’ actions in many places such as the cleaning workers in the university districts of Guangzhou, Xinsheng Shoe Factory workers, and Guangzhou Citizen Watch Co. workers etc.


 

Bios of the Detained Chinese Labour Activists

Zeng Feiyang, director of the Panyu Workers Centre, gave up his career in a law firm and started to run a Non-governmental labour organization in Guangzhou since 2000. His organization provided legal aid and handled labour rights defending cases until his arrest on December 3, 2015. He has been charged with “Assembling a crowd to disturb social order” and refused the right to meet with his lawyer since his arrest.

 

Meng Han is a former staff of the Panyu Workers Centre. He was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment as one of the striking workers and workers' representative of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Chinese Medicine University labour dispute. He joined the Panyu Workers Centre after his release. Meng was also arrested on December 3, 2015 and charged with “Assembling a crowd to disturb social order”. During his detention, his family has been repeatedly extorted by thugs.
Chinese and Hong Kong Civil Societies are Interconnected Beyond Borders

03

Jun 2016

 

Shortly before the 27th anniversary of Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Hong Kong Federation of Students decided to quit the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China despite being one of its founding members. The Alliance is the chief organizer of the annual vigil and march in Hong Kong to commemorate the Tiananmen Square Massacre and has been upholding “building a democratic China” as one of her principal goals. But such a goal is no longer a collective aspiration shared among all student organizations. Many students believe that Hong Kong people should prioritize their goal in building a democratic Hong Kong rather than a democratic China since Hong Kong is in dire straits. So, is “building a democratic China” really outdated?

 

Indeed, there is no doubt that Hong Kong is in dire straits. The Chinese Central Government has brutally broken its promise to give Hong Kong people genuine universal suffrage and kept intervening the internal affairs of Hong Kong. Chinese authorities were sent from the other side of the border to abduct publishers in Hong Kong. Obviously, the “one country-two systems” has turned into nothing more than a broken promise. In the past, the democratic camp in Hong Kong would demand the Chinese Government to keep her promise of “high degree of autonomy”. However, all these demands have turned into bubbles. On the other hand, the emergence of xenophobic localism in recent years advocates a complete cut off from China and calls for full independence. However, under the current trend in “one country taking over two systems”, nativism also offers no way out. Despite their different demands, the traditional democratic camp and the xenophobic nativist groups, are both restricted by their obsessions in “Hong Kong and China division”.

 

Obviously, if the current Chinese regime continues her autocratic rule, there is no room for Hong Kong to pursue democracy. Thus, to build a democratic China is no longer an old fashioned goal, but a solution for serious consideration. Likewise, it should not exist simply as a slogan. How to turn it into actions, to support the ever-growing civil resistance in China, is exactly what the Hong Kong democratic movement should look into and get involved.

 

In China, more and more common people have joined collective actions, to defend their rights when they become victims of corruption, environmental pollution, forced land seizure and labour rights violations, which are the by-products of China’s rapid economic growth in past years. Taking labour movement as an example, China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong based NGO estimated that in 2015, there were 2,944 strikes in China, a 10 times growth in just a few years. These collective actions, not only have stopped certain vicious exploitations, but also helped certain groups of people in developing their rights awareness. Relatively independent civil society organizations have come into existence in the fields of environmental rights, human rights, religious rights, women’s rights, labour rights and etc. in the last decade. They continued to struggle for breathing space in between grey areas to test the tolerance of the authority. With their continuous participation in collective actions, they have accumulated certain social support.

 

Since Xi Jinping took office, the Chinese Government has taken a heavy-handed approach to suppress the civil society. In March 2015, it launched sweeping arrests, targeting many activists of women’s rights and labour rights, human rights lawyers and etc. This marks the “political dead-end” of civil society movement, which has been tolerated by the authority in the past. It is obvious that Xi is anxious about the growth of civil resistance, especially when he sees the examples of Eastern Europe and Northern Africa. He is worried that civil resistance would evolve into a force of political opposition.

 

In April 2016, a court in Guangzhou handed down severe prison sentences to three Chinese citizens who showed their support to the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Such sentences only indicate how paranoid the Chinese Government has become. If Hong Kong and Chinese resistance movement would join hands, domestically and internationally, it will threaten the governance of the current regime and becomes the regime’s worst nightmare. In fact, with a lack of experience and resources, many Chinese organizations have taken Hong Kong as a hub to seek local and international support. When Chinese organizations and their staff members were harassed, suppressed, or arbitrarily detained, the news would first travel to Hong Kong and subsequently release to the international community, which would then monitor the deeds of Chinese Government. Under this background, Chinese Government passed Regulations on the Administration of Foreign NGOs in April 2016, attempting to legally subdue foreign (including HK) support to Chinese organizations and isolate the latter.

 

If the democratic movement in Hong Kong is to turn its back to its Chinese counterpart, it means each of us will fight our own battle and might run the risk of getting insolated. On the contrary, if Hong Kong civil organizations would use its strength and break through the geographical barriers, to develop better linkage with Chinese civil society and bring in practical support, to help and guide them to an independent and self-sufficient approach, together we will become a democratic force to challenge the autocratic regime eventually.

 1 2 3 >  Last ›