Many of you seem to think so. Read this and learn otherwise:
China's rough ideological transition
By Wu Zhong, China Editor
HONG KONG - China's program of economic reform and opening up to the world has never gone smoothly. Every major move has been met with strong opposition from orthodox Communist Party ideologues and Marxist scholars. Progress has been made only after a hard struggle between the reformists and the conservatives, or "leftists" as the latter are called in China.
Although the voices against reform and opening up to the international community get weaker and weaker with the passage of time, they nevertheless try to make themselves heard at every opportunity.
A good example of the ongoing ideological struggle occurred two years ago when a Marxist law professor at Peking University voiced opposition to China's first legislation aimed at protecting real-property rights. "Real property" here refers to tangible property in general, including real estate and movable property.
China's sweeping reforms, started by Deng Xiaoping in 1979, have largely transformed the country's Stalinist-style command economy into a free-wheeling market-oriented one, with the private sector playing an increasingly important role in the country's economy.
According to a 2006 blue paper on non-public economy by the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, a non-governmental chamber of commerce composed of private industrialists and business people, the private sector was contributing 50% of China's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of 2005. If foreign investors are taken into account, the contribution to the national economy by the private sector in the broader sense amounted to 65%.
And the private sector has become a major source of tax revenue for the state. According to the blue paper, taxes paid by the private sector at the end of 2005 exceeded those of the state-owned enterprises. In some regions, 70-80% of the local governments' revenues came from the private sector.
For this reason it is only logical to call for legislation to protect private businesses and private property. Thus, in March 2004, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's parliament, revised the constitution to include a new clause: "Citizens' legal private property is inviolable." This marked China's departure from socialism with the constitutional recognition and protection of private property.
Since China has largely adopted a continental legal system, with such a revision it is natural and necessary to enact relevant laws to back up the new clause in the constitution. Hence the passage of a real-rights law is a must.
China already has laws on intellectual-property rights in force. With a law on real-property rights, legal protection of private property would be more complete as both tangible and intangible properties would be under legal protection.
In fact, as early as 1998, the Standing Committee of the NPC had already set up a nine-member team to oversee the drafting of a real-property law. After the constitutional revision, a draft real-property law was ready to be scrutinized and passed by the NPC in its annual session in March 2006.
However, in August 2005, Gong Xiantian, a Peking University law professor and Communist Party member who had studied in the former socialist Yugoslavia, submitted an open petition to the NPC Standing Committee saying that the draft real-rights law "violates the principles of the constitution". His petition was supported by about 200 scholars and retired officials.
Gong said the essence of the draft law was to protect the real rights of the extremely rich minority, though in form it sounded as if everyone's rights would be protected. "It equally protects a rich man's limousine and a beggar's rod," he said sarcastically.
Furthermore, he slammed the draft law for not copying another clause in the constitution stipulating that "state property is inviolable", saying that if legislated and implemented, the law could cause more state-asset losses.
Such an argument is absurd and not worth refuting. State-asset losses are largely caused by collusion between corrupt officials and business people, not because of a lack of legal protection. In fact, there are legal stipulations to protect state assets and deal with such criminal offenses.
As an analogy, no one can say Hong Kong is short on legal protection of the banking industry if a bank gets robbed.
Gong obviously based his criticism on an ideological argument instead of a legal point of view. As such, he acted in a way that defeated his own purpose. The draft law is an elaboration of a new clause in the constitution, and any criticism must focus on whether it deviates from the spirit of the constitution. Failing to do this, his criticism becomes pointless.
Nevertheless, perhaps Gong's bluff about "state-asset losses" touched a sensitive political nerve; NPC chairman Wu Bangguo ordered the legislation of the property law to be shelved, and instructed legislators to make further revisions to provide a better balance between protection of state property and that of private property. So it was not included on the agenda of the 2006 NPC annual session.
However, Gong and his supporters may not really want a perfect law on real-property rights. Their real intention was, perhaps, to ensure there would be no such law at all in China. So when he learned that the draft law was likely to be included on the agenda of this year's NPC session, Gong issued another public petition to Wu Bangguo on December 26. Repeating his argument, Gong asked that the draft law be virtually shelved forever. And he seemed to have adopted the tactic of "offense is the best defense" by demanding that the NPC consider legislating a law on state property.
Before the opening of this year's NPC session on March 5, opponents to the draft property law gathered for a final effort to halt the bill. More than 3,000 scholars and retired officials signed a petition demanding that the NPC not pass the law. One of the petition's initiators, the former director of the National Bureau of Statistics, Li Chengrui, said that among those who signed the petition were about 30 retired vice-minister-level officials, more than 10 retired generals of the People's Liberation Army, and about 50 professors from the Central Party School, according to a report by the Chinese-language Ming Pao daily in Hong Kong.
Li said China now had come to "the most dangerous moment". He said problems facing the country, such as the widening income gap, rampant official corruption, embezzlement of state assets and social injustice could be blamed on "that law that they want to be legislated".
But this time, the campaign met with immediate counterattacks, suggesting that the authorities want to pave the way for the law to be passed.
Jing Ping, a tenured professor at China University of Law and Politics and a staunch advocate for the real-rights law, said the draft had been revised seven times. "What do they [the opponents] want? Should we do exactly as they say? I say no."
A professor with the Central Party School revealed that when Gong and his supporters made their first criticism - that the draft law could be unconstitutional - the authorities paid serious attention to their view. But after talks with them, the central leaders found that they in fact had ulterior motives. "What they are trying to veto is not really the draft law on real property, but the general policy of economic reform and opening-up laid down by Deng Xiaoping," she said.
At a press conference on March 4, Jiang Enzhu, deputy secretary of the NPC Standing Committee, said the accusation that the draft property law was unconstitutional was "a one-sided" view.
Last Thursday, Wang Zhaoguo, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, formally presented the draft property law to the annual session of the parliament for consideration. Lawmakers will cast their votes this Friday.
In his presentation, Wang said: "Enacting the property law is necessitated by the need to safeguard the immediate interests of the people. As the reform and opening-up and the economy develop, people's living standards have improved in general, and they urgently require effective protection of their own lawful property accumulated through hard work, of the right to land contractual management they enjoy in accordance with the law, and of their other lawful rights and interests.
"Enactment of the property law will serve to define and protect private ownership, condominium rights, right to land contractual management and house-site-use rights, for the purpose of protecting the immediate interests of the people, stimulating their vigor to create wealth and promoting social harmony."
Hopes are that the law will be passed, for China really needs such legislation to protect private property. For instance, housing is now largely privatized, but in many cities, local officials continue to force demolition of buildings for reconstruction. In rural areas, chunks of land are taken away from farmers with little compensation, even though their lease contracts are still valid.
However, should lawmakers decide to veto the legislation, then it is hoped that their decision will be made entirely on legal grounds rather than because they are yielding to political influence.
From another perspective, the Chinese Communist Party must make greater efforts to tackle problems that arouse growing public discontent, such as official corruption, the widening income gap and social injustice. Otherwise, more and more people will likely join the "leftists" to question the purpose of economic reform and opening up to the world. And such public sentiments, when they have grown to a certain point, could force a reverse of the course charted by Deng.
In this regard, the growing nostalgia felt by many elderly people in recent years for life under Mao Zedong, poor but equal, with less corrupt officialdom, already serves as a warning.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
China's rough ideological transition
By Wu Zhong, China Editor
HONG KONG - China's program of economic reform and opening up to the world has never gone smoothly. Every major move has been met with strong opposition from orthodox Communist Party ideologues and Marxist scholars. Progress has been made only after a hard struggle between the reformists and the conservatives, or "leftists" as the latter are called in China.
Although the voices against reform and opening up to the international community get weaker and weaker with the passage of time, they nevertheless try to make themselves heard at every opportunity.
A good example of the ongoing ideological struggle occurred two years ago when a Marxist law professor at Peking University voiced opposition to China's first legislation aimed at protecting real-property rights. "Real property" here refers to tangible property in general, including real estate and movable property.
China's sweeping reforms, started by Deng Xiaoping in 1979, have largely transformed the country's Stalinist-style command economy into a free-wheeling market-oriented one, with the private sector playing an increasingly important role in the country's economy.
According to a 2006 blue paper on non-public economy by the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, a non-governmental chamber of commerce composed of private industrialists and business people, the private sector was contributing 50% of China's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of 2005. If foreign investors are taken into account, the contribution to the national economy by the private sector in the broader sense amounted to 65%.
And the private sector has become a major source of tax revenue for the state. According to the blue paper, taxes paid by the private sector at the end of 2005 exceeded those of the state-owned enterprises. In some regions, 70-80% of the local governments' revenues came from the private sector.
For this reason it is only logical to call for legislation to protect private businesses and private property. Thus, in March 2004, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's parliament, revised the constitution to include a new clause: "Citizens' legal private property is inviolable." This marked China's departure from socialism with the constitutional recognition and protection of private property.
Since China has largely adopted a continental legal system, with such a revision it is natural and necessary to enact relevant laws to back up the new clause in the constitution. Hence the passage of a real-rights law is a must.
China already has laws on intellectual-property rights in force. With a law on real-property rights, legal protection of private property would be more complete as both tangible and intangible properties would be under legal protection.
In fact, as early as 1998, the Standing Committee of the NPC had already set up a nine-member team to oversee the drafting of a real-property law. After the constitutional revision, a draft real-property law was ready to be scrutinized and passed by the NPC in its annual session in March 2006.
However, in August 2005, Gong Xiantian, a Peking University law professor and Communist Party member who had studied in the former socialist Yugoslavia, submitted an open petition to the NPC Standing Committee saying that the draft real-rights law "violates the principles of the constitution". His petition was supported by about 200 scholars and retired officials.
Gong said the essence of the draft law was to protect the real rights of the extremely rich minority, though in form it sounded as if everyone's rights would be protected. "It equally protects a rich man's limousine and a beggar's rod," he said sarcastically.
Furthermore, he slammed the draft law for not copying another clause in the constitution stipulating that "state property is inviolable", saying that if legislated and implemented, the law could cause more state-asset losses.
Such an argument is absurd and not worth refuting. State-asset losses are largely caused by collusion between corrupt officials and business people, not because of a lack of legal protection. In fact, there are legal stipulations to protect state assets and deal with such criminal offenses.
As an analogy, no one can say Hong Kong is short on legal protection of the banking industry if a bank gets robbed.
Gong obviously based his criticism on an ideological argument instead of a legal point of view. As such, he acted in a way that defeated his own purpose. The draft law is an elaboration of a new clause in the constitution, and any criticism must focus on whether it deviates from the spirit of the constitution. Failing to do this, his criticism becomes pointless.
Nevertheless, perhaps Gong's bluff about "state-asset losses" touched a sensitive political nerve; NPC chairman Wu Bangguo ordered the legislation of the property law to be shelved, and instructed legislators to make further revisions to provide a better balance between protection of state property and that of private property. So it was not included on the agenda of the 2006 NPC annual session.
However, Gong and his supporters may not really want a perfect law on real-property rights. Their real intention was, perhaps, to ensure there would be no such law at all in China. So when he learned that the draft law was likely to be included on the agenda of this year's NPC session, Gong issued another public petition to Wu Bangguo on December 26. Repeating his argument, Gong asked that the draft law be virtually shelved forever. And he seemed to have adopted the tactic of "offense is the best defense" by demanding that the NPC consider legislating a law on state property.
Before the opening of this year's NPC session on March 5, opponents to the draft property law gathered for a final effort to halt the bill. More than 3,000 scholars and retired officials signed a petition demanding that the NPC not pass the law. One of the petition's initiators, the former director of the National Bureau of Statistics, Li Chengrui, said that among those who signed the petition were about 30 retired vice-minister-level officials, more than 10 retired generals of the People's Liberation Army, and about 50 professors from the Central Party School, according to a report by the Chinese-language Ming Pao daily in Hong Kong.
Li said China now had come to "the most dangerous moment". He said problems facing the country, such as the widening income gap, rampant official corruption, embezzlement of state assets and social injustice could be blamed on "that law that they want to be legislated".
But this time, the campaign met with immediate counterattacks, suggesting that the authorities want to pave the way for the law to be passed.
Jing Ping, a tenured professor at China University of Law and Politics and a staunch advocate for the real-rights law, said the draft had been revised seven times. "What do they [the opponents] want? Should we do exactly as they say? I say no."
A professor with the Central Party School revealed that when Gong and his supporters made their first criticism - that the draft law could be unconstitutional - the authorities paid serious attention to their view. But after talks with them, the central leaders found that they in fact had ulterior motives. "What they are trying to veto is not really the draft law on real property, but the general policy of economic reform and opening-up laid down by Deng Xiaoping," she said.
At a press conference on March 4, Jiang Enzhu, deputy secretary of the NPC Standing Committee, said the accusation that the draft property law was unconstitutional was "a one-sided" view.
Last Thursday, Wang Zhaoguo, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, formally presented the draft property law to the annual session of the parliament for consideration. Lawmakers will cast their votes this Friday.
In his presentation, Wang said: "Enacting the property law is necessitated by the need to safeguard the immediate interests of the people. As the reform and opening-up and the economy develop, people's living standards have improved in general, and they urgently require effective protection of their own lawful property accumulated through hard work, of the right to land contractual management they enjoy in accordance with the law, and of their other lawful rights and interests.
"Enactment of the property law will serve to define and protect private ownership, condominium rights, right to land contractual management and house-site-use rights, for the purpose of protecting the immediate interests of the people, stimulating their vigor to create wealth and promoting social harmony."
Hopes are that the law will be passed, for China really needs such legislation to protect private property. For instance, housing is now largely privatized, but in many cities, local officials continue to force demolition of buildings for reconstruction. In rural areas, chunks of land are taken away from farmers with little compensation, even though their lease contracts are still valid.
However, should lawmakers decide to veto the legislation, then it is hoped that their decision will be made entirely on legal grounds rather than because they are yielding to political influence.
From another perspective, the Chinese Communist Party must make greater efforts to tackle problems that arouse growing public discontent, such as official corruption, the widening income gap and social injustice. Otherwise, more and more people will likely join the "leftists" to question the purpose of economic reform and opening up to the world. And such public sentiments, when they have grown to a certain point, could force a reverse of the course charted by Deng.
In this regard, the growing nostalgia felt by many elderly people in recent years for life under Mao Zedong, poor but equal, with less corrupt officialdom, already serves as a warning.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)