| |
China's compitalists: Worst of both
worlds
By Li Yong Yan
BEIJING
- When communism mates with capitalism, the unlikely
couple breeds a monster - a compitalist - inheriting the
worst of both gene pools: ruthless power and unchecked
greed.
Here is an illustrating example: A
commercial real-estate developer takes an interest in a
block of the city. He figures that by building a
shopping mall on that lot, there will be a lot of money
to be made. So he goes to the municipal government's
equivalent of a zoning committee. Upon payment of the
rent to use the land, the developer obtains permission
to have his bulldozers roll into the site. Under the
constitution, all land belongs to the people's
government that is in a legitimate position to sell the
use of the land.
Notice anything incomplete or
missing from the transaction? A careful reader will
immediately point out: "It can't be as simple as that.
What about the buildings and the residents on the lot?"
The developer has already taken that issue into
account. In fact, he is so thorough that he already
submitted a plan to the government on how to dispose of
the existing buildings, and residents, as well. Now the
developer plasters a big notice on the walls of those
buildings, informing the owners and rent-payers that the
land under their feet will be put to another use by
government order. Yes, they will receive a compensation
fixed by the government. But no, the rate is
non-negotiable. And they must vacate by end of next
month, or face eviction.
Tough luck if your
house happens to be located on the lot. But what's that
you say, the compensation is hardly enough to afford
your family a new roof? The land may be owned by the
state, but the hut was built by your grandfather and you
were never approached by either the government or the
developer about the deal? Talk to the bulldozers.
First your water mains are shut. Then your power
is cut. If you are still determined to hold your fort,
you will be dragged out forcibly and the bulldozers will
begin to tear down the walls in front of your eyes.
You'll call the police. And they will tell you over the
phone that it sounds like a commercial contract out of
bounds to the police. "What contract? I never agreed to
any contract with anybody about my house." Then you
realize that you are protesting to a dead phone. So you
will go to the court that on a good day will tell you
that the eviction is perfectly legal and lawful. There
is no case. "Look, the developer has all the correct
papers to level your house. He has proper authorization
from the government," the court official will explain to
you kindly. "And the government is perfectly within its
rights to do what it wishes with its own land, right?"
Sure enough, just behind the charging
bulldozers, a cluster of court clerks stand by, their
expression solemn and important. The thing is, they are
on the opposite side, there to enforce the eviction
should you dare obstruct "justice".
So you are
thrown into the street, on your own, all alone against
the government and the developer, both of whom do
everything strictly by the law. This one-two punch is
exactly what has happened across China, and it has
driven some desperate people to take extreme measures.
On August 22, Wong Biao, a resident in Nanjing, the
capital city of Jiangsu province, returned from yet
another futile attempt to talk with the local government
only to find his house leveled to a pile of ruins. That
was too much for the usually meek man. He set himself on
fire. Less than a month later, on September 15, Zhu
Zhangliang traveled all the way from his hometown in
Anhui province to Beijing. Standing in Tiananmen Square,
he poured gasoline on himself and lit a match. For the
same reason.
What is so wrong about these sad
episodes? On one hand, the government leases out the use
of the land on purely commercial terms. Different
locations have different prices. Nobody is coerced into
the deals. On the other hand, the state uses its
enormous power to force the deal down the throat of
affected residents who never have a say in the process.
Everybody has to obey. The compensation rate is whatever
the government says it is. Even the developer's notice
reads like a royal edict, "You must leave by 18th of
October." The ownership of the land and the property on
it is separate, and the state's rights override and
ignore personal ones. Those in charge make sure you
respect their ownership over the land your house sits
upon. But then they never recognize you have a right to
your own property, meager as may be.
In the
past, when China practiced socialism to the letter and
spirit, there was no such thing as commercial
development. Every project was undertaken by the
government, for the government and of the government.
Every eviction notice was signed by the government that
wished to build an airport or pave a road under your
window. Now private and commercial real estate
developments are cropping up like mushrooms all over the
country. The government is raking in the land rent by
the billions. To keep up the revenue, all avenues of
negotiated settlements and legal remedies are closed to
the "aboriginals" who are never invited into the
conference room.
That is communism at its worst
and capitalism at its ugliest. They combine to profit
from each other's expertise at the expense of social
justice. The abuse is not limited to the property
market. Another chilling example is in the way workers'
rights are trampled.
We all know that in their
bid for power, China's communists loved to instigate and
organize union strikes against "cold-hearted"
capitalists. Mao Zedong told his followers, "It is right
to rebel," when he was championing the "working class".
As soon as the communists took power, however,
they removed the "right to go on strike" from the
constitution. It is illegal to picket a factory because
when communism took over all enterprises were
nationalized and became state-owned. There was no other
kind of ownership. Theoretically, therefore, you
couldn't even protest against yourself. Fine and dandy.
But then, things began to change. The very capitalists
that were driven out are now eagerly courted. Foreign
investments once regarded as imperialist aggression are
now warmly received. As a result, ownership structure
changed, too. There are now hundreds of thousands of
wholly owned foreign factories operating in China. One
would think that the communist government would surely
follow its tradition by encouraging the Chinese workers
in those mills to organize trade unions and allow them
to go on strike in case capitalists from Japan, Korea
and America revert back to their exploitative and
inhuman nature.
Think again. Independent unions
still are banned. Strikes remain illegal. The
capitalists are now the protected species because
Beijing can't afford to see foreign investments dry up.
Nor does the government want the workers in state-owned
enterprises to demand the "equal rights". It would be
too much of an irony if an electrician working for a
foreign employer had more protection than his
counterpart in a socialist factory. Another fear factor
is that independent unions just may grow too powerful -
a la Poland during the late 1980s and early 1990s
- for Beijing's comfort.
Therein lies the root
of the social injustice highlighted by the act of self
immolation in Tiananmen Square. That is how those
residents find themselves on the short end of the
property deal, oppressed by the state and exploited by
the capitalists all at once, left and right, literally
and figuratively.
Li Yong Yan is an
analyst of Chinese business.
(Copyright 2003
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
