Siege mentality

While 'occupy' campaigns have been taking place in cities such as New York, Taipei and Hong Kong, mainland internet users have been calling for people to visit a village in Shandong province. More than 120 people reportedly made the trip during the mainland's 'golden week' national holiday last month. Yet, all these 'tourists' were either intercepted or assaulted. Some were even hooded and abducted, taken to unknown locations where they were detained and physically abused - for up to 20 hours - before being arrested by police for suspected theft and sent back to their home towns.

These people were trying to visit Chen Guangcheng, the blind, self-taught lawyer who has helped the disabled receive tax concessions they were legally entitled to, but which local governments had refused to hand over. He also revealed the barbaric acts practised in the name of local family planning and was jailed for four years on charges of vandalism and 'gathering people to obstruct traffic'. Since his release, his home has been his prison. He is watched constantly and communication with the outside world has been cut off. Both his home and roads that lead to it are guarded.

Local authorities in Linyi city define Chen's case as one of 'contradictions between ourselves and the enemy'. To many people, Chen is not 'an enemy of the state' or a criminal, but a civil rights lawyer who should be given back his freedoms in accordance with existing legal and judicial provisions. Moreover, he is regarded as a caring person who also has physical disabilities. People therefore believe the Linyi government has been abusing its office and tarnishing the reputation of the Communist Party and even China. Central leaders would be very angry if only they knew what was happening.

In fact, the international community has long expressed concern about Chen's case. State leaders should be aware that even US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has talked of his case. So why don't they just order Linyi officials to stop the abuse?

One analyst cited the 'domino effect' of the case, saying that if Chen were released, the public would then ask who should be held responsible for his imprisonment. If this happened, several levels of Linyi leaders would be culpable. In the worst case, the public might then ask: 'When will dissidents in Beijing be set free?'

This analysis is perhaps overly logical. Such things are very unlikely to happen at a time when the government strictly controls power and public opinion, and the traditional thinking that 'the emperor's kindness should be respected' has never died out. One example of this is the fact that Chen's daughter was finally allowed to go to school after having been kept at home with her parents for nearly a year - but is still accompanied by an escort to and from school. This should be seen as a victory for Chen's fight. But, after the news got round, many people said instead that it marked 'remarkable and encouraging' progress by the Linyi government. Better still, Chen and his wife should have been released, the officials who arrested them held responsible, and the mainstream media allowed to cover the whole process. That way, the local government would have had to explain the matter under public scrutiny. This would have really been a sign that the government had made progress.

So, why is it difficult to break the deadlock? In my opinion, Beijing might not believe there is a problem in Linyi and has simply dismissed internet users' fears. Indeed, the central government may well think that Linyi officials have done a good job of maintaining stability.

Otherwise, how could the government explain the predicament of those being detained in Beijing? In the name of upholding stability, Linyi authorities allowed villagers to beat and detain visitors under the pretext of 'catching thieves' before taking them to the police. The villagers were able to take the opportunity to openly rob these people and have become more inclined to attack strangers.

In accordance with the logic of maintaining stability, if Beijing is not under any pressure to deal with the events in Linyi, it will continue to turn a blind eye. The campaign to visit Chen - commonly called 'Occupy Linyi' and initiated by internet users - also caused controversy. Some people think the 'visitors' rushed to Linyi just so they could feel they were doing something. But the organisers should have known from the outset that they would have no chance of seeing Chen.

The organisers of the campaign went about it the wrong way. Instead of openly attracting the attention of senior government leaders, or attempting to infiltrate Chen's home village in secret, they should just have made public the facts of their visits. One thing is certain: the system of maintaining social stability is getting absurd, not to mention cruel.

Chang Ping is a current affairs commentator writing on politics, society and culture. This commentary is translated from Chinese