Why I Wore A Bullet-Proof Vest For The Last Six Years (The Rebuttal Case)

Oops!  It looks like the Central Propaganda Department has just struck back.  The original letter by Huang Jingao (see previous post) has been removed from all the websites (sina.com, sohu.com, tom.com, etc) together with other related material (such as the interview with the Beijing News).  Instead, if you type in the name Huang Jingao, you will find the official 10,000 word statement from the Fujian provincial authorities condemning him.  The full translation of this rebuttal appears below.

Who do you believe now?

If you go back to my previous post, you will note that my introduction was quite reserved.  I wrote: "People's Daily should not be publishing every letter that it receives, because some of them could in fact serve nefarious purposes."  I had assumed that People's Daily had done its due intelligence.  The original letter was sent on August 8 and published on August 11, so it is not clear if People's Daily had taken enough time to investigate this matter.

Was Huang's letter one of those nefarious letters?   Or was it the rebuttal letter, which is quite detailed?  At this point, it is impossible for an ordinary news reader to determine.  This is now a case of "He Said Versus They Said."  For example, the rebuttal letter implies that the disagreement between the two parties was due to a poorly constructed Memorandum which was unclear about the points of dispute.  Since that Memorandum has not been published, it is difficult for outsiders to judge.

However, it can be said that the rebuttal letter is antagonistic in tone and uses the kind of language that will invoke fear and loathing, to wit: the exhortation not to let "the western hostile forces, the Taiwanese hostile forces, the overseas democratic movement elements and the Falun Gong elements" disrupt the economic development and social stability of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province and the western economic region in the Taiwan Strait.   It is precisely statements like these that help the causes of these outside 'evil' forces.

The rebuttal letter consists of a long recitation of dates on which various bureaucratic committees held meetings and issued reports.   Meetings and reports may convey the impression that certain people were working hard, but it does not necessarily mean that the work was adequate or effective.

Although the rebuttal contains a great many details, there is one significant component missing.  In Huang's letter, he recounted how he was dragged into this matter.  On his first day at work, he was besieged at his office by more than 100 petitioners holding banners and chanting slogans about the "Land Case".  On the second day, more than two hundred showed up.   Eventually, he had to meet with more than 600 petitioners at the same time.   The petitioners' complaint was that the developer had not compensated the displaced families adequately.  The Huang Letter mentioned that in the interest of social stability, the government had to pay more than 3 million yuan to these petitioners from its own treasury.  The rebuttal contains no mention of this aspect.  In fact, the rebuttal contains no mention of any real people such as these petitioners.   Generally, this has been the key criticism of the Communist Party --- it is a vast bureaucracy involved in having meetings, making reports and repeating slogans while being completely out of touch with the masses.  This rebuttal fits that stereotype to a tee.

To be fair, there was one petitioner mentioned in the rebuttal.  That would be the real estate developer company's vice-president, who also happens to be a National People's Congress delegate.  This very special petitioner received the full attention of the National Petition Office, which even sent people down to Fuzhou to push his case.  Most other commoner petitioners do not receive that kind of first-class treatment.

I noted a couple more anomalies in the rebuttal case.  One, it was confirmed that former deputy mayor Lin Hua and other officials were disciplined for corruption related the "Land Case" but no details were offered.  It was a tactical mistake to provide no further information because speculations must abound about the relationship to the current situation.  

Two, the rebuttal hints at citizen complaints about personal corruption on the part of Huang Jingao. Given Huang's assertion that he was threatened and had to wear a bullet-proof vest, it would not be surprising that character assassination would be attempted as well.  It should be the duty of the Party and the Government to protect Huang against such unfounded allegations, instead of aiding and abetting through ill-disguised hints dropped in the rebuttal case.  In an interview with Beijing News, Huang laughed about those letters in circulation, and he welcomes any investigation into his unostentatious and rather boring family circumstances. 

P.S.  Here is a photo of Huang Jingao wearing a bullet-proof vest that the rebuttal said did not exist.

[translation]  The Fujian authorities respond to the Huang Jingao affair

On August 11, the People's Daily featured prominently on the front page the article titled <<A letter from the Lianjiang County Committee Secretary to the People's Daily: Why I Wore A Bullet-Proof Vest for the Last Six Years>>.  Afterwards, various other websites inside and outside of China as well as some news media published this letter as well, leading to undesirable social consequences.  The Provincial Committee and the Provincial Government leaders of Fujian paid serious attention to this matter and made some concrete directives on the handling of this matter, and the City Committee and the City Government have also taken active steps to combat the negative effects in order to ensure social stability.  We will now report on the related situations:

1.  The origin of the Lianjiang "Land Case"

In 1998, after the serious flooding disasters from the Yangtze River, the whole country began anti-flooding construction work.  The Provincial Committee and the Provincial Government invested in thousands of miles of public projects to increase the heights of the anti-flood levees.  In Fuzhou City, the City Government and the Provincial and City Water Works Department put the Lianjiang levee onto its construction project list.  Concerning the major potential problem posed by the anti-flood levee, the Lianjiang County government held three mayoral meetings respectively on August 10, August 25 and August 31, covering the demolition of the old city near the riverside, the construction of a new east-west bridge, a 3,000 meter long road along the riverside and increasing the height of the levee so that it can handle water levels that are encountered only once in thirty years.  The proposal involved the road, the levee as well as real estate development.  On February 12, 1999, the proposal was passed after the Lianjiang County Standing Committee studied it.

The proposal was originally going to be implemented with a 60 million yuan bank loan to be obtained by the Lianjiang County government.   However, the government could not procure the bank loan and the government also did not have the money to make the investment on its own.  Therefore, the Lianjiang County Committee and County Government decided in May 1999 to study the possibility of putting the plan up for open bidding, and the preliminary plan was as follows: For the Riverside Road and the Levee, the developer would provide the construction money up front (the required capital was around 30 million yuan), but the Lianjiang government will offer as compensation the 20 hectares of land in the northern section of Danfeng Road, the 58 hectares to the north of the Post and Telecommunications Building, the 17 hectares on Yuhe East Road and the four pieces of land totaling 65 hectares for the Yushan Parking Lot.   Any shortfall will be covered by the Country Government treasury.  The developer would also be responsible for expanding all facilities such as public parks as well as compensating any homes that need to be demolished and removed, and also work on the real estate development inside the redlined area of the old city.

In May 1999, through the introduction of a Political Committee Member Mr. Wu, a Hong Kong group came to Lianjiang to inspect the situation.   After many discussions, they signed an <<Agreement To Develop The Riverside Road Reconstruction Project>> on June 26, 1999.  Lianjiang County began to prepare for the various items on the project.  Unfortunately, the project was terminated later since the Hong Kong group was unable to come up with the capital.   On October 12, 1999, the Lianjiang County government met again to discuss the matter of finding commercial developers for the Riverside Road development.  The decision was to open the process to bidding, with the requirement that the winning bidder must post a 10 million yuan deposit.  Afterwards, there were five companies including the Australian Hsiungshu Business Group (found to be unregistered after investigation by the Provincial and City Commerce Departments) who began discussion with the Lianjiang County government.

On January 21, 2000, the Lianjiang County Standing Committee and the Deputy Mayor met and heard the report about the progress on the bidding.   The attendees believed that the various developers were basically acceptable, and Hsiungshu Company offered the highest bid for the four pieces of land designated by the Lianjiang County government as compensation for the reconstruction work.

Based upon the sentiments of the meeting, on January 29, 2000, on behalf of the Lianjiang County government, Huang Shiaofeng, who was the deputy of the Riverside Road Command Department, signed an Agreement For Development with Zhen Baochai who was the legal representative of the Hsiungshu Company.  On February 3, 2000, a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Lianjiang County Committee was convened where the Agreement For Development was accepted on principle.  Based upon this agreement as the blueprint, an open bid was published to the public.  Between February 4 to February 14, 2000, the bid contract was publicized on the Lianjiang County television station for 10 days in a row, and an advertisement was posted at the entrance of the Museum.  The deadline for entering a bid was February 25.

During this period, several developers made inquiries.   However, due to the huge capital requirements, low profit prospects as well as the long duration, they passed on the bid.  In the end, only the Hsiungshu Company made an offer based upon the published requirements, and they also posted 500,000 yuan in deposit.

On February 25, 2000, the Lianjiang County Standing Committee and the Deputy Mayor met and determined that even though only one company (that is, the Hsiungshu Company) offered a bid and posted a deposit, they ought to expedite the project and therefore they agreed to sign a formal contact with Hsiungshu.  On March 9, 2000, Lianjiang County represented by deputy mayor Lin Hua signed the <<Lianjiang Riverside Road Reconstruction And Real Estate Development Memorandum>> (referred to hereafter simply as the Memorandum) with the Hsiungshu Company.  After the Memorandum was signed, the Hsiungshu Company posted the 10 million yuan deposit.

In the Memorandum, the following were stated clearly: the Riverside Road (including the fortification of the anti-flood levee, the park, the bridge and the facilities) will be built and paid for by the developer (about 30 million yuan); the developer will be responsible for the compensation of the displaced families who lived on the Riverside Road; the designated land lots (marked by redlines on the map) will be developed by the real estate developer; the Riverside Road construction loan will be compensated by the County government with four pieces of land (a total of 101 hectares valued at 26,765,000 yuan, including other fees), with the remaining funds being provided by the County government.  The contract also stipulated that the four pieces of land should be given to the developer only after construction on the levee has begun.

In order increase local tax revenues, the Memorandum also asked the developer to establish a company within Lianjiang County.  In June 2000, the Hsiungshu Company established the Fuzhou Yuancheng Real Estate Development Limited Company (referred hereafter to as the Yuancheng Company) in Lianjiang County.  On July 12, the Lianjiang County government, the Hsiungshu Company and the Yuancheng Company signed the <<Additional Memorandum>>, in which the obligations that the Hsiungshu Company signed with the Lianjiang County government were transferred to the Yuancheng Company.

After the Memorandum was signed, the Yuancheng Company believed that the plan offered by the Lianjiang County for Riverside Road was a bit too unrefined, and asked a professor at the Xiamen University Planning and Design School to make modifications in conjunction with the comrades at the Provincial Construction Committee.  The professor and the Provincial Construction Committee agreed to change the anti-flood levee from a curved shape to a straight-line, expanding it by 20 feet outwards.  The five groups in Lianjiang County reviewed the proposed revisions and were satisfied.  On May 10, 2001, the Lianjiang County Standing Committee agreed with the revised plan, and then the Yuancheng Company commenced to construct the Riverside Road, the modification of the old city and to develop the real estate.

Up until March 2002, the Yuancheng Company had completed about 80% of the work on the Riverside Road levee, 30% of the work for the road surface; 20% of the real estate development, offering 446 units for sale with 265 units being sold.   In the old city, the total area of the displaced homes was 44,971.18 square meters, with 411 displaced homes (in 22 housing units), of which 226 homes were compensated and 185 homes were given property swaps.

At the start of March 2002, the Lianjiang County Committee changed its personnel.  The original County Committee Secretary was transferred, and the Fuzhou City Financial Committee Secretary Huang Jingao became the Lianjiang County Committee Secretary.  After Comrade Huang showed up to work, he received continuos reports about corruption problems during the development of the Riverside Road and this was investigated by the personnel.  After investigation, they found that there was supposed to be 28.09 hectares additional land due to the extension of the levee as well as 1.75 hectares of excess land at the old wine factory.  Of these land lots, which are nationally owned, the Yuancheng Company had used 13.93 hectares without compensating the government.

On March 26 and 28, the Lianjiang County government issued the <<Notice To Temporarily Cease Using Nationally Owned Land>>, pointing out that the company's Garden Street Phase One and River Summer Building Phase One construction projects included more than 10 hectares of government-owned land.   Since the problem of compensation for the land is unresolved, work on them should be suspended temporarily.

On April 1, the Lianjiang County Standing Committee convened to discuss the matter of the Yuancheng Company taking over nationally owned land.   It was determined that a special leadership group should be formed to deal with the matter.  Afterwards, the Lianjiang Land Assessment Department made assessments about the land that Garden Street Phase One and River Summer Building Phase One took over.

On April 15, the five groups in the Lianjiang County government met and decided that the County Government will assume control over the land, but the developer had the opportunity to purchase land on a one-time-only basis.   Afterwards, the leadership group that was formed to deal with residual problems from the Riverside Road reconstruction project met with the directors of the Yuancheng Company and communicated to them the decisions of the five groups in the Lianjiang County, asking them to go to the Land Department to complete the process.  The Lianjiang County leaders also negotiated several times with the Yuancheng Company, and promised them that they could make a partial payment for the time with the rest being paid in installments.  However, the Yuancheng Company disagreed and believed that the rights to the two land lots belonged to them, and consequently there was no issue of unresolved compensation.

At the same time, the Yuancheng Company believed that this issue arose due to a problem of leadership transition at the county and the two leaders had completely different attitudes towards the company.  Since no agreement was reached, the Lianjiang County Land Supervisor and various City enforcement agencies showed up at the Yuancheng Company construction site to demand the developer to stop working.

On one hand, the Yuancheng Company petitioned the Fuzhou City People's Government for an administrative order.  On the other hand, the company's Vice President Zhou Huangmen filed an <<Emergency Report On The Lianjiang County Government Plans To Renege On Its Contractual Obligations In The Reconstruction Of The Old City And Cause Our Company Huge Economic Damages With Serious Social Consequences>> with the National Petition Office.

On the grounds that the Lianjiang County government issued the <<Notice To Temporarily Cease Using Nationally Owned Land>> to re-establish its ownership lacked legal foundations, the Fuzhou City Government issued an <<Administrative Restoration Order>> on July 22, 2002 titled <<The 2002 Number 3 Document to Restore The Decision>>, superceding the 2002 documents 60 and 61 on the <<Notice To Temporarily Cease Using Nationally Owned Land>> issued by the Lianjiang County government.  During the same month, the Lianjiang County Government special task force arrested Yuancheng Company's vice president Zhou Lungcheng and other related personnel on the grounds that the Yuancheng Company was engaged in economic crimes.

The key point of dispute between the Yuancheng Company and the Lianjiang County government was about the additional 28.09 hectares of land after the original Riverside Road design plan was expanded outwards as well as the right of ownership for the 1.75 hectares of land on the excess land at the former wine factory.

The Yuancheng Company believes that the aforementioned land lots belonged in the old city development area, and there was no issue related to undetermined or unpaid compensation.

Its principal reasons were:

  1. According to the requirements of the <<Memorandum>>, the Yuancheng Company was responsible for compensating the several hundred families who lived within the designated area of about 51,000 square meters that was used to expand the Riverside Road.  As compensation, the Lianjiang County government allotted the land within the Riverside Road Plan Area in from the Lianjiang anti-flood levee to a width of 41 meters (of which the road and the dividing area occupied 20.5 meters and 6 meters respectively) for real estate development.   There is no issue of illegally taking over nationally owned land there.
  2. The <<Memorandum>> only specified the cost of the project and the assessed price of the four lots of land that the government used as compensation.  But there is no requirement that these two land lots have to be compensated.
  3. The County Land Department signed a contract with them about land ownership rights, clearly indicating that the River Summer Buildings Phase One and Garden Street Phase One (which includes the additional 13.93 hectares of land) do not require compensation.
  4. If these two land lots require compensation, then why did the Yuancheng government not directly use these two land lots in the compensation package to the developer?

The Lianjiang County government believed that these two land lots are national reserve properties and belongs to the government.  The reasons were:

  1. The Riverside Road is built through the investment of the government, and therefore any land that was created as a result of the levee construction belongs to the government.
  2. The additional 28.09 hectares of land that were created as a result of government investment to change the levee shape from curved to straight, to move the levee outwards, to compensate displaced people and to clear out the land before it could be used.  The 1.75 hectares at the old wine factory was additional land that came as a result of the Yuanswenshan Road construction project for the government, and it was therefore also land created by the government.
  3. The redlined area on the map only represented the basis of development, but it did not imply that the two pieces of land within the area did not require compensation.
  4. The <<Memorandum>> did not specify that the two lots of land did not require compensation.  This previously undefined problem can be clarified now.
  5. The Yuancheng Company pointed out that the land was "tied in" the package, but the two pieces of land had not existed before the levee was move outwards.  This is the cause of the disagreement between the two parties.

2.  How the Provincial and City Committees Handled the "Land Case"

The National Petition Office treated the petition by Zhou Huangmen very seriously.  On May 14, 2002, the National Petition Office sent a <<Letter On The Petition By Zhou Huangmen>> to the Provincial Committee leaders, with copies of the letter from Zhou to the central government leadership plus the related documents.

On May 20, the Provincial Committee and the Discipline Committee leaders demanded that Fuzhou City organize an investigation.  The City Committee leaders gave serious attention to this matter and asked the City Discipline Committee to lead the investigation.  After the personnel studied the matter, they concluded that the land dispute between the developer and the County government should be resolved by negotiations.  At this time, Huang Jingao expressed his dissatisfaction with the conclusions reached by the City Discipline Committee.  Based upon his request, on June 11, the City Discipline Committee formed a special investigation group consisting of personnel from the City Land Department, Planning Department, Construction Department and Water Works Department to conduct yet another investigation of the matter.   The conclusion was that the <<Memorandum>> signed by both parties did not contain sufficient clarity to resolve the land dispute.  They recommended the two parties should both recognize their responsibility on this matter, and that they should either resolve this matter through negotiations or in a court of law.

At this time, on June 27, the City Committee made a self-evaluation to the Provincial Committee which was forwarded as <<The Self-Evaluation Report Concerning the Investigation Of The Dispute Between The Developer And The County Government Over Land Use In The Lianjiang Riverside Road Reconstruction Project>>.

Since the two parties in the dispute insisted on their original positions which are diametrically opposite to each other, the above problems could not be resolved.  In the ensuing period, the Lianjiang government determined that there may be corruption problems with the Yuancheng Company, and took action to freeze the company accounts and arrested the petitioners.  Once again, the Yuancheng Company went twice more to visit the National Petition Office.  On September 4, 2002, the National Petition Office invited the Provincial Committee and Fuzhou City Discipline Committee and City Committee personnel to come to Beijing to discuss.  The National Petition Office leaders expressed their opinions, and severely criticized the erroneous ways in which the Lianjiang government handled this matter.  There were four main points:

  1. An original matter of economic dispute was turned into a politically colored economic case.  When Lianjiang County issued a Notice to the developer to stop work, the developer appealed to the Fuzhou City government which overturned the Notice.  Thereafter, Lianjiang County attempted new steps, including letting the County Land Office proceed to the County Court to void the Land Compensation Contract, to organize the relevant departments to audit the Yuancheng Company, to freeze the accounts of the Yuancheng Company, to arrest the petitioner Zhou Huangwen (unsuccessfully) and his son and company vice president Zhou Lungcheng.  At the time, Zhou Huangwen was a National People's Congress representative from Fuqing City (now a Fuzhou City NPC representative), and his arrest should have followed the proper legal procedures.  It was inappropriate to arrest Zhou Lungcheng for selling back land, since he was not the legal representative of the company.  Furthermore, the People's Supreme Court has stated that selling back land was just newly added to the criminal code and should be invoked with care.  These actions, which magnify the case, looked suspiciously like as if they were intended to damage the petitioner.
  2. The handling of the land dispute was done rather rashly.   Lianjiang County believes that the developer has taken over nationally owned land, but the Land Office did not bring up this problem when they first studied the issue.   Lianjiang County did not follow any legal process and directly issued a Notice to demand the developer to stop using the land and to compel them to cease work is self-contradictory and lacking in seriousness.
  3. The matter should be handled on its own terms.  An economic issue should be handled by economic methods, such as following the legal process.   Administrative and law enforcement departments should stick to the principles of justice, fairness and reason in handling this matter, following the proper procedures.   They should assess the ills and benefits to all the parties concerned and come up with a fair and reasonable strategy.  This matter should be returned to its principles away from outside interference.  The most important thing is not to create more diversions that complicate and expand the problem.  The petitioners should be permitted their freedom of speech.
  4. The matter should be reported and handled in a timely manner.  This should start by defining the work involved and then taking action accordingly after the facts become clear.  Furthermore, the situation should be reported to the National Petition Office in a timely fashion, and the reports should be checked by the leadership first.  This particular case was designated as one of the major cases of the year 2002, and timely reporting would be required.

After the provincial and city teams returned home, they made their reports to the provincial and city leadership.  The Provincial Committee leadership indicated that the Fuzhou City Committee should continue to handle the matter.   When the Fuzhou City Committee leadership heard the report, they held two more meetings on September 24 and October 2 to discuss this specific subject.  They emphasized that corruption must be attacked.  No matter who or what was uncovered, they will get to the bottom of the case in a way that will withstand the scrutiny of history.  At the same time, they insisted that everything has to be based on facts and the law and any problems related to the Lianjiang Riverside Road Reconstruction Project land dispute as well as party disciplinary problems should be seriously dealt with, being careful not to confuse the two issues together.

Prior to this, based upon the August 29 instructions, the City Committee had formed a special 8/29 task force from the City Public Security Bureau and the City Prosecutor's Office to investigate the dispute in the Lianjiang County Riverside Road reconstruction project again.  The work by the 8/29 task force began with the overall objectives of promoting economic development and ensuring social stability, to continue to fight the combination of corrupt elements and economic development, to insist on investigating all law-breakers in accordance with the law, to consider the full social and political impact, to distinguish between corrupt behavior and administrative mistakes, to follow the laws and regulations and, when the laws and regulations are unclear, to ask for instructions from the superior authorities.

Working in conjunction with the Lianjiang County Committee and government, the task group went over the situation of the land dispute between the developer and the Lianjiang county government.  The task group believed that the dispute between the Lianjiang County government and the Yuancheng Company arose out of these main factors: (1) the two sides have different interpretation about certain articles in the <<Memorandum>>, which was not clear on some issues; (2) during the dispute about the Riverside Road project, both sides used the <<Memorandum>> as the basis as if it were a contract.  Yet the articles in the Memorandum did not reach the legal requirement for contractual status, and they focused on the construction of the Riverside Road, the development of real estate and the compensation of land.  Neither side had clarified what would happen to the land rights after the redline plan was revised.

The 8/29 task force believes that the disputing parties should recognize the actual situation and augment the articles in the <<Memorandum>> in consideration of the sincere intentions of the government as well as the investment environment so that the problem can be resolved in accordance with the law.

The 8/29 task force also investigated the matter of the Yuancheng Company illegally reselling as well as reselling back the land use rights.   They believed that the Lianjiang leadership and personnel had not handled the case according to the law and that they had used a 'retail' approach in breaking the 60 hectares into pieces to audit, which would seem to violate the regulations concerning their right to investigate.  As for illegally reselling and reselling back land, this was a newly added criminal code.  This would be the first case in this city, and there are no other cases in the entire country for reference.  Since there are no concrete guidelines as yet, the related law enforcement departments had different opinions about this case.

On this matter, the 8/29 task force and the Lianjiang County Committee and Government consulted the Provincial Land Resources Department for confirmation, but did not receive any definitive answers.  Based upon this situation, the City Committee decided that in the interest of not delaying the progress of this case, this particular problem should be temporarily tabled until the authorities can definitively handle this.  At the same time, the 8/29 task force with the assistance of the Lianjiang County Committee processed the problem of illegal acts by former Lianjiang County deputy mayor Lin Hua, Wei Zishin and some other officials.

On January 28, 2003, upon the request of the City Committee, the City Discipline Committee leaders, the City Standing Committee members and the City Public Security Bureau director came to Lianjiang County to meet with the leaders of the five groups about the 8/29 reports.  They communicated the wishes of the City Committee to ask Lianjiang County to close the case in a timely matter and to grasp the sentiments of the masses; to seriously absorb the lessons and to build up teamwork so that care will be exercised in the future.  The members were urged to concentrate on economic development.

At the time, Lianjiang County Secretary Huang Jingao on behalf of the County Committee and Government affirmed that they will implement the decision of the City Committee and clean up the residual problems from the Riverside Road reconstruction.  On March 20, the City Committee and Government issued a report titled <<The Report Concerning the Handling Of The Land Ownership Dispute Between The Developer and The County Government In The Lianjiang County Riverside Road Reconstruction Project>> to the Provincial Government and Committee.  Based upon this report, the Provincial Committee Office made a report to the National Petition Office on April 3.

Afterwards, Fuzhou City actively handled the problem of the residual problems from the Riverside Road reconstruction.  The City and Lianjiang County Law Courts and the related departments conducted vast amounts of work.   Concerning the temporarily tabled problem of the Yuancheng Company being suspected of illegally reselling and selling back the land, the City Land Department even sent its deputy leader to Beijing to consult with the National Land Resources Bureau.

In February, with the arrangement by the Provincial Committee and the City Committee, Comrade Huang Jingao went to study for six months at the Central Party School.  Upon his return in August, the County began another series of actions.  On the basis that the Yuancheng Company did not pay all its civil defense fees, the County Court froze the real estate assets of the company and proceeded with a public auction.

The National Petition Office wrote and called the Provincial and City Committee about this matter, and the Provincial Committee issued a directive.  On August 22, the City Discipline Committee leadership held a meeting with the leaders from the City Supervisory Department, the Public Security Bureau, the Court, the Prosecutor's Office, the Civil Defense Office together with the leaders from Lianjiang County.  They discussed the letters from the National Petition Office about this case.

The Provincial Committee Supervisory Department comrades attended the meeting.  The meeting attendees listened to reports from the City Supervisory Department, the City Court, the City Civil Defense Office and the Lianjiang County Court and, after some serious discussion, came to the following conclusions:

  1. The decisions of the City Committee must be implemented in the continued interest of the stable development of Lianjiang County.  On January 26, 2003, the City Committee Secretary's meeting attendees heard the report from 8/29 task force about the investigation over a six month period and the related reports from the City Discipline Committee and the Supervisory Bureau and it was decided that the 8/29 case can be terminated.  The Lianjiang County Committee and Government should follow the decision by the City Committee to concentrate on the economic development of Lianjiang County and value this good opportunity.  In the handling of the related issues, they should follow the spirit of the City Committee meeting and consider the total situation.   When they deal with the historical residual problems, they should be broad and not narrow, cool and not heated and to calmly handle these related matters.
  2. Since the 8/29 case is basically closed, all other matters related to the development of the Riverside Road, including the civil defense funds, should be disconnected from the 8/29 case and enter the regular channels in accordance with government regulations and legal procedures.
  3. Considering the special nature of the problems related to the development of the Riverside Road in Lianjiang County, the policy decisions and promises made by the County Committee and Government at the time to the developers, those who are now handling the residual matters should follow the law while respecting the history and the current reality.  The County Committee and Government are advised to seriously study these issues before they made decisions.
  4. Considering the fact that the issue of the civil defense fee in the development of the Riverside Road has now entered into legal proceedings, the meeting concurred with the opinion of the City Middle-Level Court: first, since the City Middle-Level Court is in the process of studying the administrative penalty as well as the civil defense funds from the Yuancheng Company in the Lianjiang Riverside Road construction project, the Lianjiang Court should stay its enforcement order; second, the Lianjiang Court should handle all the objections from the Yuancheng Company one by one and then report to the City Middle-Level Court.; third, concerning the Lianjiang Riverside Road Reconstruction case, the decisions should be made according to the law as well as considering the historical factors; fourth, all future legal cases concerning the Lianjiang Riverside Road reconstruction project coming before the Lianjiang County Court should be reported to the City Middle-Level Court insofar as any decisions are concerned.

On September 16, the City Committee Office wrote the Provincial Committee Office to report on the details of the meeting.  On September   17, the Provincial Committee Office sent the letter titled <<The Report On The Situation About Implementing The National Petition Office's Request On The Related Matter>> to the National Petition Office. 

On November 10, the National Petition Office leaders visited Fujian province and they accepted the actions taken by the City Committee and the City Government, but they questioned the inability of the Lianjiang County Committee and County Government to implement the decisions made by the City Committee, to close the case and to re-initiate work.  They pointed out that since 2002, Yuancheng Company Vice President Zhou Huangwen has written to them five times, visited in person three times and called many more times.  This is a typical multiple petition case and they urged the City Committee and the City Government to make sure that the Lianjiang County Committee and County Government to complete this case according to the decision of the City Committee within the next two months.

The principal leaders of the City Discipline Committee told the National Petition Office leaders that the City Committee and City Government were very concerned about this case and have held numerous meetings to analyze the situation and have also done a great deal of related work this year.  They promise that they will follow the request of the National Petition Office to make sure that the concerned parties finish this case as quickly as possible.

3.  Concerning Comrade Huang Jingao's Extraordinary Methods To Publicize The Handling Of The Problem

The City 8/29 special task force has made a thorough investigation about the problem between the developer and the County Government in the Lianjiang County Riverside Road Reconstruction Project, and all persons who are connected with this case have been handled appropriately.  There are several residual cases which is going through the legal channels.  But Comrade Huang Jingao has bypassed organizational principles and used non-normal channels to publicize his dissenting views to the outside world.  The City Committee has handled this in an appropriate way in each case.

In May 2004, Comrade Huang Jingao was interviewed by a certain magazine inside China, saying that "because he was attempting to prevent the loss of national properties, he offended evil forces and had to wear a bullet-proof vest to and back from work."  The magazine reporters turned the interview into an article titled "Why do I have to wear a bullet-proof vest to work?" and was ready to take it to the printer on May 13 for publication.

On the evening of May 12, the City Committee learned about this news and convened an office meeting and made the following decisions: first, the City Committee Deputy Secretary and the City Discipline Committee Secretary will represent the City Standing Committee to speak to Comrade Huang Jingao and ask him to follow organizational principles in his work.  If he has any opinions, he can reflect them to the organization through the usual channel instead of publicly distributing comments about his disagreement with organizational decisions.

Second, the City Committee contacted the concerned media entity immediately, and the magazine agreed to withdraw the article from the printing press.  On May 13, the City Discipline Committee leaders met with Comrade Huang Jingao and severely criticized him for violating organizational rules.  They emphasized that the County Committee Secretary must look at the big picture and report on serious problems to the City Committee.  They instructed Huang that the article about the interview between Comrade Huang Jingao and the magazine reporter should not be published there, nor in any other news media and they also asked him to retrieve the recorded material from the magazine reporter.

At the beginning of July, the principal leaders of the City Committee received certain letters from the masses forwarded from the Provincial Committee about Comrade Huang Jingao breaking certain rules pertaining to corrupt practices.  Once again, the City Discipline Committee was instructed to speak to him.   On July 11, the City Discipline Committee leaders spoke to Comrade Huang Jingao again, and after telling him to pay attention to his personal conduct with respect to corrupt practices, reminded him again that he should follow the organizational principles of the party and to refrain from publishing views of discontent in the interest of overall situation.  Comrade Huang Jingao agreed at the meeting that he would following the instructions of the City Committee and that he will not disclose anything more about the Lianjiang "Land Case" to the news media again.

At the beginning of August 2004, the City Committee received a report from the Lianjiang County Committee titled <<Concerning The Request To Expeditiously Solve The Residual Problems Of The Lianjiang County Riverside Road Reconstruction Case>>.  The document indicated that the City Middle-Level Court has delayed issuing its decisions concerning the case of the displacement of the nationally owned Lianjiang Beverage Services Company, the Museum, the Fengcheng Clinic and the Cultural Building and the case of the contractual dispute concerning the County Land Department and its authority to award land.  As a result, the County is unable to dispose of these two cases and therefore the Lianjiang Riverside Road Reconstruction Project cannot be totally resolved and the case cannot be effectively closed.

This document got the attention of the City Committee, which sent two deputy secretaries to reiterate the relevant organizational principles and emphasized again that a Communist Party member must follow the party discipline and national laws.  Comrade Huang Jingao indicated that he was willing to follow the party principles and that he would not publicize the related problems to the outside.

At the same time, the two City Committee deputy secretaries met with the City Middle-Level Court director and Lianjiang County comrades Huang Jingao and Zhang Tianjin about the subject of Lianjiang County's document.  The meeting concluded that the City Committee and City Government have been highly concerned about the handling of the Lianjiang County Riverside Road Reconstruction Project and the leaders have issued multiple directives, held multiple meetings and issued clearly defined requests.

With the concurrence of the Provincial Committee leaders, the City Committee sent out a special task force formed from comrades in the City Discipline Committee, the City Prosecutor's Office and the City Public Safety Bureau to go into Lianjiang County to investigate the problem.  The Lianjiang County Committee and County Government have also performed large amounts of work.  The Provincial Discipline Committee, the Land Resources Department and the Civil Defense Office also provided directions after receiving reports.

At the same time, the City has seriously dealt with the cadre corruption problems in the Riverside Road Reconstruction Project.  The residual problems were also capably handled, where they have now entered into the legal channel (being considered by the City Middle-Level Court).  The meeting came up with these concrete proposals for handling the residual problems:

  1. The residual problems will be handled according to the law in the spirit of considering the overall situation and to promote local economic development.  Due to the high attention from the City Committee which has provided clear principles, the related City departments should seriously implement them.
  2. The People's Court must be supported to judge these cases fairly.  The personnel at various levels of the organization must increase their awareness of the law, of litigation, of procedures, and of evidence so that they do not misspeak on legal matters. 
  3. The City Middle-Level Court must decide on these residual problems in a lawful and fair manner.  The cases cited by Lianjiang County have already been accepted by the City Middle-Level Court, and the relevant questions have been referred to the Provincial High Court which has not yet replied.  The City Middle-Level Court should communicate with the Provincial High Court and press for a rapid answer so that these residual problems can be disposed of.  All personnel related to this case should act in a responsible manner in relation to the people and the law and to ensure that the case is properly decided according to the law.
  4. The Lianjiang County Committee and County Government should conduct the relevant thought work to make sure that the related units and their personnel understand and support the work of the courts and to create a good atmosphere to receive the verdict.  Once the People's Court has rendered its verdict, the related units should implement the decisions with respect.  Disagreements can be pursued by appealing to the higher levels of the People's Court.  Under no circumstances will any unit or individual be permitted to act contrary to the law.

On August 11 the City Committee learned that the People's Daily website has published the letter "From the Lianjiang Committee Secretary to the People's Daily: Why Did I Have To Wear A Bullet-Proof Vest For Six Years?", the principal leaders sent a City Committee deputy secretary and the City Committee Propaganda Department deputy chief to verify the situation with Comrade Huang Jingao.

During the conversation, Comrade Huang Jingao was quite emotional and stubborn.  He admitted that he wrote and sent the letter, and he communicated the following points: 1, as a Communist Party member, he has the right to write letters to the Party newspaper/website to report on the situation because this is not against party rules; 2, all the contents in his letter are supported by evidence, including eyewitnesses and physical evidence and he was willing to accept the responsibility for any errors; 3, he published this article after deep thinking; he hoped to get others to discuss the issue so that everyone can make a factual judgment to resolve this matter; 4, the contents of the article were not thorough enough since he has a lot of information that will be disclosed at the appropriate moment and this would broaden the incident.

Comrade Huang Jingao's letter to the People's Daily created very negative consequences.  On the evening of August 11, the City Committee held an emergency meeting at the office of the City Committee Secretary to discuss ideas about how to handle the matter.  At the same time, the City Committee leaders spoke to Comrade Huang Jingao to point that he had done wrong and that he should seriously reflect.  The City Committee met first to discuss about the full mobilization to combat typhoon number 14, and then there was a Secretary Office meeting to communicate the desire from the Provincial Standing Committee to see that the thoughts become unified and to take actions to ameliorate the negative effects.  At the same time, the decision was made to assign two City Committee deputy secretaries to join the combined Province-City investigation group to review the investigation work on the Lianjiang County Riverside Road Reconstruction Project and to seriously discipline all responsible parties.

On August 12, the City Committee and City Discipline Committee leaders went to Lianjiang County to direct the work on the typhoon and to communicate to the Lianjiang County Standing Committee as well as the National People's Congress, government and political bureau officials about the seriousness and danger of Comrade Huang Jingao's action in order to unify the thoughts and stabilize the political and social situation.  Each County Standing Committee member and each county leader was asked individually, but none of them have seen or heard from any other comrades that Comrade Huang Jingao wore a bullet-proof vest.

On the morning of August 13, the City Committee convened a meeting of the Standing Committee and then held an expanded Standing Committee meeting in the evening.  The subject was the situation concerning Comrade Huang Jingao writing the letter to the People's Daily, and it was pointed out that this ignored the political situation, that it ignored the overall situation, that it represented a bad case of individualism, that it was an extremely wrong act that broke organizational discipline, that the direct effect was that it would be used by western hostile forces, Taiwan hostile forces and democratic movement elements thus leading to social and political stability.   This was a serious political incident.

Faced with this serious political battle, the various levels of the cadre leadership in the city must stay together with the Provincial and City Committees, to show the same bright flags, to hold firm attitudes, to remember the mission, to defend our territory, to be loyal to the Party and the people, to complete the work in Fuzhou and to protect the hard-won situation in order not to allow the western hostile forces, the Taiwan hostile forces, the overseas democratic movement elements and the Falun Gong elements to disrupt Fuzhou and hence all of Fujian province and accomplish their attempt to foul up the economic region on the western side of the Strait of Taiwan.

The important tasks for the moment are to fully implement the spirit of the Seventh Congress of the Provincial Committee and the Eighth Congress of the City Committee in order to built up the economic region on the western coast of the Strait of Taiwan and to make the central city larger and more powerful.  On August 14, the four major groups of the City Committee held meetings among all their cadres, and the other cities and counties will also be holding their corresponding meetings in order to communicate the spirit of the Provincial and City Committee meetings to the broad party membership, so that we can collect our thoughts and energies to stabilize the good social and political situation and we will all concentrate our resolve and energies to increase development.

(News.fjii.com关于连江县委书记黄金高致信《人民网》事件 福州市委、市政府经初步调查作出正面回应



  1998年,长江流域发生特大洪涝灾害后,全国掀起防洪工程建设热潮,省委、省政府做出千里江河堤防加固加高的工作部署,福州市政府及省、市水利部门将连江县敖江防洪堤列入改造范围。连江县政府针对本县防洪堤存在的重大安全隐患问题,分别于1998年8月10日、25日、31日三次召开县长办公会议,研究决定拆迁江滨地段旧城,修建一条西起新大桥,东至埔下,与堤面连体,长3000米,宽20.5米的江滨路堤,使城关防洪堤抗洪能力提高到30年一遇的水平,并提出实行路、堤、房三位一体的综合开发方案,1999年2月12日该方案报经连江县人大常委会研究通过。方案原定由连江县政府贷款6000万元自行进行开发建设,后由于银行贷款无法实现,县财政又无力承担大笔投资,连江县委、县政府遂于1999年5月研究决定将该项目推出招商,并拟定初步招商方案如下:江滨路、堤由 开发商先垫资建设(约需资金3000万元),连江县政府指定将丹凤路北段20亩、邮电大厦北侧58亩、玉荷东路(杭下)17亩、玉山停车场65亩四块土地用于抵还江滨路建设垫款,不足部分由连江县财政拨付;由应招的开发商负责承担位于江滨路、堤及公园等市政配套设施范围内的拆迁房屋安置补偿费用,以取得江滨路规划红线内旧城改造房地产开发项目。1999年5月份,经马鼻籍政协委员吴某牵线引进香港某集团到连江县考察,经多次洽谈,于1999年6月26日与连江县政府签订了《江滨路改造建设投资开发协议》,连江县江滨路项目建设指挥部当即着手开展前期准备工作,后由于香港某集团资金不到位致使该项目中止。1999年10月12日,连江县政府办公会议对江滨路开发建设招商方案进行再次研究,决定继续按原方案进行招商,同时要求开发商中标后先交纳项目押金1000万元。会后,有澳大利亚雄宝实业集团公司(以下简称雄宝公司,经查省、市工商局,未登记注册)等5家与连江县政府进行该开发项目洽谈。


  根据会议精神,2000年1月29日,由原江滨路指挥部副指挥黄兆丰代表连江县政府与雄宝公司法定代表人陈宝财草签了《开发协议》。2000年2月3日,连江县委再次召开常委会,原则同意了《开发协议》,并决定以此为蓝本,再次推向社会公开招标。2000年2月4日至14日,招标公告在连江县电视台连续播放十天,并在县博物馆门口张贴,报名时间截止至2月25日止。在此期间,又有数家开发商前来咨询,但因项目投资大、投资利润率低、周期长等种种原因,先后放弃投标。最后只有雄宝公司按招标公告中有关规定报名投标,并交了50万元投标押金。2000年2月25日,连江县委再次召开常委、副县长联席会议,会议研究后认为,按照程序在规定的投标时间内,虽然只有一家投标单位(即雄宝公司)交了押金,但为了尽快实施该项目,同意和雄宝公司正式签订协议。2000年3月9日,连 江县政府原副县长林华代表县政府与雄宝公司签订了《连江县江滨路改造及房地产开发备忘录》(以下简称《备忘录》),《备忘录》签订后,雄宝公司即缴交了投资项目押金1000万元。




  源盛公司与连江县政府争议的焦点问题,主要在于连江县江滨路规划方案经修改后堤坝外移新增建设用地28.09亩和原县旧酒厂剩余用地1.75亩的使用权归属上。源盛公司认为上述两个地块使用权属于旧城开发范围,不存在土地出让金未商定和未缴交问题。其主要理由是:1、根据《备忘录》规定,源盛公司负担江滨路近5.1万平方米规划区域内的数百户居民拆迁安置费用,连江县政府作为补偿,将江滨路规划区域内的沿防洪堤内侧进深41米(其中路及隔离带分别占用20.5米+6米)的地块,出让给他们进行房地产综合开发,不存在无偿占用问题;2、《备忘录》中有注明该收的规费和政府用于偿还垫资工程款的4个地块地价,没有规定这两个地块要收出让金;3、县土地局已同他们签订了土地出让合同,明确指明江夏苑1期和花园街1期项目(含新增13.93亩土地)不收土地出让金;4、如果这两块土地要收土地出让金,连江县政府当时为何不直接用这两块土地抵还。而连江县政府认为:两块土地应该是国有存量土地,属于政府所有,理由是:1、江滨路是政府投资进行建设的,新堤建成后,新增的土地应属于政府;2、堤坝外移新增28.09亩土地,是由政府投资进行堤坝改弯取直、外移、拆迁补偿及园地赔青后才形成的建设用地,县旧酒厂1.75亩,是原文山路建设指挥部拆迁的剩余用地,这些都是政府投入后才形成的可供开发的熟地;3、规划红线只是作为开发范围的依据,并不等于红线范围内的两块土地不要收出让金;4、《备忘录》中没有注明上述两块土地不要收出让金,原先未明确的问题,现在可以重新明确;5、源盛公司提出土地捆绑为何舍近求远,这是因为当时堤坝未外移,上述两块土地还未形成。由此双方产生较大分歧。 