Thee Doth Protest Too Much

July 27th, 2009

the-ides-of-marchThousands protesting are big numbers, even by China’s reckoning. Especially if the protests occur in two separate regions in as many days, are violent, and have essentially the same reason: the rich getting richer in China by unashamedly gaming the system.

The Financial Times reports:

“The privatisation of a state steel group has been scrapped after an executive was beaten to death by workers angry at the threat to their jobs from a takeover of their company…The violent riot in north-east China late last week involved up to 30,000 workers, a reminder of the ongoing sensitivity about lay-offs from state companies in industries targeted for consolidation.”

Certainly, it doesn’t help when people become self- or otherwise-anointed emperors and treat co-workers like crap. I can certainly see from whence their anger stems:

The interim general manager sent by Jianlong to run Tonghua, Chen Guojun, had infuriated the workers with his high-handed attitude, according to comments posted on internet bulletin boards in China.

He had reportedly said that he would re-establish Tonghua “under the name of Chen” and lay off almost all the employees.

“With Tonghua Steel’s retired workers each receiving only Rmb200 ($29) a month for living expenses, Chen Guojun was paid an annual salary of Rmb3m,” the rights group reported.”

AP reported yesterday that just a couple hours drive from Suzhou, in Zhejiang province, 3,000 townsfolk went berserk at the local authority’s purportedly giving them the shaft in a land-for-spit deal the residents found wholly unfair:

More than 3,000 villagers in eastern China blocked a highway and clashed with police while protesting alleged official corruption in a land compensation deal…Ten residents of Shipu town, in Zhejiang province, were injured in the clash with more than 300 riot police Saturday…Another resident said thousands of people had been staging a sit-in on the land for nearly a week.

Without credible avenues for complaint and decision, local governments will continue to place citizens in positions in which residents must explode en masse to gain any kind of fair hearing at a supra-local level.

“The employee, who refused to give his name, said the villagers believed the land was worth three times the price the local government had set — 20,000 yuan (US$2,900) per mu. A mu is a Chinese measure of land equal to about 0.15 acres (0.06 hectares).

“The villagers want the local authorities to address the corruption and the central government to intervene in this case, but some local officials have been preventing this information from getting to the relevant authorities…”

So what set off this latest round of high-volume, high-action drama that has nothing to do with ethnic differences? In a word: stimulus package (ok, that’s two words). China’s stimulus package of some US$560 billion kicked off at the beginning of the year with the Central government ordering the banks to open the offers. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been loaned out, re-inflating the stock market and property bubbles the government had worked to flatten two years ago. Now, local governments, State-owned enterprises and large privately-owned corporations with “special relationships” with bank lenders (read guanxi) are redistributing wealth in preferential ways. Indeed, the FT writes about the steel protests in the northeast:

The privately held Jianlong Group, one of China’s largest private steel companies, had first proposed taking over Tonghua in 2005, backed out of the deal when the economy slowed last year, but re-entered negotiations recently when industrial demand picked up.

Propelled by the government’s stimulus package, China produced steel at an annualised rate of 545m tonnes in June, a record level of output.”

AP writes of the Zhejiang protests that the land was recently sold to be developed into a science and technology park. In Shipu, Ningbo district. In the middle of nowheresville? Local administrators would be able to access bank loans for infrastructure development as well as the national level subsidies for new-and-high-tech projects. Clever.

Of course, the communications and information infrastructure the national government is putting in place will only enable citizens to band together more easily when it comes to voicing grievances. And as long as the powers-that-be continue to find it difficult to kick their millennia-old bad habits, encouraged by the prospect of untold wealth, more of these industrial actions will occur, with greater frequency and with groups in numbers that may one day mark the Ides of March on the Chinese calendar.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • PDF
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email
  • Haohao
  • LinkedIn

Post to Twitter

4 Responses to “Thee Doth Protest Too Much”

  1. outcast Says:

    To be fair, land seizures in rapidly developing countries is hardly something that is new. For example during the 1970′s in Japan there were many protests against land siezures for the then planned Narita Airport, in fact you can find an article about it in Time magazine if you google it.

    On the other hand it is good to see more “scitech” parks being built, means more work for us engineers in the future.

  2. Bill :D Says:

    You’re correct, Outcast, that every country in the world has some version of eminent domain, wherein a government can clear out a neighborhood and put an overpass through. Such use of eminent domain in the 1950s was used during what were called Urban Renewal projects, which saw the break-up of huge communities, mostly ethnic, that had been hanging out on their city corners for generations. My point was to highlight the specific circumstances under which China’s own “urban renewal” projects are happening, the causes unique to today’s modernizing China and the unintended consequences.

  3. outcast Says:

    Actually one of the more disturbing issues in the US was a 2005 supreme court decision that allowed eminent domain to be used for private property development.

  4. Bill :D Says:

    Hi, Outcast!
    Yes, that was an extraordinary case. It took nearly forty years for the US government to finally draw a firm line in the sand and say exactly when eminent domain is not an acceptable option for moving people from their homes; especially if the development is a high-end shopping mall that will displace working class homeowners. Bravo! (I hope)

Leave a Reply

 

Rss Feed Facebook button Technorati button Reddit button Linkedin button Delicious button Digg button Flickr button Stumbleupon button Newsvine button
Follow me