How China Maintains a Tremendous Bureaucracy
How China Maintains its Tremendous Bureaucracy 2023.07.13 No.247
Donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Ying6789
Some villagers were sentenced for building a private pontoon bridge. This event has attracted public attention. According to the report, Huang De Yi and his family in Jilin Province had built a pontoon bridge privately. Four years later, the local water conservancy bureau determined that the bridge was illegal. They fined Huang and forced him to dismantle the bridge. Afterwards, Huang and several of his relatives were criminally detained by the local police. Huang was sentenced by the local court to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, for the crime of provoking trouble; seventeen of his relatives were also sentenced. It is unbelievable that such a thing has occurred, and it challenges people’s basic perceptions. It gives one the impression that there must be something hidden, some inside story that outsiders do not know.
According to publicly available information, before this pontoon bridge was constructed, local people needed to ferry or go around for dozens of kilometers to work or travel on the other side of the river. The local government claimed that the villages east of the river have no farming land west of the river. This is not persuasive, even if it were true. It has long been very common for farmers to rent land elsewhere for farming. Couldn’t the villagers in the east go to the west to rent land for farming? There is a lot of barren land in Jilin Province. What is more, farmers have many other communications on both sides of the river besides farming. In fact, for nearly a hundred years, local people have crossed the river by ferry. Huang De Yi said that in 1936, his grandfather ferried here; in 1970, his father ferried here. And in the 1990s, two of his brothers ferried on this river. If there had been a bridge there, it would undoubtedly be much more convenient for local people’s life and work.
In 2014, Huang’s family built a bridge with a dozen tin boats they made themselves. The bridge provided convenience and shortcuts to local transportation. It became more convenient for the local villagers as well as for passing vehicles. Especially for travelers who go to the nearby city, the distance was shortened by fifty kilometers, saving time and fuel. However, the local water conservancy bureau fined Huang and demanded the removal of the bridge on the grounds that it was built illegally. They demanded an annual fine of ten thousand yuan and Huang paid three times, until 2018, when he removed the bridge by himself. It is certain that Huang built this bridge without prior approval from the local water conservancy bureau. But there was a real need for a bridge, and the government was not building one. Why couldn’t local people be allowed to build their own? Moreover, the pontoon bridge was readily dismantled and was perfectly safe to use. It should be noted that it was a few months after the bridge was already dismantled that the local police took coercive measures against Huang De Yi and his family, and finally, he was sentenced by the court.
When Huang’s family built this bridge, one purpose was to provide convenience; but more importantly, it was a business that they could make money from. Making money and providing convenience should not be put in complete opposition to each other. State owned highways charge fees, but we cannot therefore deny that the highway facilitates our travel. In the same way, Huang’s bridge also facilitated other’s travel and saved them time and money. It’s reasonable to charge a bit of money when it’s convenient for others. It’s a fair trade. In this commodity society, we cannot force everyone to be devoted to charity. Some cab drivers say that they won’t let you cross the bridge without paying. This statement may be true. It can be imagined that Huang’s family is a large family, with five brothers, and the next generation may be more than a dozen members. Such a large family is definitely powerful in the village, and no one would underestimate their force. Otherwise, it would have been difficult for them to make money by building the bridge. We certainly don’t need to visualize Huang De Yi as a great man of charity. It is true that his bridge facilitated the people. But he did it as a business, just like his previous generations who had been engaged in ferrying. Local folks might use the bridge free of charge, but non-local vehicles were expected to pay. When there were more passing vehicles, there would be more income for them. This was not authorized but, definitely, not a crime. The point is that this bridge wasn’t the only way to get across the river. Whoever did not want to spend the money could get across somewhere else. When the local court sentenced Huang for compulsorily collecting bridge tolls, it is illogical. It is particularly absurd to accuse that Huang occupied public resources for his own benefit. If this bridge was built by the government and Huang imposed a toll, this is occupying public resources for private profit, and he undoubtedly should be punished. However, this bridge was built by Huang’s family at their own expense. How is this occupying public resources? As for the accusation that they occupied the public resources of the river, that sounds unreasonable. Huang made money on his bridge, not on the river.
It was said that Huang “built the bridge with malicious intention”, because he dug holes in convenient roads that could have been traveled by small cars, so that vehicles could only go through his bridge; he stopped the traffic with a rope; if you did not pay, he would not let you go. In response to this accusation, Huang says that the river is more than one hundred kilometers long. If vehicles can run on the riverbed, I must dig out all the riverbed to stop the traffic. It is impossible. I didn’t dig the riverbed, but others have been “digging sand” in the river.
Obviously, the focus is not on building the bridge; the focus is on the tolls. The local court found that Huang collected more than fifty thousand yuan from the bridge; the sum may not be accurate either. Maybe, Huang’s family was reported to the police only because they made too much money in a very easy way, which made them the object of jealousy.
Given the initial reports, and the latest accounts from the local police and government, and the parties involved, it may be concluded that eighteen members of Huang’s family were sentenced to jail just for building a bridge and charging tolls privately. There is no such thing as private digging of river sand, no car bandit, no gangsters whatsoever. It’s such a simple case. And that is exactly why this case is so puzzling.
It is worth mentioning that Huang filed a complaint in response to the local court’s ruling, but it was rejected. The local court dismissed his complaint on the ground that the original ruling gives clear evidence and the sentence was appropriate, and that Huang built the bridge and charged tolls without official approval, and that he refused to make correction despite the many administrative sanctions imposed on him, and that the situation was aggravated. So, the local court held that eighteen members of Huang’s family should be sentenced, only because they constructed the bridge and collected tolls without official approval. Obviously, this court practice is considered to be normal in that area.
Many people find the court ruling unbelievable. This only means that most of us are not well informed of the political and social ecology of remote rural areas, whereas the local people have become accustomed to it and are not surprised by it. People can hardly imagine that local officials are enforcing the law and governing local people in such a way. In fact, regarding the fines imposed by the local water conservancy bureau, Huang De Yi said, I think this ten thousand yuan that I paid annually for three consecutive years is not a fine; I think it is the cost for the authority’s acquiescence to build the bridge. And the money was not transferred to a specific account, it was all paid in cash. To put it bluntly, it’s a benefit offered to the water conservancy bureau. But official agencies with more power than the water conservancy bureau must have benefit, too. Perhaps this is the most decisive factor in the court rule. Huang never mentioned the coercive measures taken by the police against him and his family, as well as the entire trial process. However, it is hard to believe that Huang did not offer benefit to the law enforcement officials when he was in danger of imprisonment and when his family was implicated. Compared to other villagers, the Huang’s family may be very powerful, but, after all, they are just ordinary people, and they are absolutely disadvantaged in front of the officials. They can only be at the mercy of the officials and even “be committed a crime.” Of course, what happened to Huang’s family is not exceptional, but is common to the people at the bottom.
Whether or not the river was occupied, or the road was damaged, or the tolls were forced, all these are, in fact, not the key point at all when Huang’s family was criminalized. The key point is that the officials in the government offices need money and food, while the state cannot provide enough for them; they need to go hunting themselves. As the saying goes, one who has treasures may invite trouble. When the people have money, they may invite trouble. In fact, insufficient fiscal revenue makes a very serious problem in many rural counties and towns. Many of the government agencies there are sustained by various tolls and fines, that is, by extorting and blackmailing the people. The major routine work of officials at all levels is to look for such opportunities to generate money by all means. The state machine has long since become a tool for obtaining sectoral and personal benefits. Some days ago, in Zhejiang Province, a disabled farmer slaughtered his pig. He shared the pork with his friends and relatives, and let his wife take the rest of the port to sell at the village gate. After the wife collected only seven hundred yuan, officers came and demanded a fine of ten thousand yuan from her. The wife begged the officers for a less penalty, but the officers said: this was a requirement of the law. After that, the officers confiscated the rest of the pork, as well as the knives used to cut it. Is this law enforcement? This is open robbery and blatant oppression of the people. And such kind of events abound in the towns and in the countryside. For the people, they are the butchers and we are the lambs, at the mercy of the officials.
Moreover, not only some minor agencies, but also the most important police station needs to rely on fines to maintain their operation. Even Beijing is not exceptional. The well-known Lei Yang case is actually a tragedy created by the Beijing police when they collected fines. Police fines, in various forms and by various means, have long since become official measures of the police authority, rather than an individual policeman’s extortion. In 2021, Dr. Hwang Hai published his dissertation, “The Gray Field— a Study on the Gangsters in Red Town.” He mentions the supply of salaries for local policemen: the county police bureau is responsible for only 60% of the staff’s payroll. Police stations must charge fines to make up the remaining 40% of salaries and subsidies. Moreover, as a precondition of that 60% payroll, a police station with only six staff members must submit an annual revenue of two hundred thousand yuan to the county police bureau. As a result, the police station has been in need of “law enforcement supported by law-breaking”. This happened more than ten years ago. The situation has definitely got worse by now. The police are even more in need of fines, and even more in need of “law enforcement supported by law-breaking.” Under such circumstances, how can they let go of any opportunity to collect money?
From the penalty imposed on Huang De Yi, we may catch a glimpse of the basic ecology of the counties and the basic life condition of the people at the bottom. There is no justice in there at all.
Note: Death of Lei Yang
Lei Yang was a Chinese environmentalist who died following an altercation with police in Beijing. Lei was detained and was killed due to police brutality, confirmed by an independent autopsy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lei_Yang
Picturew: https://xiaominzhixintupian.blogspot.com/2023/07/how-china-maintains-its-tremendous.html