Minkan (citizen publications) and Intellectual History of modern and contemporary China
This book presents the first panoramic study of minkan (citizen publications) in China before the Internet. This recent history of citizen publications contributes to the reclamation of a lost past of resistance. It is an exercise in remembering a past that has been marginalized by official history and recovering ideas obliterated by state power.
More: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137492081
五四与六四
1989年运动中的民刊对中共操控五四运动释义进行了辨析和反驳。那么五四运动的叙事和释义为何如此重要？上述问题分三部分讨论。中共争夺五四运动的叙事和释义始于和国民政府争夺社会支持，因此，了解五四运动的起因和过程是辨析中共裁减和修改历史、操控叙事和释义的先决条件。
1.五四新文化运动
1919年5月4日学生抗议的初因是北洋政府与日本已经持续了四年的秘密谈判，日本提出《二十一条》，要求控制山东包括胶州湾、满洲南部、内蒙古东部，据此，双方签署了《民四条约》、《关于山东之条约》、以及秘密军事协定。1917年初，《京报》（英文）因刊载中日秘密条约，被关闭，记者陈友仁被拘留。随后，《晨报》、《国民公报》和《益世报》等报刊继续报道和评论北洋当局中日秘密条约。在1919年初，这些报纸连续报道北洋政府在凡尔赛和会上的谈判过程。在一战战胜国五强（英、法、意、日、美）同意日本接收德国在山东特权后，《晨报》和《国民公报》在同年5月2日发表了《外交警报警告国民》，报道了北洋政府在巴黎谈判失败，准备在日本享有山东特权的条约上签字。
北京大学学生5月3日晚开会，并邀请北京其他院校学生代表与会，决定5月4日游行。1919年5月4日，北京约20所院校游行抗议，从天安门游行至东交民巷（外国使馆区）入口处，受到警察阻止，游行人士改道前往外交部和曹汝霖住宅。曹汝霖是在日本提出二十一条期间负责谈判的外交次长，五四抗议前一年（1918年）任财政部总长，经济资助北洋政府当时主导派系安福俱乐部。抗议人士到达曹宅后，要求曹汝霖出面解释与日本缔结密约的情况，军警试图驱离，示威人士与之对峙，几名示威人士跃入内院后，打开前门，游行人士大量涌入，未找到曹汝霖，示威人士放火烧了曹宅，并打伤了在曹宅访问的驻日公使章宗祥,他曾代表北洋政府与日本秘密签订《济顺、高徐两条铁路的借款预备合同》。傍晚，游行人群散去时，军警逮捕了现场几名学生，沿街逮捕了正在返校的数十名学生。
自5月5日，北洋政府下令限制学生活动，并把被捕学生移交法庭处置，一些官员提议解散北大，并撤销了蔡元培校长职务，引发了北京学生继续抗议，前往警厅，要求释放所有学生，并开始罢课，沿海城市学生声援，发动市民支持，抵制日货，反对当局签署的不平等条约。5月7日，参与示威的北大学生郭钦光在医院中死亡，消息传到其他城市高校，学生们为郭钦光举行追悼会，并如北京学生一样成立学联。
5月21日，日本当局在五四抗议数天后，照会北洋当局，认为五四风潮与报刊文字有关，要求北洋当局对相关新闻加以取缔，并压制学生抗议。5月23日，《益世报》刊载〈山东第五师全体士兵敬告全国同胞电〉, 称第五师全体士兵支持学生和民众行动。次日，这份报纸也刊登了日本政府照会北洋当局内容，随即，京师警察厅逮捕《益世报》编辑潘云超，查封报馆，这更激起了独立于政府的媒体广泛报道五四抗议的相关议题。6月2-4日，北京军警殴打上街宣传的学生、教师和听众，逮捕逾千名学生，激起了天津、青岛、上海、广州等沿海城市市民集会、工人罢工、商人罢市。在武汉等地，军警殴打和逮捕讲演学生，并威胁学生如果未来有公开反日讲演，立即枪毙，这些城市的学生转入乡村发动农民。
辛亥革命后，军阀、官僚窃取权力，复辟帝制，阻碍变革专制制度，许多知识人对现实政治极端失望。以民主、科学和民权为理念的知识人以此传播新思想，推动文化和教育的改变，影响大众思维和生活方式。1919年五四运动不仅使这些知识人重新燃起参与政治的热情，认为参与政治是必要的，也是可能的；运动过程中数百万学生、普通工人、农民和商人讨论内外大事，反对不平等条约，他们独立于任何政党、派别和政府，参与运动，塑造了五四运动在历史中从未见过的社会特质；出版和新闻业从19世纪后期已经有了发展；经过这场运动，更成为传播民间独立和多元表达的重要渠道，批评和监督政府更有力量。自1920年，五四运动参与者和回国留学生在中国历史上最大程度推广了平民教育；改变劳工缺乏保护的状况，劳工运动和组织成为社会运动的重要组成部分。由于新文化运动的继续传播，加速了父权家庭制度的没落，推动了落实女性参政权利和男女平权，女权运动开始兴起。
如果以1919年5月至9月有200多个城市参与的学生示威和民众抗议为标志，这可称为狭义的五四运动。如果从五四运动前期新思想与旧理念论战和传播，后期推广普及教育以及不同观点的论战，其时间范围自1916年至1924年，这可称为广义的五四新文化运动。五四运动一年前爆发的示威，是五四抗议的初始，为抗议北洋政府与日本签订的条约，留日学生集体回国，北京学生在总统府前的游行请愿（1918年）。自1916年，《新青年》、《晨报（附刊）》、《新潮》、《每周评论》、《努力周报》等报刊物主张新文化，改变中国不仅需要政治革命，而且需要更广泛思想、观念的改变，以此带来政治、经济和社会的真正变革。新文化运动推广了白话文，改变文学形式；通过民主、科学和平等的观念与专制、玄学和等级的辩论，推广理性和人文精神，并以此推广了民众的普及教育。蔡元培以「思想自由，兼容并包」对北京大学的改革，对中国教育产生了重要影响。新文化杂志与军阀等支持的杂志和旧派文人的辩论，面向公众，使其了解不同思想，鉴别和比较，而不像攻击新文化运动的人士，争取的只是政府的干预；对比而言，五四新文化运动不诉诸政府裁判，而是民间自我探索和赋权的过程。五四运动对内部的政治、经济、社会和文化以及后续几代人产生了持续影响。
2.五四运动中的科学和民主的论辩、五四纪念、国共两党争夺五四释义
1918年，美国总统威尔逊主张废除秘密外交，保障弱国（无论大小）独立，支持被压迫民族自决，获得中国知识人的广泛赞同。不过，巴黎和会英、法、意、日、美同意日本接收德国在山东特权，导致了中国许多城市爆发了1919年5月4日及以后一系列的游行、罢课、罢工和罢市。1919年7月，俄罗斯苏维埃发表了《第一次对华宣言》（加拉罕宣言），这个宣言包括包括废除治外法权、归还割地、废除所有不平等条约、取消庚子赔款，其细节还包括归还占领这些土地上的设施。这个宣言使许多中国知识人开始增加对苏俄好感，这影响了五四运动后续发展趋势。中国知识界开始辩论采用何种方式实现民主和现代化，是实施苏俄模式，还是英美法模式，或是从传统改造和学习西方，以自由、平等、宽容、坦诚、谦和、明辨、人道和文雅等立人，从地方民主和自治以及同业协会联合实现大范围的民主。同业协会是指保障雇主和工人平等参与的行业组织；中国是否可以不效仿任何强权和帝国，也可以自保；是否必须有不受监督的强大政府，才能自保。这个问题激发倡导新文化运动的知识人讨论民主问题。
五四运动最重要讨论的是「德先生」（民主）和「赛先生」（科学），以科学和民主的方法对传统进行评估。科学不只是学习西方科技，还涉及到科学方法的比较和鉴别，针对西方和东方的偶像、主义、教条，都不要崇拜，尤其不应盲从任何权势和权威，科学也应防止人的物化。五四话语讨论和辨析民主有以下四个方面：政治民主，除了代议制和宪政民主，人人都有参与议决权-创制、选举、复决和罢免权；民权民主，保护公民权利，其中包括表达、集会、结社、出版、迁移、居住；社会民主，消除社会不平等，保障社会正义；经济民主，是否有公平和平等的分配。民主不仅需要民众参与与支持，而且需要有公益精神，有方法、有力量制止军阀和权势阶层滥用权力，并可阻止外国侵略和控制。
自1920年至1925年，北洋政府限制纪念五四集会。五四周年，北大等高校在校内以「自由、平等、博爱」纪念五四运动。北京《晨报》和《申报》等报刊等出版纪念专刊，这个阶段主要是民间纪念五四。从1920年中后期，由于苏联深度介入中国事务，中共逐渐完全听命于苏共，国民党内部也开始分为左右两派，党派开始对五四释义施加影响。北伐胜利后，国民政府定都南京后，蒋介石试图改变五四主旨，称「人民欲谋平等自由，必须拥护三民主义，大家加入国民党，受党的指导，完成国民革命。」国共开始争夺五四释义，增加对大众影响。
中共对五四运动的释义逐渐形成了一套最高领导人为武装夺取政权和维护一党独裁的叙述。1930年代后期，苏联增加军事和经济援助中共扩大割据，开始支持有丰富割据经验的毛泽东作为中共的最高领导人。1939年，中共将5月4日定为青年节，以此争夺国统区青年的影响。毛泽东在中共中央机关刊物《解放》发表《五四运动》，并在延安纪念五四二十周年集会以《青年运动的方向》为题目，发表演说。这两篇文章作为中共对五四运动释义的指导文件，中共宣传和教育机构以此宣传五四运动，教科书《党史》/《中国革命史》也以此编写。
毛泽东将五四运动归纳为「反封建，反帝」，并将中共内战夺权与五四运动并列，作为「反抗外敌」的革命，这是中共后来将五四作为新民主主义革命开端的叙事来源。毛泽东在《青年运动的方向》指控「假马克思主义者」陈独秀和张国焘，并首次指控陈独秀是「反革命」，陈张二人都是中共后来叙述党史「十次路线斗争」的反面典型。陈独秀是新文化运动有影响刊物《新青年》的主编，张国焘是五四运动期间北京学联讲演部部长。他们两位都是中共主要创始人，两人都被第三国际共产国际视为不够亲苏，被清洗。毛泽东在这篇文章也不点名指控蒋介石等为「假三民主义者」，标榜中共是真「三民主义者」，以拉拢三民主义者的信奉者，并将中共领导延安的青年运动作为中国青年运动的样本。不过，这种青年运动是在中共领导之下的奉旨行动。在「延安整风」过程中，中共整肃王实味等敢于公共批判中共特权等级制度的知识人，建立了毛主义和个人在中共至高无上的权威，同时灌输对中共的绝对服从，这是中共释义的「五四」精神基本特征。1944年，国民党为与中共争夺五四叙述，将5月4日定为为「文艺节」，而将3月29日黄花岗起义烈士殉难纪念日定为「青年节」。
毛泽东在1945年中共七大报告中将五四运动中受到《新青年》影响中的一部分人，主要指毛泽东的新民学会和周恩来的觉悟社，后来部分会员参与中共建党，将其总结为中共建立准备了干部，为中共后来将五四运动概括为「爱国运动，为其成立奠定了思想和组织基础」，同时标定陈独秀为「五四运动总司令」，这是暗示中共领导了五四运动。由于这个时期，许多人是五四参与者或受到五四影响，中共准备全面内战，在陈独秀去世后，为争夺五四话语权，强化内战中对青年的宣传。后来中共教科书穿越历史先后事件，持续夸大中共在五四运动中的作用。
国共两党都试图垄断五四的释义权，但是都肢解和歪曲了五四运动中有关在政治、经济、民权和社会方面实现民主的讨论。中共与国民党争夺民心的宣传战中，以反日和反美作为目标，但是，为了夺权获取苏联支持，从来不批评苏联帝国在中国等地的扩张，甚至为使苏联保持在华和远东特权，中共军人参与了支持苏联的扩张战役。二战后，除了苏联，其他帝国已经宣布放弃了在华特权。中共为争取美国放弃对国民党的支持，宣传反对国民党的一党专制，向人民承诺将兑现自由民主人权，声称中国「各级政府直至中央政府都由普遍、平等、无记名的选举所产生，（实行）孙中山先生的三民主义，林肯的民有、民治、民享的原则与罗斯福的四大自由」。
毛泽东和中共领导人以五四新青年自诩。不过，自1920年代后期，毛泽东和中共领导人完全践踏了以个性解放、人道主义、自由、平等、民主、科学思想为宗旨的五四精神。
3 八九运动对五四运动的回应
中共1949年建政后，垄断了教育和宣传，进一步加工了毛泽东在1939年两篇有关五四的文章和在中共七大的报告，逐渐形成了对五四运动三个纪念日的官方表述，纪念五四30周年（中共建制的毛时代）、60周年（邓小平作为实际的最高领导人），100周年（习近平作为任期不限的最高领导人），伪造其政权的合法性，将五四释义为「反封建，反帝」，「其核心是爱国主义精神」，嫁接党国一体的「听党话、跟党走」作为五四主旨，但是删节了五四运动中最重要有关民主的论辩。不过，中共所称的反帝，并不反对所有帝国，只是反对特定的帝国，不反对苏俄帝国（除了与苏联争夺对共产党国家和第三世界的影响时期），更不在行为上反对事实上它已经建立的帝国和扩张。
中共为了编造它领导了五四，将北大红楼作为「五四运动的紀念地址」。这种历史纪念地址的选择策略是操控五四的叙事，屏蔽五四运动期间创造的丰富的公共空间。例如，北京大专学校学生代表开会地点是北大（法科）三院，这次会议决定1919年5月4日示威游行，而各校学生游行集合地点都是校内广场；堂子胡同法政专门学校是5月4日上午是北京中等以上学校代表开会，筹备游行示威事项和通过游行五项决定的地点，天安门广场是各校学生聚集游行的始发地点，在此和随后游行途中散发了《北京学界全体宣言》，这都是五四学生游行集会的公共场域。中共裁减与五四示威抗议的相关地点，将公共空间转化为向最高权力的表忠和动员空间，以此强化它的五四版本，尤其是将天安门广场作为它的「开国大典」的发生地，转移天安门在五四运动期间作为反对专制与强权，争取民主的集会聚集地，同时也使后代人沉湎于中共建构的爱国与强国的叙事中，忘却五四运动的主旨—以科学方法和批评意识反抗愚昧和灌输，争取民主，反抗专制，抵抗帝国。
自1988年5月，知识界和学生反驳中共五四运动的释义，辨析和讨论五四运动的民主和科学议题。1989年初，知识界发表了四封公开信，要求民主化，保障公民权利，取消因言或思想定罪的法规，释放所有这类被羁押的人士。1989年运动承接了1957年校园民主墙和1978-9年民主墙的公开空间作为自我启蒙和公众讨论场所，这类似于五四运动期间的公共场域，更重要的是继续五四以及以后被中共审查有关民主的讨论。1989年运动中的大字报、标语、传单和刊物（民刊）全面回应了五四对政治民主、民权民主、社会民主和经济民主的论述，辨析何为民主，反驳了中共对五四的垄断释义。1989年运动民刊强调民主首先是人的解政，而不应把人物化和工具化。中共在夺权、维持政权改造人的过程是将人进一步物化，将人作为维护一党统治的工具和被榨取的人矿。民刊反对权力崇拜，强调民主不是党主，颂扬和期待清官和最高领导人是奴性思维，争取民主的过程就是有意识去除奴性思维，监督、批判、挑战最高权力和各类官僚，争取民主不是保留专制制度的改朝换代，也不是中共内部权力斗争的延审，而是自主争取所有人的权利和自由。
政治民主方面，民刊指出中共制度导致了党天下—「没有权力制约，少部分人可以任意胡作非为，肆意践踏法律」，「没有民主，中国只能陷入独裁和派系寡头的统治」；强调保障直选所有领导人和代表，以法治原则使政府分权和透明，保障人民对政府的监督；「一切权力属于人民」，保障人民有方法、渠道对权力实施有效制约，参与制定政策、法律、监督官员工作及各项政策实施的权利，并随时可以罢免官员。这些讨论回应了五四民主的论辩「人人都有参与议决权-创制、选举、复决和罢免权」。
89运动民刊也分析了中共的「民主集中制」的专制特点，反驳了中共自称的「社会主义民主」。北大三角地大字报《在专制统治下中国没有未来》指出，「过去我们推翻了旧的皇帝，而今中南海住进了新的皇帝，他们打着民主共和的旗帜，吸吮着人民的血汗，把中国推向灾难的深渊」。西藏大学、中国科技大学、中央民院、兰州大学、贵州师大学、青岛化工、湘潭大学、北师大、人大、北京理工大学、邮电大学、清华、北大等大字报和标语等指出，中共所称的社会主义是「官僚和特权所有制」，是「封建愚昧专制」。中科院游行标语「五四七十周年，民主仍在地狱」，这是对中共代言五四的反讽。针对中共提出的「四项基本原则是立国之本」，「改革开放是强国之路」，1989年运动民刊辨析了中共制度党天下不断制造人祸，指出「四项基本原则是祸国之源，民主自由是兴邦之本」，民刊揭示中共的改革开放只是便利官倒，稳定一党专制，保障太子党世袭，而不是以民主、人权、自由和法治为目标。
1989运动也回应了五四期间讨论的民权民主。运动之前、之中、之后大字报、传单、标语、民间刊物反抗中共控制和压制表达，运动期间甚至一些官方新闻界人士也部分报道抗议诉求，记者被审查文章直接在高校传单中印出，甚至在中共戒严后出版《人民日报号外》。1989运动以集会、游行和静坐冲破中共对游行示威集会的限制，成立学生团结会和自治组织、知识界联合会、工人自治会、市民自治会，各界联席会，各地串联，争取公民权利。
1989年运动民刊回应五四期间讨论的社会民主，提出彻底废除中共各级特权以及它建立的社会「等级制」，保障公平分配，消除社会不平等，保障社会正义。在经济民主方面，对中共声称它代表工人利益，官方工会代表工人，工人的传单反驳了这种观点。这些传单强调必须通过建立自治会争取民主，才能实现工人真正的当家作主，经济和社会民主就是要「夺回被官僚和独裁控制经济的决策权、经营权和营销权」，才能维护自己的权益。在工作场所/单位实施政治和经济民主，这是实施民主的基石。
1989 年运动民刊强调了政治民主、民权民主、社会民主、经济民主不可分割。从讨论腐败与专制关系入手，民刊强调「没有制约的权力必然导致腐败，绝对权力导致绝对腐败」，反对专制必须自下实践，同样，反对腐败也需要民间追踪、透明公开和推动追责，这与中共宣称的民主集中制和党控制自上反对腐败完全不同。民刊要求党国领导人及子女公布财产，同时通过民间调查，公布了中共官员、太子党的腐败和裙带关系，强调中国腐败的根本原因在于没有民主，专制本身就是腐败，专制自己不能解决腐败问题，只有人民实践公民权利，争取民主才能防治腐败。
纪念1989年运动36周年，回顾运动论辩民主，反抗中共专制，以及对五四相关议题的回应是当下最重要的议题。中共对五四叙事和释义的歪曲和伪造，是以国族主义建构其合法性，为中共帝国复制以往帝国扩张寻找理由。1989年运动论述回应了五四运动期间有关自由、人权、平等、民主、正义议题，两次运动都有共同的目标，铲除各种形式的专制和特权；同时，五四运动中有关中国是否可能成为强权和帝国的讨论，现在应该回应—抵抗中共帝国，反抗所有帝国，结束一切霸凌，这都关系到每个人基本自由和权利的存亡。
In commemoration of the 76th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 45 pro-democracy activists were sentenced to prison in Hong Kong. Citizen journalist Zhang Zhan, who had already served four years of her sentence, was detained again, Dong Yuyu, a former state media journalist has been sentenced to 7-year of imprisonment. Tsogon Tsering, a Tibetan environmental activist, has been sentenced in prison for sending public appeal against the illegal extraction of sand and gravel mining from a local river. With tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience and political prisoners under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), dozens of whom have been serving sentences for more than 20 years, their health deteriorating, at least dozens of prisoners die from torture every year, the cases are just the tip of the iceberg of human rights abuses by the CCP rule. No one is safe under the CCP system.
Under the CCP's policy of “development” and “cultural nationalism,” so-called “autonomous regions” have been denied the right to study in their mother tongues and culture. Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongolians have been forced to sinicization and study CCP brainwashing doctrines. In addition to cultural genocide, minority groups face harsh repression. The long-term plundering of land and mineral resources in the Tibet, Uyghur region, southern Mongolia and elsewhere has caused large-scale environmental damage on the Tibetan Plateau and other places, affecting hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, Southeast Asia and China.
The CCP's repression of human rights and its obstruction of efforts to safeguard human rights have worsened human rights globally. We are all connected to each other in this world. No one is free until everyone is free. The basic principle of human rights is that human rights are above any authority, and true human rights are people’s sovereignty. By this principle, the CCP regime has neither legitimacy nor justification. Therefore, individuals, organisations, companies or governments that exchange profit/interest for human rights principles with the CCP are accomplices in the persecution.
Over the past eight years, relied on Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, I have sent letters requesting the Home Office, Foreign Office and Prime Minister's Office, amongst others, to disclose information about the pressure put on the British police by British and Chinese government departments to suppress the right to peaceful demonstration during Xi Jinping's visit to the UK in 2015, which included detaining peaceful protesters, raiding their homes and prosecuting them. The charges against those arrested protestors were later dropped after a series of protests and House of Commons debate. The Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister's Office, among others, responded to the FOI requests mainly through exemptions, refusals or other excuses such as “the detriment of British-Chinese relations and the public interest”, or have delayed substantive replies to the present day.
If courting proceeding is used to request the UK authorities to release the relevant information, the costs are enormous. Due to the massive cuts in legal aid by the UK government, I am unable to obtain such legal aid, and crowdfunding is nowhere near the basic costs required for courting proceeding at this time of generally declining incomes for most civilians.
The British government's avoidance of the freedom of information requests is in fact damaging to the public interest. The Government's way of this response renders the Freedom of Information Act a waste of paper, denies citizens the right to know, covers up the abuse of Chinese labour and other rights by British politicians, businessmen and other elites in their dealings with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and undermines the right to protest peacefully and other related rights.
We started Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) complaint in December in 2015 and civil claim process in July 2019. Through the IOPC final report and relevant process, we found more evidence of pressure on the police by the CCP regime and 10 Downing Street to restrict the right to peaceful protest. For example, the CCP delegates even demanded that the UK suspend the Human Rights Act during Xi Jinping’s visit and remove peaceful protesters from a distance of five miles from Xi Jinping. In addition, the police in the UK interpreted "threat" in exactly the same way as the CCP, in effect amending the interpretation of "threat" in section 5 of the Public Order Act.
We are now on the eve of the UK General Election. Recalling the use of the Freedom of Information Act and process of IOPC and civil claim, it helps to observe the trend of shrinking civil rights, and It is hoped that voters who value human rights and the media, which have the function of independently monitoring the Government, would raise relevant questions of all candidates standing in constituencies. After the election, it is hoped that newly elected and re-elected MPs will be urged to set up or authorise the establishment of an independent commission for an full independent investigation into involvement of Home Office, Foreign Office, Prime Minster Office, police and other UK authorities during Chinese state visit in 2015 as well as inquiry to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the co-operation and profit-making of British politicians, businessmen and other elites with the Chinese Communist Party over the last 50 decades. This investigation would include, but not be limited to, the following matters: 1. which individuals or groups have profited, etc., and how they have affected civil rights and the public interest in the UK; 2. whether these dealings have helped the CCP to intensify its repression of people fighting for democracy and human rights in P R China, and what kind of damage has been done to the rights of Chinese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers, Mongols and women etc.; 3. Whether it reinforces the international expansion of the Chinese Communist empire, leading to a further shrinking of the rule of law and academic freedom in the UK; 4. whether the UK has breached further international law and humanitarian obligations; 5. whether it has made the current system of representative government and governance in the UK less democratic, less transparent and less open; 6. Please publish the full, unabridged report when the invesigation is complete.
The investigative process should be open and transparent so that the public can know the political, economic, diplomatic, and civil rights and representative democracy implications of the CCP empire and other empires & authoritarianism in the UK. Otherwise, the environment of hostility to peaceful protest in the UK will continue, labour and other rights will continue to decline, there will be an even greater lack of democracy in the public interest sector, the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen, poverty will continue to increase, minorities and vulnerable groups will have less protection of their rights, and the UK will be likely to step fully into development model of the CCP or the development model of the British Empire— the denial of human rights, the rejection of democracy, and an autocracy dominated by profit, privileges, and the chauvinistic imperialist empire, or a part of it.
Below is a copy of the FOI requests I sent to the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on 22 June 2024, for the reference.
Information Rights Unit
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Room WH2.177
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH
United Kingdom
Protests during Xi Jinping’s UK visit and related questions
Dear FOI Officer and Mr David Cameron
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I sent a FOI request on 11 April and received your apology for not finishing your response in 20 working day on 11 May.
My key FOI questions were sent in November 2020, but as of today these questions have not been substantively answered. How long will it take you to address these important issues of public interest?
Based on the questions sent on 10 April 2024, three additional questions have been added this time.
According to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, Prior to the dictator’s visit in October 2015, a number of meetings took place between Foreign Office, Home Office, Royal House and representatives from the delegation in the P R China. The IOPC told us that there was definitely evidence of pressure from the Chinese on the way of policing and operation as well as on imposing restrictions on where people could protest and how they could protest.
At Lancaster house in the morning of 21 October 2015, the Chinese delegation walked out on Met police Gold Commander Lucy D’Orsi, threatening to call off the trip. According to a leaked conversation at Queen’s summer party in 2016, Commander D’Orsi was ‘seriously, seriously undermined by the Chinese’.
The IOPC’s final report shows that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. In addition, the autocrat’s delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police in the UK. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”.
1. Please give names of attendees for the preparation meetings prior to and during Xi Jinping visit in October 2015.
2. Who wrote the meeting minutes? Who fielded the meeting minutes?
3. How did the Prime Minister's Office make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay?
4. What did Prime Minister's Office make “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit? For example, did Mr Cameron discuss the instruction from Xi Jinping's subordinates with officers from of Prime Minister’s office? Did an officer at Prime Minister’s office directly call a senior MPS officer, demanding that protesters not "embarrass" Xi Jinping during his stay or ensure that demonstrators stay away from Xi Jinping? Did Mr Cameron appoint the officer as a new peer?
5. Any policy or guidance devised and/ or implemented in relation to the policing of demonstrations in the UK, during and related to the October 2015 visit of the Chinese dictator. This should include any arrangements classified as ‘security’ that might impact upon the right to demonstrate, for instance restricting any protestors from being visible or audible to the dictator; or relating to the arrest of those who might demonstrate or be expected to demonstrate during the period of the visit.
6. Details of any budget/ resources allocated for the purposes of policing and/ or security for the October 2015 visit of the Chinese tyrant.
7. Details of the numbers of individuals who entered the UK around the time of the visit of the despot for the purposes of presenting as “pro-PR China” demonstrators.
8. Based on relevant news reports, please disclose the annual profit and profit distribution of Mr Cameron’s involvement in a new UK-China investment fund since 2017. Please provide a list of the names of those involved in the UK-China investment fund contacts with Chinese companies/organizations, as well as with Chinese and British officials/officers.
9. Please disclose, based on relevant news reports, whether the Tory Party and its party branches organised pro-PR China greeters to occupy the close proximity of Xi Jinping's arrival at the request of the Chinese delegation or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and to isolate the protesters from Xi Jinping's sight and hearing.
10. Regarding the judgment which handed down in the Global Legal Action Network and World Uyghur Congress' case against the UK government. Please make public the relevant records of communication between the British Government and the court. Has the British Government had any relevant communication with the CCP on this issue, and if so, please release the relevant records. If not, did the British Government request the court to make such a judgement.
11. Please give names of attendees and minutes for 1st- 12th China-UK Leadership Forum and other platforms between state of parties at Westminster, and the Chinese Communist Party/ “National People’s Congress” or “People's Political Consultative Conference” since 1970.
Please include copies of material which you hold in the form of paper and electronic records including emails and minutes. I would be grateful if you would supply this information by sending me photocopies by post and by email. If I can help to clarify these requests, please contact me by email.
Based on the details revealed in the proceeding of IOPC proceedings and civil claim, FCDO and Mr Cameron are related to the above questions.
There is a genuine public interest in disclosing the names of officials/officers involved in discussions with the Chinese Communist Party officers/officials about restricting the right to protest and other FOI requests above-- whether Mr Cameron and his affiliated officers were suspected of exchanging their power for money, and of using their power to suppress the right to protest with their power, and making profits and regaining new power through power-business dealings.
Yours sincerely
Dr SHAO Jiang
I was arrested on 21 October 2015 outside Mansion House when protesting peacefully during the visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping. I stood still holding aloft two A4-sized placards, reading ‘End Autocracy’ and ‘Democracy Now’, when four or five police officers forcibly took hold of me and pushed me for a long distance until I was out of sight of the cavalcade of the Chinese President.
I was arrested and detained by the City of London Police to prevent a breach of the peace. While in police custody, I was further arrested by the Metropolitan Police for conspiracy to commit a section 5 Public Order Act offence. My home was searched later that night and a number of electronic devices belonging to me and my partner were seized.
I was released on bail on the following day, after nearly 24 hours’ detention. The three conditions attached to my bail were all connected with the Chinese President and for reasons “[t]o prevent further offences and to prevent further harassment of the victim”. I was advised on 28 October that no further action was being taken against me.
In the early hours of 29 October I received a message from Google saying “Warning: We believe that attackers backed by certain states may be attempting to compromise your account or computer” (Google has since confirmed that this message is genuine). My computers were returned to me by the police a few hours later that same day.
I have submitted a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), alleging unlawful police conducts in nine major areas: 1) arrests; 2) detention; 3) denial of telephone call; 4) search of premises and seizure of property; 5) accessing electronic equipment/sharing of the contents; 6) taking of photograph, DNA and fingerprints; 7) bail conditions; 8) use of force; and 9) planning/policy.
The unlawful arrests, first by the City of London Police and further by the Metropolitan Police, effectively violated my right to protest. Lawrence Barker, my lawyer of Bindmans solicitors, pointed out in a Guardian interview, “While my client’s initial arrest and detention for breach of the peace effectively prevented him from lawfully protesting further that day, it provided the police with no powers to stop him from doing so during the remainder of the Chinese president’s visit,” and “[h]is arrest later that night for conspiracy to commit a public order offence – for which there was seemingly never any evidence – appears to have been carried out precisely to stop him protesting any further.”
As a widespread crackdown on human rights lawyers and campaigners is being carried out in China, I am particularly concerned about the seizure of my computers and phones. The Metropolitan Police has admitted taking a copy of contacts on my phone but denied accessing my computers. My computer equipment was seized for the purpose of investigating the allegations against me, but the investigation was discontinued due to “lack of evidence”, despite, as the police asserted, no attempts having been made to secure that evidence by way of examination of the computers. However, it was during the time that my electronic equipment was being held by the Metropolitan Police that Google issued its warning. The evidence suggests that either the Metropolitan Police were attempting to access my computer, contrary to what they have stated; or alternatively, that around that time information had been supplied by the Metropolitan Police to some other state body such that they might do so.
There is strong evidence that lawful protest is being restricted not only by way of operational decisions taken on any given day, but by way of prior police planning – seemingly in effect as a prerequisite of a visit by the Chinese President. The actions of any senior officer in drawing up and implementing such plans for that purpose would plainly be unlawful.
Statement on the IOPC’s Final Report
30 June 2019
On 26 June the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published its findings and decision in response to the complaints that my wife and I filed following my unlawful arrests during the Chinese state visit in October 2015. After three and a half years of waiting for this report, we have been left completely disappointed by the IOPC’s decision to let off the police officers responsible for my arrests, detention, home raid and seizure of computer equipment.
We have learnt that after a long investigation the IOPC found a case to answer for gross misconduct against two senior police officers. However, after criticism from the Metropolitan Police Service, the IOPC reversed their decision and dropped its findings. We find this both morally wrong and procedurally incorrect.
The IOPC’s report shows what we already suspected; that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that the Chinese president was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. We now know that the Chinese delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”. Frustratingly, the actual details describing conversations and requests, which amounted to pressure on the police, have all been redacted from the published report on the grounds of “public interest”.
It has emerged that police officers were briefed to make sure that the state visit ran smoothly without “embarrassments” to the Chinese and that “nothing was to go wrong”. The report includes comments by one of the senior officers involved in policing the event that “protest near the Chinese president is almost never tolerated, especially in a foreign country”.
The IOPC originally found that the evidence suggested that political pressure did influence the decision to arrest me, which we strongly believe to be the case. It is incredibly disappointing to learn that the IOPC have now dropped this, after written representations from the Metropolitan Police Service.
The IOPC holds itself out to be independent of the police and government. Our experience shows this to be false. They have completely failed under opposition from the Metropolitan Police Service to hold one of their senior officers to account. In doing so, they have rendered their entire investigation a wasted endeavour. What we asked for was transparency, accountability and redress. What we have been left with is a lack of trust in the police misconduct process and the IOPC’s ability to conduct an independent investigation.
This report came out at the time when remembering the Tiananmen Massacre is still treated as a crime in China, and when two million Hong Kong people took to the street to fight for judiciary independence. We expected so much more in a democratic country, but we are confronted with the chilling reality that our host country in exile is a place where suppression of peaceful protests and the use of ‘public interest’ test to withhold information from public scrutiny have greatly undermined the fundamental values of its own civil liberty and democracy.
We are not giving up. We would like to thank our lawyers at the Bindmans who have fought with us all the way and who will continue to assist us in further legal actions.
More：
Bindmans: https://www.bindmans.com/news/shao-jiang-releases-statement-on-the-iopc…
Observer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/30/political-pressure-before-arrest-of-chinese-dissident-london
IOPC Final report：https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Final%20report.pdf
IOPC Summary of determinations and final outcomes：https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Summary%20of%20determinations%20and%20outcomes.pdf
Summary of IPCC Complaint re My Arrest during Xi Jinping's UK Visit：https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/summary-ipcc-complaint-re-my-arrest-during-xi-jinpings-uk-visit#.VmqDumrq5TM.twitter
Amnesty International UK: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/press-release-me-let-me-go/china-shao-jiang-activist-tiananmen-square-arrest-london-president-china
Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-accused-of-doing-chinas-bidding-after-police-raid-home-of-tiananmen-square-survivor-over-peaceful-a6704911.html
TCHRD
http://tchrd.org/tchrd-condemns-detention-and-intimidation-of-peaceful-…
House of Commons Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-10-26/debates/15102612000003/ArrestsOfChineseProtesters
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/queen-chinese-officials-very-rude-xi-jinping-state-visit
BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36265224
In Chinese
关于英国监警会报告的声明
2019年6月30日
6月26日，英国监警会发布了针对我和妻子投诉英国警方在2015年习近平访英期间对我进行非法逮捕所做的调查和决定。经过三年半的等待，我们对英国监警会放弃追究伦敦大都市高级警官在对我进行逮捕、拘留、搜家和没收电脑过程中犯有严重不当行为的决定极为失望。
我们获悉监警会在长时间的调查后，认定有两名高级警官犯有严重的不当行为。然而在收到警方的批评后，监警会撤回了自己的决定，放弃了追责。监警会的行为在道德上是错误的，在程序上也不正确。
监警会的报告证实了我们当初的怀疑：英国警方确实受到来自中国和英国政府的双重政治压力，以确保习近平在访英期间不会因面对抗议者而“尴尬”。我们现在知道，中方代表就“管理抗议者”向英国政府提出了“一系列的要求”，并试图直接向英国警方施加压力。监警会的调查显示，在访问期间，英国政府也对警方如何管理抗议提出了“不同寻常的要求”。一名高级警官说，这样的要求是“前所未有”的。令人遗憾的是，凡涉及有关警方受到政治压力的具体对话内容在最后出版的报告中皆以“公共利益”为由涂黑删除。
监警会的调查表明，各级警察在习近平来访前的任务部署中得到指示，要确保访问顺利进行，不要让中方感到“尴尬”，要做到“万无一失”。一名参与管理示威的高级警官说：“中国领导人绝对不能容忍在他们附近出现任何政治抗议，尤其是在外事访问期间。”
监警会的原始证据表明，政治压力确实影响了对我逮捕的决定，我们也坚信这一点。令人极端失望的是，监警会在收到伦敦大都会警察局律师的书面意见后，放弃了这些证据和结论。
英国监警会自称独立于警方和政府。然而，我们的经验表明这种宣称是虚假的。在警方的压力下，监警会完全丧失了自己的独立职责，未能对高级警官进行问责。这种做法使整个调查过程成为一种徒劳的行为。我们当初的要求是透明、问责和赔偿，而在经历了整个投诉程序后，我们现在已经对调查警察不端行为的程序丧失了信任，也不再相信英国监警会具有独立调查警察的能力。
监警会报告发布在2019年的六月，正值天安门屠杀三十周年祭月，在中国大陆境内公开记忆六四屠杀仍然被视为犯罪。这也是200万香港人民走上街头争取司法独立的月份。我们对英国这样一个民主国家曾经有更多的期望，但现在却不得不面对冷酷的现实： 我们流亡栖身的英国，对和平示威的镇压以及以“公共利益”为名拒绝公众监督的种种行为已经极大地破坏了自身民主制度和公民自由的基本价值。
我们不会放弃。我们想在此感谢Bindmans的律师团队，他们自始至终地支持我们，并将继续协助我们进行法律诉讼。
----end--
Links to the earliest publication: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/statement-iopcs-final-report-guanyuyingguojianjinghuibaogaodeshengming
