Major Brands Lobby to “Water Down” Xinjiang Forced Labor Bill

At least three U.S. multinationals are seeking to weaken a bill that would ban the importation of goods produced with forced labor in Xinjiang. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was approved by the House by 406 votes to 3, is currently pending a vote in the Senate. The New York Times’ Ana Swanson reported that opposition to the legislation in its current form came from Nike, Coca-Cola, and Apple:

But the legislation, called the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, has become the target of multinational companies including Apple whose supply chains touch the far western Xinjiang region, as well as of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Lobbyists have fought to water down some of its provisions, arguing that while they strongly condemn forced labor and current atrocities in Xinjiang, the act’s ambitious requirements could wreak havoc on supply chains that are deeply embedded in China.

[…] In a report issued in March, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, listed Nike and Coca-Cola as companies suspected of ties to forced labor in Xinjiang, alongside Adidas, Calvin Klein, Campbell Soup Company, Costco, H&M, Patagonia, Tommy Hilfiger and others.

[…] But for many companies, fully investigating and eliminating any potential ties to forced labor there has been difficult, given the opacity of Chinese supply chains and the limited access of auditors to a region where the Chinese government tightly restricts people’s movements.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act would require companies sending goods to the United States to scrutinize those supply chains, or perhaps abandon Chinese suppliers altogether. It would impose high standards, barring imports of goods made “in whole or in part” in Xinjiang unless companies prove to customs officials that their products were not made with forced labor. [Source]

Last week, the Washington Post’s Reed Albergotti reported a story about Apple’s lobbying against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, reporting that congressional staffers characterized Apple’s efforts as “an attempt to water down the bill.” But the claims in that story were disputed by at least one other journalist:

It is not accurate to say that Apple's aim is to water down key provisions of the bill, and it is not accurate to characterize Apple as lobbying against the bill.

— B. Allen-Ebrahimian (@BethanyAllenEbr) November 21, 2020

The New York Times article published on Monday clarified Apple’s position, finding that it suggested edits to the bill to extend some compliance deadlines, and argued for releasing certain information about supply chains to congressional committees rather than to the public. It also advocated for Chinese entities to be “designated by the United States government” as helping to surveil or detain minority groups in Xinjiang.

Putting the onus on the U.S. government to declare which Chinese entities participate in forced labor would offer companies some cover from backlash by Chinese authorities, should they decide to end business with a certain supplier. It would also help mitigate the costs of appointing independent auditors, of which there are increasingly few. In September, at least five independent auditing firms declared they would no longer help companies audit their supply chains in Xinjiang, claiming that the “police-state atmosphere” and government controls have made it impossible for them to do so. Citing an “untenable operating environment,” the Better Cotton Initiative, a major sustainable cotton certifier also withdrew from Xinjiang in October.

At the same time, I can see how some supporters of the bill would see Apple’s suggested changes as “watering it down.” Specifically, they wanted to take out mentions of poverty alleviation programs (but keep pairing programs), release some disclosures to Congress but not publicly

— Ana Swanson (@AnaSwanson) November 30, 2020

You could see some of these changes as firming up parts of the bill that are vague or making its terms more realistic. It is a very broad bill, and Apple said they want it to become law. But I could also see how certain supporters might describe some changes as watering it down

— Ana Swanson (@AnaSwanson) November 30, 2020

U.S. companies have previously been complicit in assisting Chinese authorities with the development of sophisticated surveillance infrastructure in Xinjiang. But executive measures introduced under the Trump administration have made that harder, such as by making it illegal for tech companies to sell advanced computer chips to Chinese companies implicated in human rights violations.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act sets up a presumption that goods from Xinjiang were manufactured with forced labor, unless proven otherwise. Together with the Uyghur Forced Labor Disclosure Act also passed by the House, it sets new disclosure requirements for U.S. publicly listed companies, forcing companies to report whether they have done business with entities involved in building Xinjiang’s surveillance network or in operating detention facilities in Xinjiang. The Prevention bill also prohibits the import of all goods made by companies working with the Xinjiang government on “poverty alleviation” or “pairing assistance” programs.

That latter prohibition on goods made by companies engaged in poverty alleviation has been controversial for some U.S. multinationals. As part of Xi Jinping’s drive to eliminate poverty by the end of this year, officials in Xinjiang have been under pressure to hit quotas. This can be accomplished on paper through labor transfers, including to jobs where workers are employed involuntarily and are severely underpaid. Poverty alleviation initiatives in Xinjiang are also sometimes combined with “pairing programs,” where provinces are paired with regions of Xinjiang, and may be expected to receive government transfers of Xinjiang workers to those regions.

But not all “poverty alleviation” initiatives involve labor transfers or forced labor. The State Department’s supply chain business advisory for Xinjiang acknowledges that there may be legitimate poverty alleviation programs in Xinjiang. Chinese enterprises might participate in poverty alleviation in Xinjiang through philanthropy or by providing technical assistance, for example. But Xinjiang’s police state and opaque governance make it challenging for companies to ascertain whether poverty alleviation measures are “legitimate” or involve forced labor.

While both the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention and Disclosure Acts were passed with large, if not overwhelming majorities in the House, they have yet to be voted on in the Senate. Developments in Washington may offer the bills new momentum: the Trump administration is reportedly planning to introduce a flurry of polices during its remaining weeks in power in an effort to make it “politically untenable for the Biden administration to change course on China.” But the Biden administration has also signalled it would be more vocal on human rights issues in China, leaving open the possibility that the incoming administration could also be willing to eventually sign the bills into law.

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/major-brands-lobby-to-water-down-xinjiang-forced-labor-bill/

Photo: Orange the World 2020 – China – Shanghai, by UN Women

Orange the World 2020 – China – Shanghai, by UN Women (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/photo-orange-the-world-2020-china-shanghai-by-un-women/

Translation: Must We Be Slaves to Facial Recognition?

As the modern era is increasingly defined by the massive amounts of data generated by everyday transactions and the ways that authorities process this data to target, monitor, monetize, and control the people, Chinese web users have in recent years been expressing alarm at the social and political implications of society’s increasing reliance on big data. In China, as in the world at large, demand for new information technologies is spurred by promises of personal convenience. However, many have noted that these new conveniences don’t come for free, pointing out that glitches in this new tech are commonplace, and warning that due to age or economic status, many are excluded from the advantages provided and from the social services that increasingly rely on this tech for distribution.

On WeChat earlier this month, user @与归随笔 described their reaction to learning how greatly inconvenienced elderly people can be by facial feature data requirements for activating social security benefits. In outrage at the humiliation that this requirement can cause to a traditionally venerated demographic, the author asks who works for who in a society fueled by big data:

It is important not to be tossed about in old age. A simple fall and tumble can be quite damaging.  

And so, a video that I watched today left me outraged. 

According to @四川观察 (Sichuan Observer), a 94-year-old grandma was having difficulty activating her social security card at a bank, and so had to be physically lifted-up by relatives in order to complete the facial recognition portion. Chinese netizens reported that this incident occurred in Guangshui, Hubei.

I’m not sure how this video made others feel, but to me it felt at once ridiculous and exasperating. We are not yet ruled over by man-made robots, but we’re already beginning to be tormented by man-made technologies. 

A 94-year-old grandma, wearing such heavy winter clothing, just had to be tossed from her home to the bank, and then again manhandled up into the air….

If facial recognition were a person, I imagine he’d be an emperor, and the people would revolve ceaselessly around him. The young would bow and scrape in homage, the old would come in person to pay their respects, and the bank personnel would always be at the ready to serve.

Recently, “facial recognition” has made a big splash. When Hangzhou Safari Park unilaterally changed the entry procedure for annual card holders from a fingerprint to facial recognition system, it was sued in court by member Guo Bing, who holds a JD. The lawsuit has become known as China’s “first facial recognition case.” 

Fortunately, the Fuyang district People’s Court of Hangzhou issued a verdict requiring the park to compensate Guo a total of 1,038 yuan for damages and transportation costs, and also required the deletion of any data on his facial features, including photographs, that were provided when he applied for the initial fingerprint-activated card.

And Hangzhou is the first city to pass legislation on facial recognition. Indeed, you may not have even noticed, but as facial recognition spreads across the country like wildfire, these systems with local security guards who bark at residents over loudspeakers, this is even being carried out in “extralegal” circumstances…

Two months ago, my neighborhood began a rushed campaign to record facial data for the recognition system. Though it wasn’t technically mandatory for residents, if your face wasn’t recorded then you’d be unable to enter your building and would have to wait for someone who was in the system and then sneak in behind them. If, by some misfortune, that person also didn’t have their face recorded, then you’d both just have to wait for the next person.

In the end, we all had no choice but to acquiesce obediently. Just how does a facial recognition system that professes to “convenience residents” get implemented? Why, by tormenting them, of course. Torment residents enough and they’ll eventually submit and agree to have their faces recorded.

In my district what’s most bewildering was the fact that, even though everyone eventually registered, the recognition camera would malfunction often leaving residents stranded waiting for someone to let them in. Inconvenience has reached new heights.

Therefore, I almost forgot to mention, if “facial recognition” were a person with a face, I’d give him a good slap. Who cares if he’s some powerful leader or emperor, If I’m going to die, I’d rather go out with my “face” intact.  

Speaking of the danger and risk brought by facial recognition, it’s not merely one or two cases now.

In 2018, a senior in his nineties in Huanggang, Hubei, was similarly manhandled when they went from Wuhan to Hongan County to enroll in the annual social security validation program. As the office was located on the third floor without an elevator, the elder’s family had to procure a wheelchair and carry them up three flights of stairs…

In 2019, Shenfang, Sichuan province, a man stole over twenty thousand yuan from his girlfriend, who he met online, by using facial recognition verification on her while she was asleep.

In November 2019, the media reported that an AI company in San Diego used a 3D-printed mask to “hack” somebody’s face, and was not only able to complete payments on WeChat and Alipay, but also entered a train station by successfully passing the facial recognition system.

And last month in Huizhou, Guangdong province, a Mr. Chen was unable to inherit a sum of money from his late father because he couldn’t get past the facial recognition verification step. He was required to prove that “my dad is my dad,” and spent over 7 months making numerous trips back and forth to the bank, notary, police station, and neighborhood committee—all to no avail.

In the end, Mr. Chen was only able to resolve the matter by appealing directly to the State Council Inspection Team.

So what do officials in some of these places actually think about facial recognition? That it’s some master of the one and only Truth? That without it the world would simply stop turning?

When it turns out to not be so convenient and a situation arises where the risks become readily apparent, do people have the right to choose not to live such an advanced lifestyle?

Isn’t it the case that once we had fingerprint technology, everybody had to register their prints, and so now with facial recognition, everybody also has to register their faces? That without this you’ll be unable to enter your residential community, unable to return home? Just who makes the final call over these communities built with our money?

In an age where electricity flows everywhere, are we not allowed to light candles?

Those in charge are in fact servants, and so they mustn’t always manage affairs from the perspective of their own expediency. Ultimately, they actually have to make life convenient for people, and they have to consider the people’s safety.

In an era where individual data is leaked frequently, where so-called “human-flesh” cyber-hunts are all the rage, the implementation of facial recognition should probably slow down a bit.

Back before there was facial recognition, the sky didn’t fall. Today, if we don’t use it, the sky’s also not going to fall.

Those who don’t want to be slaves to facial recognition should be given space to live. [Chinese]

Translation by Hamish.

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/translation-must-we-be-slaves-to-facial-recognition/

New Rules And “Sinicization” Campaigns Reduce Religious Freedom

New draft rules from the Ministry of Justice, translated by China Law Translate, aim to further limit foreign participation and influence in Chinese religious life. Foreign adherents of religious groups not under the umbrella of China’s five state-regulated official faiths—Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Daoism, Buddhism—will likely see their freedom of exercise restricted. At CNN, James Griffiths reported on how the new rules will impact religious practitioners and scholars in China:

[…] “I was struck by the repeated use of the phrase ‘China’s religious independence,’ which points to the nationalist desire to purify religions of ‘foreign’ influences,” [Rian Thum, an expert on Islam in China at the University of Nottingham] said. “The regulations look like an effort to seal off Chinese religious practitioners from their fellow believers outside the country. Even lectures by visiting religious figures would require a bureaucratic permissions process that would dissuade most visitors.”

[…] Previously there has been broad tolerance for foreigners preaching to foreigners, provided they are officially licensed and ensure no Chinese citizens attend services. Some Christian groups are less scrupulous about this than others, and missionaries continue to operate illegally in China, Thum said.

The new regulations could further tighten grey areas around foreign religious practice, issuing strict new requirements for applying to hold services, including describing the primary religious texts used, listing the nationality and visa status of all attendees, and obtaining a permit to use the building for such activities.

[…] While specific punishments are not listed in the new proposal, there is a suggestion they could be severe, with talk of invoking “counter espionage” laws and other state security regulations against infractors. [Source]

The Mormon Church might be particularly impacted by the new regulations. The Mormon Church first arrived in China in 1853, and has operated quietly in the PRC since 1986, on the condition that it only serve foreign believers. In April, when the church announced that it would seek to open a temple in Shanghai, Shanghai’s religious affairs bureau was quick to shoot down the plan: “Foreigners are not allowed to establish religious organizations or areas of religious activity within China’s borders[…] the news that the American Mormon Church announced that it is building a temple came only from the American side.” A recent set of regulations also targeted foreign teachers, some of whom have illegally acted as covert missionaries while teaching in China.

While overseeing a long-running crackdown on predominately Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang that has been described as a “genocide,” Xi Jinping has also focused on eliminating “foreign influence” in Muslim communities across the country. As Chinese officials claim that the “Arabization” of Islam might affect national security, a nationwide campaign to “Sinicize” the religion by making it “more commercial, patriotic and Chinese” has seen mosque domes removed and scholars arrested across the country. Similar campaigns to “Sinicize” Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism were launched in 2014 and 2016, respectively. State media tabloid Global Times linked China’s draft rules to recent attacks in Europe and argued that foreign religion and terror are intimately linked:

Some European countries, especially France, have suffered from terrorist attacks committed by religious extremists in recent months. For example, there was the beheading of Samuel Paty, a middle school teacher who had showed his students caricatures of prophet Muhammad.

China has always remained on high alert for infiltration of foreign forces using religion and insisted on independent principles in managing its religious affairs, analysts said.

[…] “These rules are not in conflict with the protection of religious freedom. Only by stopping those with other purposes from using religion, can people better enjoy religious freedom in China. Giving up administration would only end the harmonious religious situation in China and give way to religious extremist forces,” Zhu said. [Source]

Chinese definitions of terrorism are much more like "any perceived threat to state authority and Han majority claims." This is why self-immolation can be described as terrorism. https://t.co/uj4qyO6rG5

— Darren Byler (@dtbyler) November 24, 2020

Pope Francis this week recognized Uyghurs as a “persecuted peoples,” but only after the renewal of a secret agreement with Beijing on the appointment of new bishops. For decades now, China’s 10-12 million Catholics have been split between Chinese-recognized clergy and their “unofficial” Vatican-appointed rivals. The deal was an attempt to resolve that impasse, according to Vatican insiders. At America Magazine, a prominent Jesuit publication, Gerard O’Connell wrote about the continued difficulties that the Catholic Church and practicing Catholics have faced in China since the extension of the deal:

From the Vatican’s perspective, the major achievement was the acceptance by Beijing that the Bishop of Rome, the pope, has the final say in the appointment of bishops in China. Chinese authorities had rejected this authority before as an interference in the internal affairs of the country. For its part Beijing got the Vatican to accept the process of “the democratic election” of candidates to be bishops, something not envisaged in canon law. For Francis, however, that concession was less of a problem, given his knowledge of the history of the involvement of Spanish and Portuguese monarchs in the appointment of bishops in Latin America in past centuries.

[…] Today, there are around 100 Catholic bishops in mainland China; many are very old, but all are now united with the pope because of the agreement. Some 30 of them belong to the underground church and refuse to join the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, so they are not recognized by the authorities in Beijing. The situation of these bishops has become more difficult since the agreement as, contrary to what Rome expected, Chinese authorities have used it to pressure underground bishops and priests to submit to the state’s religious policies.

[…] There are other matters that the Vatican will want to address before approaching the question of diplomatic relations. It cannot overlook the unresolved questions as to the whereabouts of two elderly bishops and whether they are still alive. Another important issue is the need to resolve in a dignified manner the situation of the bishop of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma Daquin, who was taken away on the day of his episcopal ordination on July 7, 2012 and has been deprived of his freedom and pastoral ministry ever since. [Source]

Even secular events with “Western” backgrounds can spark controversy. At Harbin Institute of Technology, a dorm manager found herself in the middle of an online firestorm after preparing to distribute chocolates to students on Thanksgiving. “Today is Western Thanksgiving Day. I want to express my gratitude for the support you have extended[…] I will be giving out some chocolates[…] First come, first served,” she wrote in a group chat. A nationalist student took a screenshot and then berated her online. At CNN, Mimi Lau reported on the school’s statement on the controversy, and online commentators disdain for the student and the administration:

“The school does not promote (celebrations) of Western holidays with religious connotations and strictly prohibits religious activities on campus,” the [school’s] statement added.

“When foreigners celebrate the Dragon Boat Festival or (Lunar New Year), we call it a ‘cultural export,'” wrote another Weibo user. “When it’s the other way around, why is it ‘worshiping foreign things and fawning on foreign countries’?”

Yet another Weibo user asked sarcastically: “The Gregorian calendar also has religious connotations, shall we boycott it too?” [Source]

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/new-rules-and-sinicization-campaigns-reduce-religious-freedom/

Australia Feeling the Force of China’s Escalating Trade War

China imposed new tariffs on Australian imports on Friday, the latest move in an escalating trade war that has rallied several of Australia’s allies in support for the country. The Washington Post’s Gerry Shih reported on the significance of the latest tariffs on wine, an industry that is heavily reliant on exports to China for viability:

Beijing on Friday announced new tariffs of up to 200 percent on Australian wine, which the country’s trade minister said could make business “unviable” for a $3 billion industry that sends 40 percent of its exports to China. The move adds wine to a growing list of Australian exports that have been targeted by Chinese authorities this year. Other products that have faced trade barriers include coal, timber, seafood and barley, totaling about $20 billion.

[…] Australian Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said Friday that the series of Chinese moves, taken together, appear not to be driven by legitimate regulatory concerns and “give rise to the perception that these actions are being undertaken … in response to some other factors.”

“Doing so is completely incompatible with the commitments that China has given through the China-Australia free trade agreement and through the World Trade Organization,” Birmingham said in his toughest comments to date, while stopping short of threatening a formal complaint with international trade authorities. “It’s incompatible with a rules-based trading system,” he added. [Source]

After China slapped Australian wine with huge tariffs, China’s MFA spokey Zhao on who to blame:

‘Australia should reflect upon its own behaviour and think about whether it respects China’s interests’ / ‘We urge Australia to correct its actions and face up to its mistakes’. pic.twitter.com/xJAUKuWhIG

— Bill Birtles (@billbirtles) November 27, 2020

Relations between China and Australia have been strained for months amid disputes over a wide range of issues, beginning with Canberra’s calls in April for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19. China has resisted any investigation into the source of the virus in China, and is ramping up claims that the virus originated abroad. Since March, Beijing’s volume of political scores with Australia has grown, culminating in the “leak” of an official list of “14 disputes” to Australian media last week. Among other points of contention, Beijing has taken issue with the Morrison government’s outspokenness about human rights issues in China, its blocking of several foreign investment proposals, and “antagonistic” Australian media coverage of China. A swathe of tariffs and import bans issued by the Chinese government have hobbled key Australian exporters, from lobster farmers to wheat producers.

This week, media reports have shown how those sectors are feeling the force of the new measures. Bloomberg’s Aaron Clark, Kevin Varley, and Annie Lee reported that more than $500 million worth of Australian coal is stranded off the coast of Chinese waters:

More than $500 million worth of Australian coal is on ships anchored off Chinese ports, as a diplomatic spat between the two countries cuts into trade, idles a portion of the world’s dry bulk carriers and threatens to spiral into a humanitarian crisis.

More than 50 vessels have been waiting a month or longer to offload coal from Australia, according to separate analyses of shipping data conducted by Bloomberg and data intelligence firm Kpler. There are about 5.7 million tons of coal on the anchored ships, which are mostly Capesize and Panamax-sized vessels, according to Kpler, and an estimated 1,000 seafarers. [Source]

The level of aggression that Beijing has been willing to deploy against Australia has alarmed Canberra’s allies, prompting some to speak out in support. Tom Tugendhat, chairman of Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee, called the 14 demands an “extremely aggressive act” and called on “free countries of the world to [take] this extremely seriously.” The Australian Financial Review’s Jacob Greber reported that the situation in Australia has been “regularly invoked” among policymakers in the U.S., signaling the level of alarm that has spread among Western nations. On Thursday, the Financial Times’ editorial board called for coordination among democratic allies to counter pressure from Beijing:

The rapid deterioration in the relationship between Beijing and Canberra is much more than a bilateral affair. It demonstrates how a more assertive China is now seeking to intimidate nations that are a long way from its shores, by resorting to a bullying style of “wolf warrior” diplomacy. The treatment of Australia sets a worrying precedent since China is making demands that would impinge upon the country’s domestic system — affecting basic liberties such as freedom of speech.

Democratic countries should watch this conflict closely and be prepared to support each other in pushing back against Chinese pressure. Without such co-ordination, Beijing will be encouraged in its efforts to divide and rule, inflicting real political and economic damage on democratic countries that defy its will. [Source]

Up for review at the end of this year is a bilateral trade agreement that may provide an important litmus test for how far Beijing and Canberra will allow relations to deteriorate. Experts have suggested that the two governments are unlikely to be willing to tear up the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAfta) over the current dispute. Despite their ongoing disagreements, the two earlier signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a landmark trade agreement including fifteen countries.

For the Diplomat, Katie Howe wrote about the bigger picture of the bilateral relationship, highlighting its deep historical roots and breadth of economic ties that render the bilateral relationship more complicated than it seems:

In 1972, Australia became the second Western nation after Sweden to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. To date, Australia remains the only Western country to have elected a Mandarin-speaking head of government, former diplomat Kevin Rudd. In 2020, the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), former ambassador to China Frances Adamson, is also a Mandarin speaker.

[…] Australia ranks in China’s top 10 sources of principal imports. While iron ore, natural gas, coal, and gold make up the bulk of these (A$98 billion in 2018-19), service industries such as education and tourism (valued at A$16 billion in 2018-19) have become an important part of the trade relationship. Given that success in these industries requires a more sophisticated, bilingual understanding of the market, this area of growth has been led by the Chinese Australian business community. The greatest disruption experienced by these sectors has been travel restrictions and quarantine protocols caused by the COVID-19 pandemic

[…] Many of these initiatives have remained untouched by the fluctuations of diplomatic relations and over the past 18 months many projects have been newly established or advanced. Payne says that despite diplomatic tensions, Australia’s national brand remains strong in the mainland. “Our reputation – for providing safe, reliable, high quality products – hasn’t changed at the consumer level,” he said. “Products in health, food, beverage and fresh produce will continue to be in demand.” [Source]

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/australia-feeling-the-force-of-chinas-escalating-trade-war/

Minitrue Diary, February 29, 2020: South China Sea Maps, Mask Priorities

CDT has recently acquired and verified a collection of propaganda directives issued by central Party authorities to state media at the beginning of this year. These directives were issued on an almost daily basis in early 2020, and we will be posting them over the coming weeks. The following two directives were released on February 29, 2020.

Please strictly enforce use of labels and place names in line with the Chinese government’s in maps of the South China Sea; avoid the use of maps or place names that violate our South China Sea policy or stance in news reports or on web pages to avoid the transmission of erroneous information to foreign countries. Materials for foreign publication, especially in countries with involvement in the South China Sea and those including maps or place names related to the South China Sea, should be stringently examined and strictly reviewed, and the importation of foreign publications that violate our South China Sea policies, claims, and positions should be refused. (February 29, 2020) [Source]

The immediate trigger for this directive is unclear, but its instructions reflect Chinese authorities’ longstanding insistence on rigid adherence to its territorial claims in written or graphical materials.

In accordance with the National Development and Reform Commission and National Health Commission’s guidance on the selection and use of face masks, it is permissible not to wear them in well-ventilated outdoor areas while maintaining a suitable distance from others. In order to guide standardized protection measures amid the return to work and resumption of production in all departments and across the country, people wearing face masks should not be shown in video or photographs in reports on spring plowing, outdoor construction work etc. in areas outside Hubei. (February 29, 2020) [Source]

These instructions show efforts to prevent unnecessary mask use in the face of stubborn supply constraints even for those on the front lines. A comparison of national guidance on mask use published in The Lancet on May 1 noted that although "some provinces and municipalities in China [including Shanghai] have enforced compulsory face mask policies in public areas […] China’s national guideline has adopted a risk-based approach in offering recommendations for using face masks among health-care workers and the general public." Various reports in the days and weeks surrounding this directive described shortages among medical workers, manufacturers’ struggle to meet demand, Chinese authorities seizure of millions of fake or substandard masks, and China’s efforts first to procure masks from abroad—a recurring subject in earlier directives—and then to reserve enough of its own output for domestic use as global demand surged. Governments elsewhere have faced similar challenges in managing supply and demand of vital protective equipment. See more directives on the coronavirus pandemic from CDT.

Since directives are sometimes communicated orally to journalists and editors, who then leak them online, the wording published here may not be exact. Some instructions are issued by local authorities or to specific sectors, and may not apply universally across China. The date given may indicate when the directive was leaked, rather than when it was issued. CDT does its utmost to verify dates and wording, but also takes precautions to protect the source. See CDT’s collection of Directives from the Ministry of Truth since 2011.

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/minitrue-diary-february-29-2020-south-china-sea-maps-mask-priorities/

Netizen Voices: Embattled Rental-Loan Firm Faces Rage After Evictions

Internet-based long-term residential rental company Danke Apartment (蛋壳公寓, literally “Eggshell Apartments”), founded in Beijing in 2015, has in recent years become a major player in China’s fast growing housing rental market. In January of this year, it went public on the New York Stock Exchange. Touting its big data and mobile app-fueled business approach and its typically young and educated client base, it attracted interest as both a tech and a property management firm. However, its model appears to be collapsing as tenants, property-owners, and even some employees are protesting after a string of evictions.

As reported on Weibo by Chinese business news outlet Ent-Biz (新文化商业), Danke runs on the risky model known as “rental-loans” (租金贷). Renters are given price incentives to pay upfront for a long term—generally six months or a year—and are offered loans to cover the sum through a partner bank. Meanwhile, Danke pays landlords on a monthly or quarterly schedule, allowing the company flexibility in financing. With cash flow strained by both the coronavirus pandemic and its own breakneck growth, Danke failed to make payments on time. In turn, owners began to evict renters, many of whom still have to pay back their loans to the bank. Earlier this month at Caixin, Niu Mujiangqu, Qu Hui, and Tang Ziyi reported in English on Danke’s troubles, further detailing the business model and backlash from clients:

The service makes its money by leasing apartments from property owners on a long-term basis, then renovating and furnishing the properties so they can be sublet to renters at a higher rental price. However, the company is now running out of cash after struggling to attract renters during the pandemic lockdowns.

Danke is now facing backlash from many of its landlords and renters in several big Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shenzhen and Hangzhou. Angry landlords who haven’t received rent payments from Danke have tried to evict the service’s users, multiple tenants told Caixin. But the users, who said they have already paid rent to Danke, were reluctant to give up their apartments.

Since last week, some landlords have taken action to force renters to leave, such as cutting off the electricity or water — or changing the locks, the tenants said. [Source]

A followup report from Caixin notes that Danke is one of many using the model to be in the same financial situation, and that the firm is courting new buyers amid serious skepticism about its model. At Quartz, Jane Li reports on Danke’s clients’ angry online posts over the last week, and onlookers’ analysis of the situation:

But in the last week, photos, videos, and posts shared by desperate, angry Danke tenants and landlords have gone viral on China’s Weibo. The cash-strapped company has reportedly stopped paying some landlords rental money they had collected from the tenants, in some cases prompting landlords to begin evictions. In one video, a woman is seen holding a knife while confronting her landlord who wanted to take the flat back. Other tenants have shared stories of having electricity and water cut off, or having their locks changed. One Danke tenant, who is a participant of a popular music reality show, complained online that his Wi-Fi was cut off, leaving him unable to produce and share his music.

[…] Danke tenants are seen as a much more privileged group than the other participants in the internet economy: migrant workers, or the so-called “low-end population,” most of whom have to stay in storage basements in big cities. While the wealthier class has enjoyed conveniences and opportunities presented by the internet and the flourishing tech scene, it is now falling victim to the boom-and-bust startup world. “The youngsters thought they were the beneficiaries of the internet age, but instead they have become the most helpless tiny shrimps in the capital games,” said a user on Weibo.

Others suggest that the tenants should push back. “My only wish is: the many youngsters living in the numerous Danke flats are not submissive,” said another Weibo user. “The highest authorities have already taught us: this era does not belong to those who are obedient.” [Chinese]

The Chinese report from Ent-Biz quotes a young man by the alias Xiao Zhang, who renewed his contract in September 2020 only to have his internet cut off a month later. “Then the cleaning lady stopped coming. Then the landlord came to evict me.” Danke asked Xiao Zhang to move out and apply for a refund through their app. Xiao Zhang followed those instructions, but the refund never came, and Danke’s customer service line was always busy as he tried to followup.

Thousands reportedly formed groups on WeChat, trying to negotiate with Danke. Other Chinese reports note that in addition to renters and landlords seeking compensation from Danke, employees are also pursuing damages from the embattled firm.  Victims and potential victims also took to Weibo to voice their concerns, but before long were censored. On November 20, Weibo banned “super-topic” relevant to the discussion. CDT Chinese reports on the censorship, including a short compilation of netizen remarks on the situation, some wondering why official media was still able to discuss the topic when Weibo users couldn’t. Several comments are translated below, and more can be read at CDT Chinese:

L**：”Danke Apartment” super-topic has been blocked, and I don’t know if what it is that’s being covered up. Any media or individual still able to say anything is surely worthy of respect.

阿**: These days young folks are all garlic chives. One crop after the next, as long as they’re still alive they don’t fear not being harvested.

雾**：Danke Apartment super-topic is gone, does that mean that this topic is forbidden from discussion @People’sDaily (@人民日报)?

气**：People’s Daily is just a second-rate newspaper, that’s why they can.

H**：I am a Danke employee, and they already owe me half a year’s wages.

我**：All those living in Danke Apartments are freshly graduated students. Why does the government treat young people this way just after they step their feet into society? [Chinese]

Yakexi contributed to this post.

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/netizen-voices-embattled-rental-loan-firm-faces-rage-after-evictions/

In Canada, Political Rift Widens Over China Policy

A growing rift is emerging among policymakers in Canada over the country’s relationship with China. Amid fraying Sino-Canadian relations stemming from a multitude of issues—from the coronavirus, to Beijing’s repression in Hong Kong, to Meng Wanzhou’s pending extradition to the U.S. and the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in China—a growing number of Canadians want their government to adopt a more bullish position towards Beijing. According to a poll release Wednesday by the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada, 83% of citizens want Canada to stand up to China on issues seen as national values, including the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. National Post’s Adrian Humphreys reported on the results of the public opinion poll:

The poll suggests Canadians are wary of China’s growing economic might, suspicious of investment from China, hoping Ottawa continues to push for the release of two Canadians detained in China, and concerned over declining human rights in China.

[…] The pandemic had a large impact on this year’s polling, both in the questions asked and in the answers given.

Two-thirds of respondents expressed distrust in China’s initial response to the COVID-19 outbreak: 67 per cent said the government of China didn’t act responsibly at the start of the crisis, and 68 per cent want an independent inquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus.

[…] Respondents remain concerned over the continued detention of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, “the two Michaels” who have been detained in China for almost two years. [Source]

December marks the second anniversary of the detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig in China. The pair were separately detained shortly after Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Chinese tech giant Huawei, was arrested in Canada at the request of U.S. authorities. She faces charges of fraud and conspiracy in the U.S. in connection with Huawei’s alleged violations of sanctions on Iran. Extradition hearings resumed this month in Vancouver, where Meng continues to live under house arrest. On Tuesday, a small group of activists and a number of Canadian MPs participated an online rally to call for her release. On Twitter, South China Morning Post reporter Ian Young covered the chaotic “Zoom to Free Meng Wanzhou” meeting, reporting that one MP who was scheduled to speak ultimately failed to make an appearance:

Not sure where this is going. Hails China-Canada trade. Says there are many Chinese students here. OK. Sure. Literally has not mentioned Meng's name once yet

— Ian Young (@ianjamesyoung70) November 25, 2020

Kubursi: “You cannot expect China to respect human rights…unless we show them the respect they deserve”. Still has not mentioned Meng by name

— Ian Young (@ianjamesyoung70) November 25, 2020

I see NO SIGN OF NIKI ASHTON at this meeting. Maybe she is attending under anonymised account or via phone number. But there is still no mention of Ashton from mods. Yesterday’s SCMP story here https://t.co/eTZ9sjCqTp

— Ian Young (@ianjamesyoung70) November 25, 2020

“Our final speaker Niki Ashton has been unable to attend at the last minute”

— Ian Young (@ianjamesyoung70) November 25, 2020

Meanwhile, a growing chorus of opposition MPs in Canada’s parliament have been calling for even tougher action against China. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration has been criticized by some for not being tough enough against Beijing. This week, Canadian Foreign Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said that Canada should resist “tough talk about China,” arguing that it would hurt the release of the two Michaels. Reuters’ Steve Scherer reported that Trudeau’s main rival has pledged to adopt a more aggressive position were it to gain power, including boycotting certain goods:

“The Trudeau government has been out of step and naive on China since the moment he was elected,” Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole said in an interview.

As prime minister, O’Toole said he would not “sacrifice our security interests, our values, our alliances, just for trade opportunities.”

Trudeau has come under increased pressure to embolden his approach to China, which arrested two Canadian citizens shortly after Meng was detained. China has also shut down most imports of Canadian canola. [Source]

In a sign that the Trudeau administration is feeling the pressure to toughen its posture against Beijing, the government made several announcements this month pushing back against Beijing’s aggression. Last week, it highlighted China’s cyber threat when it identified Chinese state-sponsored cyber activity as “the most sophisticated threat” to Canada’s power supply. Parliament recently passed a motion to force the government to decide within 30 days whether to allow Huawei to supply equipment to Canada’s 5G network.

On diaspora and immigration issues, Canada’s intelligence agency issued a warning this month that Operation Fox Hunt, China’s global campaign to harass and intimidate members of the Chinese diaspora it views as enemies, was actively targeting Canadians. In defiance of open threats by the Chinese ambassador regarding the safety of Canadian passport holders in Hong Kong, Ottawa announced an immigration arrangement for recent Hong Kong college graduates that would offer them a path to citizenship in Canada. Last week, it joined in a statement with fellow “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance members—Australia, Britain, New Zealand, and the U.S.—in condemning the disqualification of elected lawmakers from Hong Kong’s legislature. China’s Foreign Ministry countered that the alliance of five “should beware of their eyes being poked and blinded.”

The flurry of activity over the last month suggests that the ruling Liberal Party may be trying to reorient itself to meet growing demands for it to toughen its stance towards Beijing. An open question is how the incoming Biden administration, who has committed to strengthening longterm alliances but whose own agenda on China remains unknown, might shape Ottawa’s China policy. There have been signs that the two North American countries are looking to work together on the issue. for example when the Prime Minister reportedly sought help from the U.S. on the issue of the two Michaels in a phone call with President-elect Biden earlier this month. AP’s Rob Gillies reported on Trudeau’s comments on a recent call with the president-elect:

“[Beijing’s] approach of coercive diplomacy is ineffective,” Trudeau said at a news conference. “I am extremely confident that the incoming administration will continue to be a good partner to Canada and other nations around the world as we look to impress upon China that the approach they are taking is simply not working.” [Source]

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/in-canada-political-rift-widens-over-china-policy/

Photo: Shanxi architecture – Pagoda of Fogong Temple, by Megan Wong

Shanxi architecture – Pagoda of Fogong Temple, by Megan Wong (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/photo-shanxi-architecture-pagoda-of-fogong-temple-by-megan-wong/

Chinese State Media Echoes Claims COVID-19 Originated Abroad

In recent days Chinese state media has returned to the claim that coronavirus did not emerge in Wuhan, the latest attempt to shape the public narrative and global memory of China’s coronavirus experience. In English-language posts on Facebook (a platform long blocked in China), Party mouthpiece People’s Daily and quoted two top Chinese scientists who both claimed the coronavirus was imported from elsewhere:

#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts

All available evidence suggests that the coronavirus, which has infected more than 59 million people in 190 countries, did not start in central China’s Wuhan, experts reiterated.

“Wuhan was where the coronavirus was first detected but it was not where it originated,” Zeng Guang, former chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told an online academic conference on Nov 19.

Wu Zunyou, the CDC’s present chief epidemiologist, also gave a similar judgment recently, saying the pathogen could have come into China through imported frozen seafood or meat products and their packaging, reported the South China Morning Post. [Source]

All available evidence suggests that #COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan, but may come into China through imported frozen food products and their packaging: experts https://t.co/PPakQ6vJzW pic.twitter.com/540HQNrrr1

— People's Daily, China (@PDChina) November 25, 2020

Spaghetti, meet wall pic.twitter.com/jLY2lMxqkj

— Michael “In A Move Likely To Anger China” Mazza (@mike_mazza) November 25, 2020

They’ve been preparing the way for several weeks already with state media reports of coronavirus found on imported food / packaging. https://t.co/3Splcix1Lf

— Jeremy Goldkorn (@goldkorn) November 25, 2020

State media has yet to explain how, if Covid started in another place, the first exponential-growth outbreak began in Wuhan. Why weren’t there big outbreaks in other countries before Wuhan? Depressingly, this cold-chain theory is widely believed here in China, which is the point https://t.co/WKT3B1FnuP

— David Rennie 任大伟 (@DSORennie) November 25, 2020

While making the claim that would be echoed by state media, Beijing’s former top epidemiologist Zeng Guang cited a recent Italian study that claimed coronavirus was spreading asymptomatically in Italy as early as September 2019. But the researchers behind the study contend that it “simply [documented] that the epidemic in China was not detected in time,” not that Italy was the origin of the virus. Current top epidemiologist Wu Zunyou claimed earlier in the month that “[g]rowing evidence [shows]frozen seafood or meat may have introduced the virus from the epidemic-affected countries into China.”

Authorities have tied recent outbreaks in Tianjin and Shanghai to imported goods. Videos of panicked workers fleeing the Shanghai airport after a snap decision to rapid-test 17,000 workers went viral recently. While the scenes in Shanghai and Tianjin have been used to bolster claims of a foreign origin for the virus, the South China Morning Post’s Linda Lew and Nadia Lam detailed the global scientific community’s skepticism about Zeng and Wu’s claims:

Wuhan University virology professor Yang Zhanqiu said suggestions the virus entered the country on imported frozen food were just guesses “that do not have supporting evidence ”, according to nationalist tabloid Global Times.

[…] Yuen Kwok-yung, chairman of infectious diseases at the University of Hong Kong’s department of microbiology, said there were questions about the Italian study and it could be a case of a “false positive” reading.

The specific antibodies found in the Italian study were insufficient to prove that the patient had Covid-19, he said at a forum organised by Hong Kong media platform Master Insight Media on Friday. [Source]

Government-endorsed conspiracies about the virus’ origins are not new. In March, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Zhao Lijian promoted a false theory that COVID-19 started in Fort Detrick, Maryland, and may have been brought to Wuhan by American participants in the 2019 Military World Games. Hundreds of Chinese state-connected accounts including, diplomatic outposts and media outlets, echoed his claims. Dali L. Yang, an eminent sinologist at The University of Chicago, wrote that Zhao’s amplification of conspiracies served to make “such ‘theories’ appear more credible to ordinary Chinese and further helped them to spread virally on Chinese social media,” thus relieving internal political pressure.

Beijing has resisted international investigations into the coronavirus’ origins, stymieing World Health Organization investigators access to the country. On Wednesday, the WHO announced the long-delayed assembly of a 10-person coronavirus investigation team, selected in consultation with China. At the South China Morning Post, Simone McCarthy reported on the team’s research goals, and concerns that they might be denied full access to Wuhan:

One hanging question is when the international team will join field studies on the ground in China, considered a critical part of the mission, which was called for by over 130 nations at a May meeting of the WHO’s governing body.

[…] Groundwork for the mission was originally done in July and the WHO at the time said the international team would arrive “in a matter of weeks”. The United States and the European Union have called for more transparency around the mission in recent meetings of the WHO’s executive board and its governing body.

[…] The scientific mission’s phase one work centres around Wuhan, the city where the first cluster of cases was identified. Though a number of these early cases were linked to a wet market in the city, the role of the market remains unclear due to a lack of “analytical epidemiological study”, according to the WHO mission’s terms of reference. [Source]

Contentions over the virus’ origin are part of the Chinese state’s ongoing battle to control the narrative on the pandemic. Just last week citizen journalist Zhang Zhan, who covered the Wuhan outbreak on her vlog, was indicted on charges that allow authorities to imprison her for five years. Fellow citizen journalists Chen Qiushi, Li Zehua, and Fang Bin were also detained for their coverage of Wuhan. Meanwhile, Chinese authorities allowed other narratives to spread freely. At The Financial Times, Christian Shepherd covered a provocative speech that tied nationalism to revisionist histories of the crisis in Wuhan:

Li Yi, a nationalist commentator, told a conference in Shenzhen that, compared with the number of people who had died in the US, thousands of people dying in China was “the same as no one dying”.

Mr Li later defended himself against critics, writing on Weibo that the thrust of his speech was “patriotic” and had been “to extol the splendid success of China’s struggle against the epidemic, and to criticise the major failures of America’s”.

His comments have not been censored. [Source]

source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/11/chinese-state-media-echoes-claims-covid-19-originated-abroad/