跳到主要內容

[轉錄]China Approves Property Law, Strengthening Its Middle Class -- NY times

China Approves Property Law, Strengthening Its Middle Class
Published: March 16, 2007

BEIJING, Friday, March 16 — After more than a quarter-century of market-oriented economic policies and record-setting growth, China on Friday enacted its first law to protect private property explicitly.

The measure, which was delayed a year ago amid vocal opposition from resurgent socialist intellectuals and old-line, left-leaning members of the ruling Communist Party, is viewed by its supporters as building a new and more secure legal foundation for private entrepreneurs and the country’s urban middle-class home and car owners.

But delays in pushing it through the Communist Party’s generally pliant legislative arm, the National People’s Congress, and a ban on news media discussion of the proposal, raise questions about the underlying intentions and the governing style of President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, experts say.

Despite a high level of interest among intellectuals and businessmen and the unexpected decision last year to withdraw the measure from the legislative agenda at the last minute, neither leader has spoken about the matter publicly. 

Mr. Wen’s two-hour address to the nation on the opening day of the annual two-week legislative session last week did not mention property rights.

The measure could not pass the legislature, which acts under the party’s authority, without the active support of the top leadership. Yet the conspicuous silence of Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen appears to be a form of tribute to the influence of current and former officials and leading scholars who argue that China’s economic policies have fueled corruption and enriched the elite at the expense of the poor and the environment.

“My own view is that the leftist voices that have emerged are not going to disappear because we have a property law,” said Zhu Xueqin, a historian and government expert who supports the law. “On the contrary, they are stronger now than they have been in some time.

”The leadership did not so much overcome opposition to the property law as forbid it. Unlike in 2005, when leaders invited broad discussion about property rights, the latest drafts of the law were not widely circulated. Several left-leaning scholars, who favor preserving some elements of China’s eroded socialist system, said they had come under pressure from their universities to stay silent. 

When one financial magazine, Caijing, defied the Propaganda Department’s ban on reporting on the matter and published a cover story last week, it was ordered to halt distribution and reprint the issue without the offending article, people associated with the magazine said. 

While the law’s final wording — and the nature of any compromises necessary to build a consensus to pass it — remain unclear, many mainstream scholars and business people have welcomed it. 

Several said they also approved of the way Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen had handled the opposition.

“I think the low-key approach was the best way to get this law passed,” said Mao Shoulong, a public policy expert at People’s University in Beijing. “The point is to enact a new law, not to pick a fight.”

Mr. Zhu agreed. “Their style is to say less and do more,” he said.

But the leadership’s strategy did not resolve the underlying tensions. Hundreds of scholars and retired officials signed a petition against the law, which they said “overturns the basic system of socialism.”

The petition claimed the law did too little to distinguish between private property gained legally through hard work and public property that falls into private hands through corruption. They also argued that China could not give state-owned property and private property the same legal status and still call itself socialist.

Supporters of the law dispute the assertion that it will protect the ill-gotten gains of corruption, arguing that it will protect only legal property. In the past, Chinese have bought and sold property freely, but doing so in a legal vacuum. Supporters say they hope the law strengthens the rights of property holders, especially middle-class homeowners. 

China’s urban middle class has fueled a real estate boom, even though all land is owned by the state and purchasers trade only the right to use property on the land for up to 70 years. The disposition of property after that term expires is one of many unsettled issues.

But proponents of the law tend to remain quiet on the broader complaint that China’s pretense of socialism has become more and more hollow. Leftists do not seem likely to give up their offensive.

They scored an important victory recently when online petitions and an intensive campaign in the state-run news media appear to have prompted a leading American private equity company, the Carlyle Group, to scale back its planned investment in one of China’s largest construction machinery manufacturers, Xugong Group. The investment had become a test of China’s willingness to sell majority stakes in core industrial companies to foreign investors. 

Amid this tussle, Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen appear to have sought a middle ground. In public statements, Mr. Hu has promoted a “harmonious society” that does a better job of distributing wealth equitably and alleviates some of the excesses of pollution and corruption that have accompanied rapid growth.

Mr. Wen has focused mainly on lifting rural incomes and increasing social spending. Those approaches have addressed some concerns of people on the left. But in practice, the two leaders have also sought to keep faith with business leaders and the rising middle class. Under their leadership, state-run banks have sold shares to foreign investors and overhauled bank management systems with the help of foreign consultants.

As well as approving the property law, the legislature revised a corporate tax, ending an advantage foreign investors enjoyed over local companies for more than two decades.

Mr. Wen and Mr. Hu have so far steered relatively small amounts of government revenue into the country’s rudimentary social welfare system. And they continue to invest heavily in infrastructure and industrial expansion, helping the economy expand even faster than in the 1990s. 

Those measures, along with the property law, suggest that they will not casually abandon the pro-growth policies that have made China a leading economic power.


留言

這個網誌中的熱門文章

台灣桌球運動的未來在哪?

之前看到客家新聞雜誌針對新埔桌訓做的報導:台灣乒未來 裡面很清楚地介紹了新埔桌訓,以及點出不少台灣桌球界的問題 甚至,我覺得這些其實是台灣運動界的共有問題 請先看這兩段影片吧 (如果只想看裡面提到的問題,請直接看第2段; 但我強力建議從第一個影片開始看,因為可以看到葉教練用心帶球隊,還有球員們很認真用心練球的過程)

[讀書心得] 【當上主管後。只能默默崩潰? The Making of a Manager: What to Do When Everyone Looks to You】

  趁著連假用一個完整的空檔看完了這本【當上主管後。只能默默崩潰? The Making of a Manager: What to Do When Everyone Looks to You】,中文書名聳動但其實英文原名的意義更為重要,作者用一個輕鬆但又有結構性的方式來分享她在 FB 從菜鳥主管到資深主管的心路歷程與心得,也讓這本書在可閱讀性與知識豐沛性上得到良好的平衡。 這本書很適合給[將要第一次當主管、剛當上主管的朋友們],但其實對於已經當過主管多年的朋友,也是一本適合回頭檢視自己身為主管的足與不足之處,也因此這本書會被我列為未來在某個時間點重新拿出來重新閱讀的清單之中。 ------ 後面聊些看這本書的反思過程想到的事情: (講在前面,今天提到的這些工作經歷,對我來說都是無止境地學習,不管一開始走到某一條路徑是否為自主的選擇,但我真心都很感謝這一路上的機緣,不然我沒有機會走到目前這個方向) 先做一些背景回顧 : 其實從博班畢業回台以後,我在學術圈的工作歷程跟大部分走學術研究出身的朋友不太一樣,簡單來說,以[研究、教學、服務]的正常學術生涯路徑通常會是:  a. 研究為主; 教學次之; 服務的部分先做系所內部的事,待升等完開始兼任學校教學/行政單位主管 b. 先做研究但因為到了一個新成立的系所,所以要參與很多的前期規劃/招生/制度建立,本質上"研究"還是重心,但教學服務的比重相對較多 但以我的狀況來說,剛回台的前三年一開始的路徑跟"b"很像,只是我在教學及服務上的比重反而遠超過了研究,而且當時因為學程的人手不足,所以可以算是包辦了[教學者、規劃者、各種行政執行者、甚至還要跟長官去募款]等多重角色,甚至在第四年以後到現在為止,我更早開始參與了院級到校級的整體規劃執行(通常菜鳥助理教授要等級提升後才會參與的),等於是一開始就不是先學習建立自己的研究團隊,而是先學會規劃並建立一組新的行政團隊。 上述這一段聽起來輕描淡寫,但我想身在學界的朋友應該可以理解這些事情對於有志於以學術研究為主的人來說,會造成多少的阻礙。的確,無可否認這間接影響了後來我要留在學界的些許障礙,甚至也讓我在某個時間點決定跳進了某一間新創以嘗試不同的方向。 不過我最終還是回來學術圈這一個路徑,但其實我非常感謝這些經驗,因為到現在行政同仁跟我抱怨說『邱老師,某某...