Wen Jiabao

LEGAL/REGULATORY NOVEMBER 13, 2013, 10:00 PM 201 Comments

JPMorgan’s Fruitful Ties to a Member of China’s Elite

BY DAVID BARBOZA, JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG AND BEN PROTESS

Wen Ruchun

To promote its standing in China, JPMorgan Chase turned to a seemingly obscure consulting firm run by a 32-year-old executive named Lily Chang.

Ms. Chang’s firm, which received a $75,000-a-month contract from JPMorgan, appeared to have only two employees. And on the surface, Ms. Chang lacked the influence and public name recognition needed to unlock business for the bank.

But what was known to JPMorgan executives in Hong Kong, and some executives at other major companies, was that “Lily Chang” was not her real name. It was an alias for Wen Ruchun, the only daughter of Wen Jiabao, who at the time was China’s prime minister, with oversight of the economy and its financial institutions.

And the Wen family’s sway was not just political. After Ms. Wen’s father joined the inner circle of China’s rulers as vice prime minister in 1998, the family amassed a secret fortune through a series of partnerships and investment vehicles, a 2012 investigation by The Times found.JPMorgan’s link to Ms. Wen — which came during a time when the bank also invested in companies tied to the Wen family — has not been previously reported. Yet a review by The New York Times of confidential documents, Chinese public records and interviews with people briefed on the contract shows that the relationship pointed to a broader strategy for accumulating influence in China: Put the relatives of the nation’s ruling elite on the payroll.

Now, United States authorities are scrutinizing JPMorgan’s ties to Ms. Wen, whose alias was government approved, as part of a wider bribery investigation into whether the bank swapped contracts and jobs for business deals with state-owned Chinese companies, according to the documents and interviews. The bank, which is cooperating with the inquiries and conducting its own internal review, has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

 Graphic: JPMorgan and the Wen Family

The investigation began with an examination of the bank’s decision to hire the daughter of a Chinese railway official and the son of a former banking regulator who is now the chairman of a state-controlled financial conglomerate. The contract with the consulting firm of Ms. Wen, 40, indicates that the bank’s hiring practices also touched the highest rungs of political power in China. Her father was prime minister from 2003 until earlier this year. Her mother has served as a government official with oversight of the nation’s gem and diamond industry. And since 2006, Ms. Wen’s husband has been an official at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, according to China Vitae, an online database.

For Ms. Wen’s consulting firm, Fullmark Consultants, the JPMorgan deal was lucrative. While many Hong Kong investment bankers were earning as much as $250,000 a year, JPMorgan paid Ms. Wen’s firm $900,000 annually from 2006 to 2008, records show, for a total of $1.8 million.

JPMorgan appeared to benefit from the relationship as well. Fullmark claimed in a confidential letter to the bank that it “introduced and secured” business for JPMorgan from the state-run China Railway Group, a construction company that builds railways for the Chinese government. The bank was an underwriter in the company’s 2007 initial public offering, which raised about $5 billion.

Jason Lee/ReutersWen Jiabao, China’s former prime minister, at the National People’s Congress in Beijing earlier this year.

It is not known whether Ms. Wen’s father, Wen Jiabao, played any role in that deal. But as prime minister, he would have had ultimate responsibility for state-owned companies and their regulators.

Efforts to reach Ms. Wen and other members of her family were unsuccessful.

A spokesman for JPMorgan declined to comment. In a previous regulatory filing, the bank disclosed that authorities were examining “its business relationships with certain related clients in the Asia Pacific region and its engagement of consultants.”

Executives at JPMorgan’s headquarters in New York did not appear to be involved in retaining Fullmark, a decision that seemed to have fallen to executives in Hong Kong. And the documents reviewed by The Times do not identify a concrete link between the bank’s decision to hire children of Chinese officials and its ability to secure coveted business deals, a connection that authorities would probably need to demonstrate that the bank violated anti-bribery laws.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn, which are leading the investigation, both declined to comment on the case.

Underpinning their investigation is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which effectively bars United States companies from giving “anything of value” to foreign officials to obtain “an improper advantage” in retaining business. In recent years, the S.E.C. and the Justice Department have stepped up their enforcement of the 1977 law, which is violated if a company acts with “corrupt” intent, or with an expectation of offering a job in exchange for government business.

It is unclear whether JPMorgan ever had such an upfront agreement. But the bank did briefly keep a document that tied some of its well-connected hires in China to revenue it earned from deals with Chinese state-owned companies, according to interviews and records that JPMorgan turned over to federal authorities.

The investigation comes at a difficult time for the bank, which is already under scrutiny from a number of agencies in Washington and abroad. JPMorgan recently reached a tentative deal with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion over its sale of troubled mortgage securities. It is also facing an investigation into its role as Bernard L. Madoff’s primary bank. The bribery investigation could take years. The S.E.C. and prosecutors have expanded their focus to other Asian countries, including Singapore and South Korea, looking at whether hiring practices that have become commonplace on Wall Street crossed a line at JPMorgan.

For the last two decades, Wall Street banks and multinational corporations operating in China have sought out so-called princelings as employees, consultants or partners in major Chinese business deals. Many banks talk freely about the ability of princelings to open doors and offer insights into government policies and regulations.

In 2006, JPMorgan established a program, called Sons and Daughters, according to interviews with people in New York and China, to have better control over such hires. But documents that the bank turned over to investigators showed that there were less stringent hiring standards for applicants from prominent Chinese families.

The children of China’s ruling elite, according to experts, have occasionally used government-approved aliases to protect their privacy while studying or traveling abroad. Ms. Wen used her alias for both schooling and business. According to government records, Ms. Wen holds two national identity cards with matching birth dates, one issued in Beijing under the name Wen Ruchun and a second issued in the northeastern city of Dalian, as Chang Lily.

Lily Chang was the name she used while studying for an M.B.A. at the University of Delaware, where she graduated in 1998, and also when she lived in Trump Place, the luxury apartment complex overlooking the Hudson River in Manhattan, according to public and university records.

Like the children of other senior Chinese leaders, she was courted by Wall Street. After securing her M.B.A., regulatory records show, she worked at Lehman Brothers and later Credit Suisse First Boston as Lily Chang. Separately, she held a stake in several private companies.

Ms. Wen’s work for JPMorgan was tied to her company, Fullmark Consulting. According to the documents reviewed by The Times, Fullmark was located on the ninth floor of Tower C2 at Oriental Plaza, a high-end retail and office complex in central Beijing.

Over the last decade, corporate filings show that the location also housed private companies that were either controlled by or affiliated with the Wen family. Some of those companies have held indirect stakes in Baidu, China’s biggest Internet search engine, and Ping An Insurance, the financial services giant.

Ms. Wen’s apparent partner at Fullmark, and a signatory to the JPMorgan consulting agreements, was a woman named Zhang Yuhong, a longtime Wen family friend and business partner who at one time held a large but indirect personal stake in Ping An. She also helped control Wen family assets in other industries, including diamond and jewelry ventures.

Little else is known about Fullmark or its other clients. When JPMorgan hired the firm in 2006, people briefed on the contract said, the consulting firm had already worked with at least one other major financial institution.

JPMorgan’s contract with Fullmark called for the consultant to “to promote the activities and standing” of the bank in China. According to Fullmark’s letter to JPMorgan, the consulting firm had three main tasks. One, it helped JPMorgan secure the underwriting job on the China Railway deal. It also advised JPMorgan about forming a joint venture with a Chinese securities firm and provided counsel on the “macroeconomics policy in mainland China.”

In that letter, which was undated but almost certainly sent to the bank once the contract had expired, Fullmark declared that it did not “have the intention to continue the consultancy service.” The letter, signed by Lily Chang and Zhang Yuhong, cited “personal reasons.”

During her two-year consulting stint, JPMorgan executives struck a series of deals with Chinese companies closely affiliated with Ms. Wen and her family. Like other big banks, JPMorgan held a stake in New Horizon Capital, a private equity firm co-founded by her brother, Wen Yunsong.

JPMorgan also invested its clients’ money in Ping An and served as an adviser to the giant company. Today, on behalf of clients, JPMorgan owns nearly $1 billion worth of the company’s shares. At the time of JPMorgan’s initial investment for clients, members of the Wen family held a large, hidden stake in Ping An through a complex network of Chinese investment vehicles, a stake that in 2007 was worth more than $2 billion, according to corporate filings reviewed by The Times.

JPMorgan also won an assignment in 2009 to help underwrite an initial public offering of BBMG, a large Chinese building materials company. BBMG’s largest shareholders included New Horizon Capital, the private equity firm of Ms. Wen’s brother, and Beijing Taihong, an investment vehicle controlled by a longtime business associate of the Wen family. After the shares rose after the company’s I.P.O., Ms. Wen became the largest shareholder in Beijing Taihong, according to a filing.

There is no indication from the documents reviewed by The Times that Ms. Wen brokered any of the deals or investments between JPMorgan and companies affiliated with her family. And it is unclear whether JPMorgan employees even knew about her family’s ties to some of those companies, because the Wen family often held secret stakes in companies through little-known investment vehicles.

Ms. Wen also kept some distance from the Fullmark documents. Her name does not appear in the contract, though she was a signatory on the undated letter concluding the relationship with JPMorgan.

The letter, sent around the time of the financial crisis, struck an optimistic tone. “We hope JPMorgan Chase will grasp the opportunities and become to be the winner in the financial crisis,” it read.

A version of this article appears in print on 11/14/2013, on page A1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Bank’s Fruitful Ties to a Member of China’s Elite.

Thursday, Jan 28, 2010 06:29 ET
Justice Alito's conduct and the Court's credibility
By Glenn Greenwald

Justice Alito's conduct and the Court's credibility
AP

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

As I wrote at the time, I thought the condemnations of Rep. Joe Wilson's heckling of Barack Obama during his September health care speech were histrionic and excessive. Wilson and Obama are both political actors, it occurred in the middle of a political speech about a highly political dispute, and while the outburst was indecorous and impolite, Obama is not entitled to be treated as royalty. That was all much ado about nothing. By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function.

There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court's credibility in this regard has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more "liberal" Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example). Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about "judicial restraint" and "activism" -- all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those "principles" over and over -- exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John "balls and strikes" Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived -- and to act -- as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.

Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

The Justices are seated at the very front of the chamber, and it was predictable in the extreme that the cameras would focus on them as Obama condemned their ruling. Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone's speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees -- let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President's State of the Union address? Recall all of the lip-pursed worrying from The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen and his secret, nameless friends over the so-called "judicial temperament" of Sonia Sotomayor. Alito's conduct is the precise antithesis of what "judicial temperament" is supposed to produce.

Right-wing criticisms -- that it was Obama who acted inappropriately by using his SOTU address to condemn the Court's decision -- are just inane. Many of the Court's rulings engender political passions and have substantial political consequences -- few more so than a ruling that invalidated long-standing campaign finance laws. Obama is an elected politician in a political branch and has every right to express his views on such a significant court ruling. While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they're well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being "false" (e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that; moreover, it's certainly fair to argue, as Obama did, that the Court majority tossed aside a century of judicial precedent). Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice. While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. And, as usual, the disingenuousness levels are off the charts: imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address.

What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity. Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney, dubiously refuses to recuse himself from a lawsuit challenging the legality of Cheney's actions, and then rules in Cheney's favor. Scalia has an increasing tendency to make highly politicized comments about purely political conflicts, most recently defending torture in an interview with 60 Minutes. As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements -- even parading himself around on Rush Limbaugh's radio program -- and turned himself into the food fight of the week between Democrats and Republicans.

It was clear from Sam Alito's confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well. Much of the public will view his future "judicial" and "legal" conclusions -- and those of his fellow Court members -- with an even greater degree of cynicism. And justifiably so. Whatever impulses led him to behave that way last night, they have nothing to do with sober judicial reasoning or apolitical restraint.

* * * * *

Three related items: (1) I spent substantial time over the last week here and in other venues partially defending the Citizens United ruling; yesterday, Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig responded to my arguments. I disagree with several of his points, but as I said, this is a hard case and his objections are reasonable and worth reading; (2) Politico's Josh Gerstein notes language in Obama's speech that suggests an embrace of the GOP/Scott-Brown position on detainee rights; I'm not sure that meaning was intended, but it certainly merits a response from the White House; and (3) reactions to Obama's speech were painfully predictable: Obama lovers swooned, Obama haters spat contempt, and the "TV pundits" did exactly what Obama said they do ("TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites"); it remains to be seen how the less committed among us will respond. Even more important will be the extent to which Obama's actions match his rhetoric.



UPDATE: In comments, both casual_observer and DCLaw1 add important points about what Alito (and Obama) did.

________________

[NOTE: The comment section is temporarilly closed because I accidentally hit the "close comments" button and now can't get it re-opened; Salon technicians are frenzily working on the problem and, hopefully, it will be re-opened shortly.]

[To comment on this post, go here]

______________________________



UPDATE II: Speaking of Citizens United, Greg Sargent reports that numerous labor and progressive groups have signed a letter urging the White House to support a pending bill to provide for public financing of campaigns as a means of addressing the disparities in corporate spending. The letter is here. As I argued from the beginning, that is exactly the right way to address the problems of corporate and lobbyist dominance over our political process: it's far more effective than trying to restrict speech and, as a side benefit, doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.



UPDATE III: Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin documents that roughly 25% of Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 State of the Union address was devoted to criticizing the Supreme Court and various rulings which struck down his domestic legislation. Whatever one thinks of the one paragraph of Obama's address devoted to the Citizens United ruling, it was not "unprecedented."

More: Glenn Greenwald



Logo_post_b
Print Back to story
Roberts to Lead Delegation of Six Supreme Court Justices at Obama Address
By Greg Stohr - Jan 25, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated that Chief Justice John Roberts will attend President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, ensuring a bipartisan delegation at an event that last year drew the justices into a political controversy.

Kathy Arberg, the Supreme Court’s spokeswoman, said six of the nine justices plan to go tonight. Though she wouldn’t provide the names, Justice Samuel Alito is in Hawaii and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas previously all but ruled out attending.

Roberts had questioned whether justices should continue attending the annual event, likening it in March to a “political pep rally.” He sat passively last year as Obama drew a standing ovation from congressional Democrats by criticizing the court’s just-issued campaign finance ruling.

Those comments from Roberts had created the prospect that the court’s delegation might consist entirely of Democratic appointees, perhaps supplemented by Republican-nominated Anthony Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote. Instead, the Republican-appointed Roberts will join Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan at the speech.

Roberts is “taking the high road,” said Barbara Perry, a presidential and Supreme Court scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. “He is going to follow in the footsteps of those who have kept the court at the very highest level of the public’s faith and confidence.”
Alito in Hawaii

The five Republican appointees formed the majority in the 5-4 campaign finance ruling, which freed corporations to spend money on political ads. When Obama used the State of the Union speech six days later to criticize the decision, television cameras caught Alito mouthing “not true.”

Alito is in Hawaii this year, serving as the jurist-in- residence at the William S. Richardson School of Law in Honolulu. He will be giving a speech there tomorrow.

Alito’s decision not to attend is “a good thing,” Perry said. She said his presence would have been a reminder of last year’s controversy at a time when some lawmakers are trying to reduce partisan rancor in the aftermath of the Tucson, Arizona, shooting rampage.
Having Misgivings

Roberts, who has gone to every annual presidential address to Congress since taking his seat in 2005, suggested in March that he had misgivings about continuing that practice.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling,” Roberts told law students at the University of Alabama. “And it does cause you to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there.”

Alito expressed similar misgivings in October. He said the event had become awkward for the justices, forcing them to sit “like the proverbial potted plant.”

Attendance by justices at the president’s annual speech to Congress has varied over the years, in part because of changes in the court’s membership. None of justices were at President Bill Clinton’s speech in 2000, and in four of the following five years only Breyer attended.

The recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens traditionally skipped the speech regardless who the president was. Scalia hasn’t attended a State of the Union address since the 1990s, and Thomas has gone on occasion, most recently attending Obama’s first address to Congress in 2009.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net.
®2011 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

US democracy has little to teach China
By Francis Fukuyama
Published: January 17 2011 19:54 | Last updated: January 17 2011 19:54


The first decade of the 21-century has seen a dramatic reversal of fortune in the relative prestige of different political and economic models. Ten years ago, on the eve of the puncturing of the dotcom bubble, the US held the high ground. Its democracy was widely emulated, if not always loved; its technology was sweeping the world; and lightly regulated “Anglo-Saxon” capitalism was seen as the wave of the future. The US managed to fritter away that moral capital in remarkably short order: the Iraq war and the close association it created between military invasion and democracy promotion tarnished the latter, while the Wall Street financial crisis put paid to the idea that markets could be trusted to regulate themselves.

China, by contrast, is on a roll. President Hu Jintao’s rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which US-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant. State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus. The automatic admiration for all things American that many Chinese once felt has given way to a much more nuanced and critical view of US weaknesses – verging, for some, on contempt. It is thus not surprising that polls suggest far more Chinese think their country is going in the right direction than their American counterparts.

But what is the Chinese model? Many observers casually put it in an “authoritarian capitalist” box, along with Russia, Iran and Singapore. But China’s model is sui generis; its specific mode of governance is difficult to describe, much less emulate, which is why it is not up for export.

The most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy. This is most evident in the area of infrastructure, where China has put into place airports, dams, high-speed rail, water and electricity systems to feed its growing industrial base. Contrast this with India, where every new investment is subject to blockage by trade unions, lobby groups, peasant associations and courts. India is a law-governed democracy, in which ordinary people can object to government plans; China’s rulers can move more than a million people out of the Three Gorges Dam flood plain with little recourse on their part.

Nonetheless, the quality of Chinese government is higher than in Russia, Iran, or the other authoritarian regimes with which it is often lumped – precisely because Chinese rulers feel some degree of accountability towards their population. That accountability is not, of course, procedural; the authority of the Chinese Communist party is limited neither by a rule of law nor by democratic elections. But while its leaders limit public criticism, they do try to stay on top of popular discontents, and shift policy in response. They are most attentive to the urban middle class and powerful business interests that generate employment, but they respond to outrage over egregious cases of corruption or incompetence among lower-level party cadres too.

Indeed, the Chinese government often overreacts to what it believes to be public opinion precisely because, as one diplomat resident in Beijing remarked, there are no institutionalised ways of gauging it, such as elections or free media. Instead of calibrating a sensible working relationship with Japan, for example, China escalated a conflict over the detention of a fishing boat captain last year – seemingly in anticipation of popular anti-Japanese sentiment.

Americans have long hoped China might undergo a democratic transition as it got wealthier, and before it became powerful enough to become a strategic and political threat. This seems unlikely, however. The government knows how to cater to the interests of Chinese elites and the emerging middle classes, and builds on their fear of populism. This is why there is little support for genuine multi-party democracy. The elites worry about the example of democracy in Thailand – where the election of a populist premier led to violent conflict between his supporters and the establishment – as a warning of what could happen to them.

Ironically for a country that still claims to be communist, China has grown far more unequal of late. Many peasants and workers share little in the country’s growth, while others are ruthlessly exploited. Corruption is pervasive, which exacerbates existing inequalities. At a local level there are countless instances in which government colludes with developers to take land away from hapless peasants. This has contributed to a pent-up anger that explodes in many thousands of acts of social protest, often violent, each year.

The Communist party seems to think it can deal with the problem of inequality through improved responsiveness on the part of its own hier­archy to popular pressures. China’s great historical achievement during the past two millennia has been to create high-quality centralised government, which it does much better than most of its authoritarian peers. Today, it is shifting social spending to the neglected interior, to boost consumption and to stave off a social explosion. I doubt whether its approach will work: any top-down system of accountability faces unsolvable problems of monitoring and responding to what is happening on the ground. Effective accountability can only come about through a bottom-up process, or what we know as democracy. This is not, in my view, likely to emerge soon. However, down the road, in the face of a major economic downturn, or leaders who are less competent or more corrupt, the system’s fragile legitimacy could be openly challenged. Democracy’s strengths are often most evident in times of adversity.

However, if the democratic, market-oriented model is to prevail, Americans need to own up to their own mistakes and misconceptions. Washington’s foreign policy during the past decade was too militarised and unilateral, succeeding only in generating a self-defeating anti-Americanism. In economic policy, Reaganism long outlived its initial successes, producing only budget deficits, thoughtless tax-cutting and inadequate financial regulation.

These problems are to some extent being acknowledged and addressed. But there is a deeper problem with the American model that is nowhere close to being solved. China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively. Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the US faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern. During the 1989 Tiananmen protests, student demonstrators erected a model of the Statue of Liberty to symbolise their aspirations. Whether anyone in China would do the same at some future date will depend on how Americans address their problems in the present.

The writer is a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. His latest book, The Origins of Political Order, will be published in the spring.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.

辽宁5名警察检察院门口遭工作人员殴打(组图)
2010年10月02日 08:28新京报【大 中 小】 【打印】 共有评论707条

昨日，一位身着警服的男子与人扭打的照片在网上流传。

发布照片的网友爆料称，9月29日早，辽宁鞍山市检察院门口聚集了很多人，场面混乱，胜利路交通被堵塞，5名身穿制服的警察被市检察院的人围攻并打倒，昏迷的警察随后被拖进检察院大楼。

网友发布的照片显示：事发前，5名身着警服的男子打出抗议横幅，指检察院迫害保护国有资产的公安干警。

本报讯 （记者褚朝新）昨日，一位身着警服的男子与人扭打的照片在网上流传，经查证，事发地为辽宁鞍山市检察院门前，当地5名公安警员在与检察机关交涉一起对警方的指控时，双方发生争执并大打出手，随后网民将拍到的情景发布到网上。昨日，鞍山市公安局和检察院都证实有此事，并表示正在进一步调查此事。

警察打出横幅称遭迫害

昨日，发布照片的网友爆料称，9月29日早，辽宁鞍山市检察院门口聚集了很多人，场面混乱，胜利路交通被堵塞，5名身穿制服的警察被市检察院的人围攻并打倒，昏迷的警察随后被拖进检察院大楼。

网友发布的照片同时显示：事发前，5名身着警服的男子打出抗议横幅，指检察院迫害保护国有资产的公安干警。

鞍山检方一知情人士透露，冲突是因为鞍山市检察院反渎职侵权局指控鞍山市公安局钢都分局5名民警，在办理案件中存在刑讯逼供的行为。因对指控存在分歧，5名警员来到检察院大楼前扯起横幅。此说法也得到了鞍山市公安局有关人士证实。随后，公安警员与该院一名司机发生争执和打斗。该司机被殴后，检察院工作人员又把警察打了。

检察院称司机参与冲突

鞍山市检察院纪检组长王永杰称，打架的事情检察官没参与，是检察院个别司机与公安民警冲突。今日，该院将开会讨论如何处理此事。对警方提及的对刑讯逼供处理不服等情况，王永杰表示暂不知情。

昨日，鞍山市检察院检察长李开升表示，其不知道打架一事。该院政治部主任苟玉国称正因此事在开会，拒绝接受采访。

鞍山市公安局宣传处有关负责人表示，正在调查此事，查清后将向记者通报。

透视"官德"缺失怪现状：求神拜佛包养情妇
2010-08-25 08:02 南方日报 网友评论 0 条，点击查看 我有话说


当前,道德滑坡现象已引起社会各界广泛关注。其中,少数领导干部失德问题尤为突出。有的滥用权力、以权谋私,有的欺上瞒下、报喜不报忧,有的贪图享乐、玩物丧志,有的官气熏天、横行霸道,有的信念丧失、求神拜佛,有的趣味低级、包养情妇……这已成为腐败屡禁不止的重要诱因,不断突破老百姓心理承受的底线。

近年发生的一系列官员腐败案件,犹如一部连续剧,不断刺激着社会大众的敏感神经。其中折射出的官德缺失现象,已经到了无法容忍的地步。

怪现状之

趣味低级,生活腐化

“生活作风”问题一直是领导干部的“高压线”。对官员考核大多“唯政绩论英雄”,“私生活”却缺乏有效监督。近些年被查的领导干部腐败案件中,生活腐化是一个带有共性的问题。生活腐化的贪官,可列出一大串名单,比如陈良宇、李嘉廷、杜世成、陈绍基、王华元、陈同海、王守业等。据报道,现行婚姻法修改起草专家小组主要负责人巫昌祯教授调查发现,官员腐败60%以上跟包“二奶”有关系,被查处贪官中95%的人有“情妇”。更为严重的是,不少官员对个人生活作风问题几乎麻木不仁,甚至还有一些人对此不以为耻,反以为荣。

怪现状之

滥用权力,法为私器

在法治社会不断进步的同时,一些官员的法治观念不但没有增强,权力意识却恣意膨胀。近几年,民众因散发短信批评地方领导,或者散发材料检举地方官结果因言获罪的事例不在少数,如重庆的“彭水诗案”、山西的“稷山文案”、河南的“孟州书案”等。

不只是普通民众,一些媒体的记者也遭到某些握有公权力官员的强力“阻截”。例如,浙江丽水遂昌县公安局网上通缉“损害公司商业信誉罪”记者、辽宁西丰县委书记让警察进京抓记者等。

怪现状之

官气熏天,横行霸道

有的官员自以为当了领导,就能为所欲为、呼风唤雨。深圳海事局原党组书记林嘉祥猥亵11岁女孩,还大骂群众“算个屁”。“我是县委书记,是一把手,老子不怕!”2005年10月4日晚9时许,长沙市望城县委书记王武亮酒后驾车被两名交警制止后,当着围观的上百名群众口出狂言。随后,他与交警以及赶来处理问题的民警发生“肢体冲突”。陕西淳化县三名局长,乘坐挂警牌车辆通过收费站时与收费站工作人员发生争执,竟大打出手……

怪现状之

贪婪疯狂,欲壑难填

有的领导干部掌权为己,贪婪无度,从收受礼物发展到大笔受贿、索贿甚至敲诈,最终官德尽丧,落得个身败名裂的下场。江西婺源县原县长杨峰利用职务之便,先后多次收受他人贿赂,开口就向私企老板索要上千万元。他恬不知耻地对客商说:“你在婺源发了财,不对我表示表示是无论如何说不过去的。”

怪现状之

胆大妄为,不择手段

有的领导干部为一己私利,逞一时之气,是非不分,置法律于不顾,动用黑恶势力加害同僚。

江西省九江市人才交流中心主任熊明华在单位门前被几人挥拳殴打致伤,该案幕后主使竟是其顶头上司———九江市委组织部原副部长兼人事局局长王俯耕。因两人工作上存在嫌隙,王俯耕竟指使他人报复下属,酿成这一恶性伤害案件。与其类似的还有黑龙江省鹤岗市交通局原局长白玉库指使杀害继任者。

此外,一些官员为摆脱情妇纠缠进而行凶杀人,也成为舆论关注的热点。前有济南市人大常委会原主任段义和为摆脱情妇纠缠,伙同他人在济南闹市区引爆其情妇驾驶的汽车的血案；后有辽宁凌源市卫生局原副局长吕仲学雇凶买炸弹谋害情妇的惨剧,再有温州瓯海区原区委书记谢再兴杀害情妇并分尸、抛尸。

怪现状之

信念丧失,求神拜佛

不少干部患上了“权力依赖症”———对权力既崇拜,又缺乏安全感；既渴望拥有权力,又害怕失去权力。一些干部甚至认为,人生不过是组织部门的一张纸,风乍起飘向何方,自己无法掌握。为了让仕途顺利,一些干部开始讲风水、寻大师、求神拜佛。这也就不难解释,为何有的地方党政机关要重新修建大门改变朝向,有的地方为了修复“龙脉”而建不能走车行人的“风水桥”,有的地方想把犯官场忌讳的“骆马湖”改成“马上湖”……

国家行政学院综合教研部研究员程萍完成的一项调查显示,在接受调查的900多名县处级公务员中,有半数以上存在相信“相面”、“周公解梦”、“星座预测”和“求签”等迷信现象的情况,对其中一些迷信现象的相信程度相当或高于一般公众。

怪现状之

欺上瞒下,谎报虚夸

现实中我们经常看到这样的情景:一些干部面对群众的质疑,张口说谎,故意夸大、编造或者隐瞒事实真相。一些急需政绩的干部,将升迁希望寄托在政绩工程和数字游戏中。一些官员出于现实利益考量,欺上瞒下竟然成为他们工作中的一种常规手法、生存秘籍。“官出数字,数字出官”就是这种生态的生动写照。据《半月谈》

党建专家

转型期呼唤新官德

“坚持德才兼备、以德为先用人标准。”党的十七届四中全会明确要求,选拔任用干部既要看才、更要看德,把政治上靠得住、工作上有本事、作风上过得硬、人民群众信得过的干部选拔上来。

党建专家指出,加强官德建设既要官员自律,更要制度他律。

同时,中央与地方对官员道德的考核力度也在不断加大。去年,中共中央办公厅印发《关于建立促进科学发展的党政领导班子和领导干部考核评价机制的意见》,中组部也出台与之配套的地方考核、部门考核、年度考核等3个考核办法,要求突出重点,坚持德才兼备、以德为先用人标准,完善干部德的评价标准,加强对干部德的考核。

对官员的道德要求,不同的时代会为其注入不同的元素。官德的核心是权为谁用,领导干部如何对待和运用权力,是检验其党性强弱、官德好坏的试金石。

一些专家指出,现在与革命时期相比,我们党面临的任务发生了显著变化,原来是要夺取政权,现在要执政掌权。当前社会已经发生和正在发生深刻的变化,作为党员领导干部,讲究官德,首要的就是忠诚于自己的岗位,正确运用自己手中的权力,为百姓谋福利。

习惯性游街：司法高层反对 基层政府热衷
2010-07-22 15:35 南方周末 网友评论 2 条，点击查看 我有话说

　　公捕公判最为基层政法官员推崇的是“震慑作用”。娄底市政法委书记易春阳说对一些治安重灾区“不采取一些非常手段不行”。该市的一名警察直言不讳：“通过牺牲少部分人（被示众者）的面子，来保障大多数人的安定，是可行的。”

　　和基层执政者对公审公判的热衷不同，国家司法高层和法律界对这类“羞辱刑”一直持否定态度。早在1988年，最高法、最高检和公安部就规定，要求司法机关不仅对死刑罪犯，对其他已决犯、未决犯以及一切违法的人，一律不准游街示众。

　　7月14日，犯罪嫌疑人被押在湖南省娄底市“优化涟钢及其周边环境公捕公判大会”审判台上，当地政府组织了近六千名观众旁观。（郭国权/CFP/图）

　　7月5日，东莞清溪警方用绳子牵着一名小姐去指认现场，并让镇电视台拍摄播放。这被网友称为是变相游街。现相关警察被通报批评。（资料图片/图）

　　7月14日，娄底市公捕公判大会后，嫌疑人和罪犯被游街示众。（郭国权/CFP/图）

　　7月14日，娄底公捕公判大会上，嫌疑人家属捂着眼睛站在看台边哭泣。（郭国权/CFP/图）

　　丈夫被游街，妻子难抬头

　　龚高松是其中的一名嫌疑人，胸前挂着70厘米长50厘米宽的木牌，1斤多重，上面白底黑字写着“犯罪嫌疑人龚高松”，其他被示众者亦如此。

　　7月14日，在湖南华菱涟钢集团公司足球场上，武警荷枪实弹，约六千娄底人正被组织围观一场特别的运动——公审公判。“把犯罪嫌疑人押上来！”主持人在麦克风前宣告。32个涉嫌盗窃的嫌疑人和刚被判盗窃罪的20名罪犯被押上了足球场看台，站成一排。他们被剃成光头、着黄色“号服”，双手反剪，麻绳从脖子捆下来，绕过肩膀，直到手腕。

　　龚高松是其中的一名嫌疑人，胸前挂着70厘米长50厘米宽的木牌，1斤多重，上面白底黑字写着“犯罪嫌疑人龚高松”，其他示众者亦如此。

　　这已经是这个足球场自2009年4月来的第三次公审公判了，主题都是“整治涟钢周边环境”。在有数千年“示众史”的中国，这样的运动即使到近年，亦每年都会发生上百起。

　　但对被示众的嫌疑人龚高松的妻子肖小芬来说，这是让她觉得“没脸见人”的一天。

　　他们是家住娄底涟源市七星镇洞源村的农民。肖小芬称，因儿子超生被罚款等原因，家里欠了五六万元债，53岁的龚高松遂在半年前到涟钢去“找点事做”。

　　涟钢是湖南省大型国有企业，位于娄底市北面。煤炭、矿石、废钢、钢渣，有无数的废品可供利用，是周边农民“淘金”的好地方。

　　龚高松的“淘金”梦只持续了两天，就因“偷窃钢渣”被抓。娄底警方的资料称，龚高松在2月份曾经同3名犯罪嫌疑人，3次盗窃钢渣，价值16840元。

　　7月13日，肖小芬听朋友说娄底要搞公捕公判，丈夫也可能要被示众，第二天早上她就急往40公里外的娄底市。

　　但她只看到了公捕的尾声，还没看清丈夫站在哪里，游街示众就开始了。52名示众者被押上了6辆贴有“严厉打击侵害涟钢犯罪行为”等标语的卡车。

　　几十辆警车带路，警笛响着，卡车以5公里的时速前行。一些细心的围观者记下了游街路线：从涟钢宾馆，经过涟钢双菱大厦，再到涟钢电影院、涟钢医院、涟钢中学，都是涟钢最繁华的地段。沿街做生意的人出来观看，开车的人也停下来了。

　　半个小时后，车往离涟钢两公里远的看守所开去。肖小芬和女儿龚礼平也紧追前往。车快到看守所大门时，龚礼平看到了父亲。她大声指给母亲看，父亲剪短了头发，难怪认不出来。“哎！哎！”肖小芬一边追着车子，一边朝丈夫大声喊，丈夫终于看见她了。“你怎么来了？”站在卡车上反剪着双手的龚高松吃惊地问。

　　4天后忆及当时场景，肖小芬哭着回忆：“我看到绳子捆着，勒得好深。”她好像已经被这样的游街击垮了，说“抬不起头来了”……

　　游街是“习惯性做法”

　　娄底市综治办主任向健勇说：“这里太复杂了，不这么搞，不能起到震慑作用。”

　　娄底市很看重对公捕公判的“宣传工作”。在市里和娄星区两级公检法的“统一行动方案”里，要求娄底电视台、娄底日报等当地媒体都对该活动进行报道。

　　但娄底市综治办主任向健勇没有想到，报道被网络关注后，“宣传效果”朝反方向发展。其中一些图片被众多网民认为“有损法治，侵害人权”。

　　如其一张图片的内容是，在钢城公安分局长周加和宣布公开逮捕犯罪嫌疑人时，一名站在第一排的中年妇女是嫌疑人家属，她捂着眼睛哭泣，旁边两个孩子也在哭。一名网友认为，这种羞辱已超出了对罪犯个人的惩罚，而“使这个家庭被社会排挤，孩子明显是无辜的”。

　　另有一张照片是犯罪嫌疑人被双手反剪，麻绳捆绑，警察牵着绳子把他们从卡车拉下来押进看守所。一名网友质问：“这是牵狗吗？他们没有尊严吗？怎么能这样？”

　　向健勇对南方周末记者的解释是：“这里太复杂了，不这么搞，不能起到震慑作用。”公捕公判的主持者——娄底市政法委书记易春阳，也在接受南方周末记者采访时认为：“涟钢是个特殊的地方，不采取一些非常手段不行。”

　　在易春阳的主导下，娄底市对涟钢周边环境的整治已经进行了整整一年。

　　国企涟钢是娄底市经济的半壁江山，年产值达到140亿元，职工上万人，号称“十里钢城”。从1980年代严打开始，涟钢的治安问题就是娄底市的老大难，十一五规划以后，涟钢厂房扩张，产生大量失地农民。周边居民和职工家属混住，治安持续恶化，其中最严重的就是偷盗。向健勇说：“最多一个月抓了两百多个偷东西的人。”

　　相当多的偷盗属于内外勾结。涟钢的保安换了一茬又一茬，无不“沦陷”。“只要保安借故溜走5分钟，成吨的钢渣就运出去了。”一名涟钢职工说。

　　2008年底，已经在市委政法委书记位置上任职五年的易春阳提出了综合整治涟钢周边环境的思路，不仅要打击犯罪，还要解决周边失地农民生活困难、加强涟钢的管理。

　　2009年4月至8月，娄底市对涟钢周边环境进行了集中整治。娄底市政法委称，整治运动让涟钢周边刑事发案率下降了76％。2010年初又有些反弹，于是从4月底继续整治。“效果很好，省里很满意，涟钢也满意。”易春阳说。

　　在娄底的施政者看来，公捕和公判是庞大的涟钢周边环境整治工程的非常细小的一环。在“涟钢周边环境整治”的每份文件上，虽然都强调“依法办事”、“共同商讨”，但没有把公捕公判纳入需要进行合法性论证与商讨的范围。从去年4月整治行动开展以来，在涟钢足球场上，已经进行了三次公捕公判。其中一些施政者颇为委屈地告诉南方周末记者，认为公众的注意力没有放在他们如何帮助失地农民与涟钢达成合作意向，如何解决环境污染问题，如何挖出内外勾结的盗窃团伙等成绩上，只责问“不得不为之”的公捕公判上。

　　这一“不得不为之”的活动，要动用巨大的人力。一名娄底警察介绍了其中一些环节：“对示众嫌疑人，看守所提人手续复杂，安全保卫要出动几百甚至上千的武警和民警，至少要提前一个星期。”当天的公捕公判行动中，涟钢至少组织了 5000人前来参观，附近的湘中文武学校组织500人，黄泥塘办事处组织了300人来参观。

　　“既然已经达到了整治目标，那为什么一定要搞公捕和公判？”南方周末记者问，娄底市综治办主任向健勇沉默了一会儿回答：“这是沿用以前的习惯性做法，法院、检察院也没有提出不同的意见。”

　　“通常党委和政府有动力搞，因为综合治理要考核，有指标。”一位法律界人士指出，这才是真正的“习惯性做法”。

　　司法高层反对“羞耻刑”

　　和基层执政者对 “公审公判”的热衷不同，不管是国家司法高层、法学界还是具体法律规定，都对这类“羞辱刑”一直持否定态度。“别的地方都这么搞，你们能不能不关注我们？”娄星区委政法委书记周世光问南方周末记者。

　　确实，就在娄底刚刚搞完公捕和公判运动的第三天，临近的湘潭市为了迎接湖南省运动会，对53名犯罪分子进行了公捕公判“示众”，3名嫌疑人被宣判死刑后枪决。7月7日，武汉警方在街道贴大字报公布嫖客和妓女的名字等个人信息。后在舆论猛烈批评下，武汉警方于7月20日回应：“这种做法确有不妥。”

　　公开新闻资料显示，仅2010年，就有山东青岛、湖南永兴、陕西临潼、四川阆中等地进行了公审公判。

　　多名法律学者指出，这些层出不穷的公捕公判运动，都存在着对公民权利的漠视，是法外之刑——羞辱刑。从古代示众刑罚变形而来的公捕公判，曾在“文革”期间达到顶峰。涂黑脸、阴阳头、带着纸糊高帽到街上示众受辱，这是四十年前随处可见的场景。

　　改革开放后，早在1983年的刑法就规定：“执行死刑应当公布，不应示众”，但在历次“严打”中，这一法律规定常被地方管理者突破，且出现了很多变种。比如，2006年，深圳的妓女嫖客被游街示众，嫖客甚至被剃成光头。7月3日东莞清溪镇警方将4名嫖客和妓女戴上脚镣，套上绳索，去指认现场。照片被公布到网上，亦引起舆论强烈批评。7月20日，清溪警方在接受南方周末记者采访时称，他们认为这一做法确实不对，涉事警员已被通报批评。

　　和基层执政者对公审公判的热衷不同，国家司法高层和法律界对这类“羞辱刑”行为一直持否定态度。1988年，最高法、最高检和公安部就规定，要求司法机关不仅对死刑罪犯，对其他已决犯、未决犯以及一切违法的人，一律不准游街示众，如再出现这类现象，必须坚决纠正并追究有关领导人员的责任。

　　2003年，最高法在《关于推行十项制度切实防止产生新的超期羁押的通知》第七条规定：“人民法院依法作出判决后，应当按照法律规定及时公开宣判并送达执行通知书，不得为了营造声势而延期宣判和执行。”

　　法律界的反对原因，一是这种示众刑对于对犯罪嫌疑人的人格权是一种侵犯。二是违背了“未经法院判决不得先行定罪”的司法准则。据娄底的一名律师介绍，他的一位当事人曾遭到公开逮捕，后来经法院审理被无罪释放，但公捕对整个家庭造成的伤害已无可挽回。湘潭也出现过类似的情况，一位被公捕的嫌疑人后来被无罪释放，但因为公捕，单位将他开除了。三是容易导致程序违法，警方有时为了等公捕公判，把嫌疑人超期羁押，甚至把已经逮捕过了人拉出来再逮捕一次。

　　“游街”效果适得其反？

　　一名当地法官认为：“公捕公判的执法尺度通常会偏严，判得偏重，并不公平，家属和一些围观群众看了，反而可能不服气。”

　　对于娄底的执政者来说，并非没有意识到这些。娄底市政法委书记易春阳承认：“公捕公判是非常手段，管理理念有些问题，和中央的司法理念有些差别。”

　　向健勇的理解是，基层工作者在追求法律效果、政治效果和社会效果时选择了后两者。“从保障人权，保障犯罪嫌疑人的合法权益的角度来说，网友的观点是对的。但从打击犯罪的角度，这个方式有积极作用，让老百姓对‘犯罪就会受到处理’有直观的感受。”

　　这种观念在当地公检法人员中很受认同。娄底一位参与整治行动的警察称：“公捕公判通过牺牲少部分人的面子，来保障大多数人的安定，是可行的，至少可以震慑一下那些屡教不改的坏人。”

　　但也有当地法官反对公捕公判这种做法。这位不愿透露姓名的法官称，虽然他不可避免地会被政法委抽调搞这些活动，但他认为，这类行动可能会起反作用，“执法尺度通常会偏严，判得偏重，并不公平，家属和一些围观群众看了，反而可能不服气”。

　　公捕公判运动已过去3天，涟钢足球场附近的家属和职工还在议论。当天，公开宣判所受刑罚最重的是涟钢钢材加工配送公司的某保安组组长，他因偷盗40万元的钢材，被判刑20年。出乎意料的是，参加公判大会的多名受访者对南方周末记者说，和个别贪污受贿成百万千万的国企领导相比，他挺冤的。

　　“贝卡利亚（现代刑法学之父）曾经说过，刑罚的威慑力不在于刑罚的严酷性，而在于其不可避免性，这句话是对这个现象的最好注解。”湖南省一位法律界人士说。

　　这次被公开逮捕的30人中，大多数是来自娄底附近县市如涟源、新化、洞口等地的农民。27岁的涟源市七星街镇伏栗村村民李坚二和同乡卢志勇的“罪行”是在涟钢设计院偷了一台价值2143元的电脑，这次就遭到了“游街示众”的处理。

　　今年3月，李坚二被抓后，卢志勇曾经找到管理涟钢治安的洪家洲派出所，表示要自首，期望退赃并拿出1万块后能够取保候审。无奈赶上整治浪潮，取保没有成功，反而被抓去“示众”。公开逮捕的信息，一开始并未告诉卢志勇的父亲卢本述，他第二天才知道。

　　“我儿子又不是杀人放火，是个小错误，知道要改，国家要给他一个面子啊！”卢本述一提起儿子被“示众”的事情，就嚎啕大哭。

　　李坚二家，也是第二天才知道他被游街。对他们来说，“游街”是比逮捕更刺人的字眼。李坚二的妻子夏永霞，虽然只是一个宾馆服务员，但她的认识充满现代意识：“不管他犯了多少罪，就是死刑，也不能去游街，他们这样做是知法犯法。”李家甚至想打一场“政府侮辱公民人格”的官司。

　　就在南方周末记者采访的第二天，娄底市委、市政法委接到了一中央领导对娄底公捕公判表示关注的批示。当地立即组织参与公捕公判的人士开会，研讨对中央领导的回应。

　　黄秀丽 实习生 寇爱哲 刘晶晶 发自湖南娄底

http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/11370436.html#

再回兴义忆耀邦

温家宝

2010年04月15日06:37 来源：人民网

　　前些天，我到贵州黔西南察看旱情。走在这片土地上，望着这里的山山水水，我情不自禁地想起24年前随耀邦同志在这里考察调研的情形，尤其是他在兴义派我夜访农户的往事。每念及此，眼前便不断浮现出耀邦同志诚挚坦荡、平易近人的音容笑貌，胸中那积蓄多年的怀念之情如潮水般起伏涌动，久久难以平复。

　　1986年年初，耀邦同志决定利用春节前后半个月时间，率领由中央机关27个部门的30名干部组成的考察访问组，前往贵州、云南、广西的一些贫困地区调研，看望慰问各族干部群众。耀邦同志想以此举做表率，推动中央机关干部深入基层，加强调查研究，密切联系群众。

　　当时，我刚调任中央办公厅副主任不久，耀邦同志让我具体负责组织这次考察访问工作。2月4日上午，耀邦同志带领考察访问组全体成员从北京出发，前往贵州安顺。由于安顺大雾，飞机临时改降贵阳。当天下午，耀邦同志又换乘面包车奔波4个多小时赶到安顺。晚饭后，耀邦同志召开会议，把考察访问组人员分成三路，分头前往云南文山、广西河池和贵州毕节地区。

　　第二天清晨，耀邦同志带着我和中央办公厅几位同事从安顺出发，乘坐面包车，沿着曲折的山路在黔、滇、桂交界处的崇山峻岭中穿行。耀邦同志尽管已年过七旬，但每天都争分夺秒地工作。他边走边调研，甚至把吃饭的时间都用上，每天很晚休息。离开安顺后的几天里，耀邦同志先后听取贵州镇宁、关岭、晴隆、普安、盘县和云南富源、师宗、罗平县的汇报，沿途不断与各族群众交流，了解他们的生产生活情况。他还在罗平县长底乡与苗族、布依族、彝族、汉族群众跳起《民族大团结》舞。2月7日傍晚，耀邦同志风尘仆仆赶到黔西南州首府兴义市，入住在州府低矮破旧的招待所。

　　时已立春，兴义早晚的天气仍然阴冷潮湿。由于没有暖气，房间里冷冰冰的。我们临时找来3个小暖风机放在耀邦同志的房间，室温也只有摄氏12度左右。经过几天马不停蹄地奔波调研，耀邦同志显得有些疲惫。我劝他晚上好好休息一下，但他仍坚持当晚和黔西南州各族干部群众代表见面。

　　晚饭前，耀邦同志把我叫去：“家宝，给你一个任务，等一会带上几个同志到城外的村子里走走，做些调查研究。记住，不要和地方打招呼。”

　　到中央办公厅工作之前，我就听说耀邦同志下乡时，经常临时改变行程，与群众直接交流，了解基层真实情况。用他常说的话就是，“看看你们没有准备的地方”。所以，当耀邦同志给我布置这个任务时，我心里明白：他是想尽可能地多了解基层的真实情况。

　　天黑后，我带着中央办公厅的几位同志悄悄离开招待所向郊外走去。那时，兴义城区只有一条叫盘江路的大路。路旁的房子比较低矮，路灯昏暗，街道冷清。我们沿着盘江路向东走了10多分钟就到了郊外。这里到处是农田，四周一片漆黑，分不清东南西北。看见不远处，影影绰绰有几处灯光，我们便深一脚浅一脚摸了过去。到近处一看，果然是个小村子。进村后，我们访问了几户农家。黑灯瞎火的夜晚，纯朴的村民们见到几个外地人感到有些意外，但当知道我们来意后，很热情地招呼我们。

　　晚上十点多，我们赶回招待所。我走进耀邦同志的房间，只见他坐在一把竹椅上正在等我。我向他一五一十地汇报了走访农户时了解到的有关情况。耀邦同志认真地听着，还不时问上几句。他对我说，领导干部一定要亲自下基层调查研究，体察群众疾苦，倾听群众呼声，掌握第一手材料。对担负领导工作的人来说，最大的危险就是脱离实际。多年来，耀邦同志这几句语重心长的话经常在我耳旁回响。

　　2月8日是农历大年三十。耀邦同志一大早来到黔西南民族师范专科学校，向各族教师拜年并和他们座谈。接着，他又兴致勃勃地赶到布依族山寨乌拉村看望农民，并到布依族农民黄维刚家做客。黄维刚按照布依族接待贵客的习俗，把一个炖熟的鸡头夹放在耀邦同志的碗里。就这样，耀邦同志和黄维刚全家有说有笑地吃了顿团圆年饭。

　　随后，耀邦同志又乘汽车沿山路行驶一百多公里，赶到黔桂交界处的天生桥水电站工地，向春节期间坚持施工的建设者们致以节日的问候。当晚，耀邦同志在武警水电建设部队招待所一间简陋的平房中住下。不久，他开始发烧，体温升到38．7度。事实上，从午后开始，耀邦同志就感到身体不适。不过，他依旧情绪饱满地参加各项活动。

　　除夕之夜，辞旧迎新的鞭炮在四周响个不停，但大家没有心思过年。我和耀邦同志身边的工作人员一直守候着他。2月9日，初一早晨，耀邦同志的体温达到39度。这里远离昆明、贵阳、南宁等大城市，附近又没有医院，大家都很着急。好在经过随行医生的治疗，耀邦同志到晚上开始退烧，大家的心才放了下来。

　　2月 10日上午，身体稍稍恢复的耀邦同志不顾大家的劝阻，坚持前往广西百色。经过320多公里的山路颠簸，耀邦同志于晚上6点多到了百色。在百色期间，耀邦同志带着我们参观了中国工农红军第七军旧址，并与百色地区8个县的县委书记座谈。2月11日晚，我们赶到南宁。随后两天，耀邦同志在南宁进行短暂的休整。我根据耀邦同志的要求，又带着几个同志到南宁市郊区就农业生产、水牛养殖、农产品市场等问题进行调研。每次回到住地，他总是等着听我的汇报。14日和15 日，耀邦同志经钦州前往北海市，先后考察了北海港和防城港的港口建设。2月16日，耀邦同志又折回南宁，与三路考察访问组人员会合。接着，他用两天半的时间听取了考察访问组和云南、广西、贵州的汇报。

　　2月19日下午，耀邦同志根据自己13天沿途调查的思考并结合有关汇报，在干部大会上作了即席讲话。他特别强调，中央和省级领导干部要经常到群众中去，到基层去，进行调查研究，考察访问，密切上级与下级、领导机关同广大人民群众之间的联系。这样，不仅可以形成一种好的风气，产生巨大的精神力量，更重要的是有助于实现正确的领导，减少领导工作的失误，提高干部的素质，促进干部特别是年轻干部健康成长。

　　1986年2月20日下午，耀邦同志率领考察访问组回到北京，结束了历时半个多月的西南贫困地区之行……

　　时光飞逝。耀邦同志当年带领我们在西南考察时的情形历历在目，仿佛就在昨天。今年4月3日，当我再次来到兴义市时，简直不敢相信自己的眼睛：原先低矮落后的小城已发展成为一个高楼林立的现代化城市，兴义城区现在的面积比1986年拓展了4倍多，城区人口增长近3倍。

　　睹物思人，触景生情。耀邦同志派我夜访的情景又在眼前，一股旧地重寻的念头十分强烈。当天晚饭后，我悄悄带了几个随行的同志离开驻地，想去寻找那个多年前夜访过的村庄。灯火辉煌的盘江路上，商铺林立，十分热闹。原先那个村庄早已不在，取而代之的是一幢幢拔地而起的高楼。我坚持要再夜访一个村庄，仍然只带随行的几个工作人员来到郊外。在远处几片灯光引领下，我们走进永兴村，敲开农户雷朝志的家门，和他及他的邻居们聊了起来……

　　耀邦同志离开我们21年了。如今，可以告慰耀邦同志的是，他一直牵挂的我国西南贫困地区发生了翻天覆地的变化，他竭尽毕生精力为之奋斗的国家正沿着中国特色社会主义道路阔步前行。

　　1985年10月，我调到中央办公厅工作后，曾在耀邦同志身边工作近两年。我亲身感受着耀邦同志密切联系群众、关心群众疾苦的优良作风和大公无私、光明磊落的高尚品德，亲眼目睹他为了党的事业和人民的利益，夜以继日地全身心投入工作中的忘我情景。当年他的谆谆教诲我铭记在心，他的言传身教使我不敢稍有懈怠。他的行事风格对我后来的工作、学习和生活都带来很大的影响。1987年1月，耀邦同志不再担任中央主要领导职务后，我经常到他家中去看望。1989年 4月8日上午，耀邦同志发病抢救时，我一直守护在他身边。4月15日，他猝然去世后，我第一时间赶到医院。1990年12月5日，我送他的骨灰盒到江西共青城安葬。耀邦同志去世后，我每年春节都到他家中看望，总是深情地望着他家客厅悬挂的耀邦同志画像。他远望的目光，坚毅的神情总是给我力量，给我激励，使我更加勤奋工作，为人民服务。

　　再回兴义，抚今追昔，追忆耀邦。我写下这篇文章，以寄托我对他深深的怀念。

法官自杀触痛业界 九成法官持续忧虑

2010-04-08 11:47 南方周末 网友评论 1 条，点击查看 我有话说

　　四川北川羌族自治县法院法官汶川地震后颠簸7小时背着国徽前往禹里羌乡禹穴沟办案开庭,艰辛可见。图片来源中国法院网

　　在刘立明生前参加的岳塘法院表彰大会上,院长要求法官要办好案,要把维稳放在突出位置。图片来源/岳塘区法院

■编者按

在中国,法院共分为基层法院、中级法院、高级法院和最高法院四级,基层法院主要是指几千个区县级法院。数据表明,全国80%的一审案件都由基层法院承担,它们是司法定纷止争的第一站。然而,基层法院因处于最低层级而难被关注,又因最直面社会矛盾而劳碌无常。这是中国法院系统最庞大、最平凡的一个群体,也是最不被了解、最不堪重负的一个群体。湖南湘潭岳塘区法官留下遗书“压力太大”后选择了自杀,“法官”这个被世俗视为特权阶层的群体,到底有着怎样的不堪承受?我们借这组报道为读者客观呈现中国基层法官真实的生存状况,也希望社会公众能参与这一话题,如何认识和正视法官这一重要而特殊的职业,如何回归司法的权威与法官的尊严。

□本报记者覃爱玲发自湖南湘潭

湖南省湘潭市岳塘区法院的法官刘立明去世了。3月18日,这名普通法官用一根绳子把自己悬挂在租住的房间内,离开了这个他曾经活得颇为精彩的世界。

在刘立明租住的湘潭市岳塘区五里堆街道金耐村,邻居刘胜吾在接受媒体采访时说,刘立明在遗书最后几行写道,“工作压力大,很累,不如死了算了,再见!”今年38岁的刘立明被同事评价为“很聪明”。他中专毕业后去学校教书,26岁即担任湘潭下属湘乡县泉塘中学的校长。据报道,刘立明后来通过自学法律,参加公务员考试考入岳塘区人民法院。

当地一位律师向本报记者透露,“听说直接原因是一个案子被发回重审了,压力很大。”

一位与岳塘法院有过接触的律师在博客中猜测,刘立明有两个案子被中级法院发回重审,“不知道法院内部的绩效评定如何?大概也是调解率、上诉率、发回重审率、维持原判率这些指标吧。发回重审是比较严重的绩效考核,一般发回重审的应该不多,居然还发回两个,真是叫人不要过年了。”本报记者通过多个渠道联系到岳塘区法官,他们都表示“不方便说话”。而岳塘区法院也拒绝了记者的采访。据说,事情发生后,院里开了会,院长对大家说,“事情过去就过去了,以后不要再提。”

一位刘立明的同事对本报记者说,刘之死应该是“一时想不开”。这位邹姓法官称,她和刘立明共事时间较长,在单位同事里算关系不错,有时还一起出差。她认为外面的很多猜测都是没有根据的。在她看来,刘立明对法律本身很有热情,有理想主义气质,不是会很介意“租住房”这种物质条件的。

在这位同事眼中,刘立明比较追求完美,对生活充满热情、很讲究生活品质,和同事关系都不错。他的办公桌收拾得干干净净,穿着得体,不抽烟不嚼槟榔,很帅气,“像韩国明星”。这位法官说,刘立明家里还放着跑步机,“如果他是个女的,一定会去练瑜伽”。有空的时候,还经常上淘宝购物。

邹法官告诉记者,刘立明应该是一个非常能干的人。他到法院后,也按期地升任了助理审判员、审判员。至于刘立明是否有抑郁症,她说以前并不知道,“这个应该是个人隐私”。

然而,刘立明的死仍然给周遭的同行带来了不小的震撼,他们以自身体会更愿意推测,正如他的遗言所示,刘立明死于“压力”。

一位不愿透露姓名的湘潭雨湖区法院法官向记者描述了基层法官的艰辛之处。据他介绍,中级法院过于严密细化的数据,比如上访率、息诉率、上诉率、发回重审这些指标来考核他们的工作,这让法官常常喘不过起来。

另外,法官的收入太低,作为基层院能提供的办案经费十分有限,很多时候去外地调查还要接受律师的接待,很没有尊严感。

这位法官表示,他认识的当地基层青年法官“普遍处于抑郁状态”。不少人想走,考虑留下的,是有可能“做到副院长一级”的,因为只有到副院长一级,才不用办案,否则一个法官一直要在大量的办案中捱到退休。“其他部门的公务员,即使不能升职,到一定的年龄,资历深了,也不必要天天那么忙碌。”

岳塘区法院位置稍偏,距离湘潭中心城区有一段距离,大楼比较陈旧。这是一个拥有85人的普通基层法院,去年全院办理案件2000多件。岳塘区法院2009年工作报告在区人大获得全票通过,报告中的几个数字展现了他们的工作业绩:95%的息访率,50%以上的调解率。

刘立明所租住的房子离法院很近,小区隔着一道围墙与法院相邻。记者找到刘立明原来租住房屋的房东,她表示刘立明从前年开始,就一直租住在她的房子内,她不愿回答有关刘立明的更多问题。

刘立明住处附近的快餐店老板知道这件事,但他不认识刘立明,“他们法院的人有人请,不吃我们这种小店的。”在这个快餐店老板眼中,法官是很好的工作了,“公务员,谁不想当。不过看跟谁比,上面还有科长局长院长,跟这些人比,当然是差些。”他也听说过刘有抑郁症。

几位记者接触到的当地基层法官或法院工人员对刘立明之死都表示痛惜和理解,“现在的法官不好当了”,不像以前,工作量也不大,说话有权威。现在一是老百姓法律意识更强,二是上面的考核严了。

然而,中级法院的法官也在抱怨,一位湘潭市中院的法官认为现在法官的待遇太低了,“我们这些法官都是要通过专门的司法考试的,工作量又特别大,但是我们的待遇跟普通公务员还是一样的。这样不公平。”他表示,“要希望法官不想办法搞灰色收入,在现有工资上加上个两三倍才能保证在当地比较正常的生活。”刘立明的死亡故事在当地看起来悄无声息,然而它带来同行心中的阴影和共鸣仍是挥之不散。笼罩在阴影里的还有刘立明身后留下的妻子和一个5岁的儿子。

■调查

九成法官持续忧虑

这是北京延庆县法院法官董晓军2007年对该院113名法官(包括法院其他工作人员)所做的一次调查研究,本报摘要如下。

这项调查显示94%的被调查法官反映心理压力较大,工作中经常有紧张感,有的表现为持续的忧虑和高度的警觉,如时刻担心案件出错；有的表现为弥散性的非特异性焦虑,如说不出具体原因的不安感,无法入睡等；近70%的被调查法官存在严重的工作倦怠,对工作不像刚参加工作时候那么热心和投入,总是被动完成本职工作。近20%的法官对工作不安心,有跳槽转行的想法。在被调查的法官中有近40%的人成就感低落或对工作没有成就感。有近10%的法官有看心理医生的渴望和需求。调查还显示,90%的法官认为当前的社会舆论对法官有偏见。有50%的法官认为工作繁忙、无法顾家是家庭矛盾的主要原因,60%的法官认为工作压力对婚恋造成了一定影响。

■跟帖

我们同时配发了一些网友在刘立明自杀新闻后的评论与跟帖。这些网友多来自基层法院。

惊闻湘潭法院公务员因工作压力太大而自杀,心中五味杂陈。再读一些不痛不痒的评论,心中浮现我所曾在的法院的同事音容笑貌,忽然发现泪珠已滑落脸庞。

基层法官们真的是太累太累了,上面千条线,下面一根针。法官们一人一年平均办200件案子,还要应付各种各样的检查和活动,压力真的是太大了。上有领导盯着考核,外有不理解的当事人施加压力,时不时还被信访,不问理由都是你的错,一旦上访,全是承办人的责任,领导在机关,党政领导那里所受的压力全部转移给他们。

据统计,中东部较发达地区的法院年结案在一万件以上,也就是说,每人每年要办200件案子,甚至更多,我所在的法院最高有人办过500多件(我的天,他是怎么办下来的),这当中从送达到开庭到制作法律文书,到向当事人释法,到接访,多少法官不是“白加黑”和“五加二”(即五个工作日加二个双休日)的忙着。

非审判性事务又在牵扯着大量精力。法院每年的宣传、调研、学术论文、重点课题,一个个学术性活动像一记记重拳击打在一线法官的身上,这其中,哪一个学术性写作不是要耗费大量的脑力?每年修订出台大法几十部,小法不知多少部,逼着法官们不断的去学习,充电。审判不是事务性的机械劳动,天天重复劳动就行了,每天新情况、新问题层出不穷,要去研究,要去处理,客观地讲,真正办案的法官真的太大压力。

说了这么多话,有人要讲,你既当法官就应该要吃得了这个苦,因为社会对这个行业要求就是这么高。那么我就要同其他权力部门、有钱部门对比一下法官这个高尚职业所带来的政治和经济待遇是多么的不堪。法院工作人员要当上领导要经过办事员———书记员———助审员———审判员———副庭长———庭长———副院长,每个级别都要熬年限,混个审判员都要近10年,那么10年混成审判员是什么政治待遇,科级!

政治待遇不提了,就看经济待遇,客观讲,作为公务员,法官养家糊口还是没问题的,问题是,现在好点的基层法院都要研究生了,还要考司法考试。干得比牛还累,拿的钱却没人家多,我请问,全国有哪个地区的法院工资在当地能超过直属单位,如工商、税务、质监,包括公安,那些个垄断企业就更不提了。我再请问,如果一个研究生出身的法官工资同一个中专生出身的工商人员相比还要少一半,你又是什么心情。不要抱怨法官人身在福中不知福,他们在社会上是算是一个不错的群体,但就像商品性价比一样,他们的投入产出比太低,何况他们本身又是致力于追求公正的一个工作,看见黑暗与不公,心中的郁闷可想而知。法院不光是社会正义的最后防线,还兼负着社会怨气的最后出气筒。

鉴于此,我当了法院的逃兵,我不是圣人,有更好的去处,我当然要走。再见了,亲爱的法院同行们,请原谅我不辞而别。

社会在早先年代对法官的评价改为了“吃了原告吃被告”,好像法官天生就爱吃饭。可有谁对这个群体深入了解过呢?真正当了法官的才知道,不容易。一个案件对于当事人来说是一个家庭的大事,可对于一个职业法官也不是小事,他要做到符合法律规范,要根据程序来办,要面对来自当事人双方、人民群众和社会等各方面的压力,稍有不慎就要遭到纪律处分。谁来关心这一弱势群体呢?

我最珍贵的十余年青春是在法院度过的。头5年,我由于不直接参与案件,压力不大,有时间和精力谈个恋爱结个婚(奉劝一句,还在法院的小年轻们,要谈恋爱结婚可要赶在提助理审判员前哦)。提助审、审判员后,头1年审结400多宗案件,第2年600多宗,第3年将近800宗。就这样,从独立办案以来,我原本黑油油的头发,第2年就白了五分之一,离开时大概是60%－70％吧。你法官判一方赢,另一方就会认为自己比窦娥都冤,于是层层上告。碰过一个能闹的当事人,释法后他不服上诉,上诉还没有结果他就告纪委告检察院举报我贪赃枉法。甚至在我调走后还找到新单位来,要求领导给说法,数次打电话威胁要跟我同归于尽。有次来找我,还带了硫酸,明目张胆放在信访办的办公室,把我同事吓得够呛。除了愤怒、逃避、提心吊胆外,我还能做什么?!

外在形象光鲜无比的法官却要承担巨大的生理和心理的压力,外界是很难感受到的。管理者应当从不该发生的悲剧中找到反思之源,积极而大胆地改革对法官不公平的制度,只有这样才能让这位逝者的灵魂得以安息!我们迫切希望全社会多给以法官职业从业者更多的理解、支持和关爱!

听到同行自杀,内心很是悲痛。中国的法官不好干,已不是什么秘密,中国的老百姓很难,也不是什么秘密。在近二十年的基层法官经历中,发觉绝大多数的老百姓是非常弱势和善良的,我们不需要有多高深的法律知识,只要抱着一颗公正的心是能解决大多数纠纷的。问题在于上面的某些领导,讲一套做一套。

欢迎访问新华网 - WWW.XINHUANET.COM
>>
薄熙来谈"李庄案"：哪个界别触犯法律 都应被依法追究 2010年3月6日16时，重庆代表团全体会议审议政府工作报告后接受了集体采访。新华网和中国政府网进行现场直播。 [京华时报记者]第一，关于重庆打黑。去 年一年重庆打黑引起全国媒体乃至全球媒体的广泛关注，请问您对重庆目前的打黑成果是否满意？觉得还有什么要改进的地方？二轮重庆打黑什么时候开始？会有什 么新的特点？第二个问题，请您务必回答。如何评价在重庆打黑中引起广泛关注的“李庄案”？在重庆打黑中如何确保司法的独立性？第三，去年“被就业”成为网 络上的热点话题，请问重庆市在确保大学生就业和提高就业率方面有和切实举措？ [薄熙来]我还想强调，历届市委市政府对这个问题抓得都很紧，从来没有放松过。但是改革开放以后，黑恶 势力也是钻我们的空子，在社会生活中千方百计地钻空子，所以我们确实要跟他们进行长期斗争，要有这个思想准备。讲到“李庄案”，这个案子已经结案，一审、 二审，最后宣判。《重庆日报》发了一个比较详细的报道，我认为是实事求是的，你们可以读一读这个报纸，文章把这个问题从头到尾讲得非常详尽，对全国人民是 非常负责任的。“李庄”这个事情是打黑除恶整个斗争中的一个插曲，我注意到网上报道很多、评论很多。其实“李庄”这个事情，他的刑期也就是两年半，跟那些 黑恶分子的刑期相比要短得多。为什么这个事情引起这么大的关注？我倒觉得应该引起大家静下心来好好思考。 我觉得有几点：第一，“李庄”这个事情事实非常清楚，教唆黑恶势力的头子龚刚模来翻供，而且编造事实，说公安把他吊了八天八夜，大小便失禁，而且连细节都 讲得清清楚楚。李庄反复认罪，当时他的辩护律师都说你这样认罪要注意后果，但李庄本人很坚决，他说：“我确实有罪”。第二，程序非常合理，完全符合法律程 序，李庄这个案件六个证人当庭出证，回答律师的提问百多次。如果在这种情况下都觉得程序不合理，那什么叫做合理呢？还要做到什么程度呢？我们在这个问题上 已经尽了最大努力，庭审也非常文明，大家都看到了，公开、公正，一审、二审，都非常清楚。 再有，重庆在对李庄这个事情上，大家可以做一个分析，我们打黑除恶是敞开大门，外来的律师比重庆本身的律师还多。重庆去年很热闹，全国四面八方的律师去了 不少，律师的费用也不低，这也是一个不大不小的市场。龚刚模给李庄开的价也是20万、50万、100万，也是看涨，如果免死的话能给多少，那个价码也是很 好看的。但是重庆非常开放，全国四面八方的律师都去重庆。那么多的律师到重庆，不也就是一个李庄出了问题吗，重庆是善待律师的，但是如果说黑恶势力的头子 举报律师教唆他，在这种情况下我们仍然装聋作哑、不闻不问，只要涉及到律师的事，我们一概不管，一概豁免，那不就成无政府主义了吗？不就无法无天了吗？重 庆市能这样吗？那中国的法律何在呢？按中国的法律来处理一个律师，怎么就引起这么多人大惊小怪呢？我们也感觉到很纳闷。这个事情我们已经把全部事实经过公 之于众了，我们愿意洗耳聆听全国各界对这个事情的评价。我认为全国各界，哪一个界别都没有超越法律的特权，哪一个界别触犯了法律，都应该被依法追究。这就 是我们的态度。 【打印】　【纠错】　【评论】　【主编 信箱】 （责任编辑: 张芳玲 ）
新华网版权所有