The case involving the murder of a chengguan (城管) that received so much attention finally reached a verdict: Cui Yingjie was sentence to death, with a reprieve of two years.
In this case, there were no winners.
The Haidian District Deputy Brigade Leader Li Zhiqiang (李志强) was killed after being stabbed in the throat, and became the first chengguan to be killed while performing his duty since the Beijing chengguan system was created 8 years ago. Although the city government named him a martyr, other people believed he symbolized the brutality utilized by chengguan when enforcing the law.
Under the influence of rage, the actions taken by 23-year old Cui Yingjie have not only caused him to face a long life behind bars, but they also have caused immeasurable suffering to his family.
The court, facing various pressure from governmental departments, the family of the victim, and public opinion, had no choice but to sentence the defendant with the most severe punishment the public would tolerate.
The investigating authorities that changed the charges from the relatively clear “intentionally causing harm” to “intentional murder”, and the chengguan leaders that told reporters “Cui Yingjie must die” all put a dishonorable note on the proceedings.
Cui Yingjie will go squat in his cell, Li Zhiqiang will serve as a martyr, and reporters and web users will go chasing after the next hot news topic, but street vendors will still live in a constant state of anxiety in the side alleys of cities, and chengguans will still continue their violence and brutality. —-If this is so, the complexity of the Cui Yingjie case, and the social significance that the case exhibits will be forgotten, and the opportunity this case provided to reflect on social institutions will also be lost.
Take, for instance, the issue of independence of the judiciary. Why does the executive branch interfere or influence the decisions of the judiciary? Is it appropriate for the government to appoint Li Zhiqiang as a martyr? How can judges prevent the meddling of powers outside the law? Is the influence of the public on the judiciary necessarily correct? How should the relationship between judicial independence and the public opinion be managed? How can the inappropriate influence of government departments and the public be systematically prevented?
Take, for instance, the issue of the death penalty. How should the policy of “prudent executions” be realistically carried out? Are there too many executions? Are executions necessarily deterrents? Where is the justice in retaining the death penalty? Do we need to rethink the idea that murder must be punished with execution?
Take, for instance, the issue of human rights protection. How should “Respect the Nation and Ensure Human Rights” be structuralized and standardized? Are chengguans focused on serving the individual, or do they make the public their enemy?
Take, for instance, the issue of social security. Is our system of social security fair? How can we guarantee citizens the basic opportunities to survive? Why was Cui Yingjie driven to the point of despair?
Take, for instance, the issue of the residential registry system. Is the residential registry system that differentiates cities and the countryside fair, and is it effective? Have we not reached the point when [this system] should be abolished? At what time will we again treat the rural population as citizens of this country?
The most important thing is that the case of Cui Yingjie should become the focus of democratic debate on the chengguan system. It is an excellent opportunity for reflection and reform.
From a legal point of view, the legality of the chengguan system itself has become contentious. When chengguans confiscate the business property of street vendors, when they prevent them from continuing their business activities, this violates the relevant regulations governing the admistrative authorities. But in the course of enforcing the law, chengguans often beat street vendors or violate their their human rights, engaing in illegal behavior to the point that even criminal acts are universerally deplored. The most fundamental issue is that for the purpose of the so-called city image, or the so-called social order, the weakest group in our society, more than 10 million citizens, are driven out, incarcerated, have their property confiscated, are excluded from the market, and are cut-off from the most basic living conditions. This relates to the political commonality in our daily life: What is the relationship between government, society, and citizens? How are the roles of government and the market divided? Is there a public interest or city image that is not connected to the citizens’ right of survival? How should public policy be determined? How can society become harmonious?
Regarding the cases of Sun Zhigang (孙志刚) and She Xianglin (佘祥林）, people often lament why [society] only begins to reflect after a horrible price has been paid. Cui Yingjie and Li Zhiqiang are both victims of the chengguan system; they definitely are not the first victims. But we probably don’t want future generations to look back in history at the Cui Yingjie case and wonder: why, after paying such a horrible price, was there absolutely no reflection or reform of the system? People hope for a system that prevents tragedies like the Cui Yingjie case. All sincere reforms to the system should be built on the foundation of basic human rights and healthy public debate.
