Keywords: South China Sea, Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, Taiping Island, Flood in Central China, over-development, Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong.

CHINA – DIPLOMACY

1. South China Sea Dispute and The Hague Court Case

In 2013, the Philippines’ government initiated court proceedings with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague to settle its dispute with China over the South China Sea. The situation becomes complicated when the United States intervened by sending warships to the region. As reiterated before and after the ruling on July 12, the Beijing Government refuses to acknowledge the ruling, which turns out to be very favorable to the Philippines. A brief summary of the ruling is noted here as follows: 1) China’s “Nine-dash Line” and its associated historical claim are not recognized, 2) there are no islands but rocks in the Spratlys, 3) China’s artificial built-up in Mischief Reef violates the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 4) Chinese law enforcement in Scarborough Shoal is in violation of the traditional fishing rights of the Philippines, and 5) China’s activities damage the environment in the area. For the official press release by the Hague Court, please find it here.

• //In the case brought to the court by Philippines, the international tribunal ruled on Tuesday evening that Beijing had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the South China Sea. […] The Permanent Court of Arbitration also ruled that the only feature in the South China Sea controlled by Taipei was a rock rather than an island. […] Only islands, not rocks or reefs, are entitled to such exclusive economic zones, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). […] In the international tribunal’s finding that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the South China Sea, the court said Beijing did so by interfering with the Philippines’ fishing and petroleum exploration, building artificial islands in the waters and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. […] China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment in the South China Sea, the court ruled. It said Beijing had violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species. […] The tribunal’s much-anticipated verdict, released on Tuesday, ruled against China’s expansive claims and its historical nine-dash line in the disputed South China Sea. “There is no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the nine-dash line,” the court said.//Source: SCMP, 13 July 2016.

Before the ruling, China vowed to ignore the Hague ruling and asked the United States to stop intervention into territorial dispute over South China Sea:

• //While calling for a peaceful resolution, Dai Bingguo, a former state councillor and top diplomat, dismissed the expected ruling on the South China Sea as just “a piece of paper” and said China would not be intimidated even if the United States sent 10 aircraft carriers to the disputed waters. “The final award of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper,” Dai said on Tuesday at a forum held by US and Chinese think tanks in Washington. The disputes should not be allowed to define Sino-US relations, he said, calling on both nations to manage their differences constructively. […] The comments come as Beijing steps up its rhetoric against the ruling, claiming it has the backing of about 60 countries. US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said earlier that China risked erecting a “Great Wall of self-isolation” over its assertive moves in the disputed waters. But Beijing blames the US for “militarising” the region by expanding patrols with aircraft carriers.// Source: SCMP, 06 July 2016.

For the historical claim made by China, please see here in detail by Ms. Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China’s National People’s Congress and a former vice foreign minister, and Mr. Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute of South China Sea Studies. China also claims it got support from many countries around the world (see the map here prepared by IFeng News):

• //China’s Foreign Ministry says that dozens of countries have endorsed its position, and reports about foreign politicians denouncing the tribunal appear in the state-run news media almost daily. But Beijing has adopted a broad interpretation of what it means to have won over a country. Russia, for example, agrees that the tribunal should not resolve the dispute, but it has been silent on the Chinese buildup, in part because of its close relationship with Vietnam, which also claims part of the sea. […] But it may be difficult for President Xi to back down. He has used his defense of China’s territorial claims to fan nationalist sentiment, bolstering the ruling Communist Party, and to strengthen his authority over the Chinese military. Some analysts have suggested that he might respond to a ruling against China by moving even more aggressively in the South China Sea and taking steps to transform Scarborough Shoal into an artificial island.// Source: New York Times, 06 July 2016.

After the Hague ruling on 12 July 2016, China reaffirms its position of non-acceptance, non-participation and non-recognition of the ruling. For the full statement made by the Foreign Ministry after the ruling, please find it here. In addition, China’s State Council also issued a white paper on the dispute urging to resolve the conflict through negotiation means. For the full text of the white paper, please find it here by Xinhua (in Chinese).

• //The tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award on Tuesday, amid a global chorus that as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void. […] « The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it, » the ministry said in a statement shortly after the publication of the award. More than 60 countries and international organizations, as well as over 130 foreign political parties and groups, have voiced support for China’s principled position, far outnumbering those backing the assertions of the Aquino administration and the United States, which is widely considered as a primary instigator behind the arbitration case.// Source: Xinhua, 12 July 2016.

• //China is committed to resolving disputes through direct negotiations, but its national sovereignty and maritime interests will not be influenced under any circumstances by the South China Sea ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal of The Hague, President Xi Jinping said on Tuesday. « The South China Sea Islands have been China’s territory since ancient times, » Xi said while meeting in Beijing with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. « We refuse to accept any claims or activities based on the arbitral ruling, » he added. […] Beijing issued two statements immediately after the arbitration ruling was announced. Noting that Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back more than 2,000 years, one statement pointed out that China is the first to have discovered, named, explored and exploited the South China Sea Islands and surrounding waters.// Source: China Daily, 13 July 2016.

A commentary by the People’s Daily on 13 July 2016:

• //2016年7月12日，菲律宾南海仲裁案仲裁庭罔顾基本事实，肆意践踏国际法和国际关系基本准则，公布了严重损害中国领土主权和海洋权益的所谓“裁决”。中国政府和中国人民对此坚决反对，绝不接受和承认。[…] 然而在外部势力的直接操纵和鼓动下，菲律宾阿基诺三世政府和仲裁庭罔顾基本事实，背离基本法理，一意孤行，打着规则和法治的旗号，假公器之名，欲逞其私 利，企图通过曲解适用《联合国海洋法公约》来达到否定中国在南海领土主权和海洋权益的目的。对于这种彻头彻尾的政治挑衅，中国当然不会接受，这既是捍卫中 国领土主权和海洋权益的必要之举，也是维护国际法尊严和地位、践行国际法的正义之举。国际社会中的许多国家和组织以及不少有识之士均对中国的立场表达了支 持。国际法学界专业人士也纷纷对强制仲裁程序被滥用表示担忧和关切，认为菲律宾南海仲裁案伤害《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制的信誉，破坏《联合国海洋 法公约》建立的国际海洋秩序，对现行国际秩序构成威胁。// Source: The People’s Daily, 13 July 2016.

Responses by the United States after the ruling urging all parties to respect the ruling and avoid escalation of the situation:

• //The United States said on Tuesday that an arbitration court ruling that China has no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea should be treated as final and binding and not as a reason to raise tensions. “We certainly would urge all parties not to use this as an opportunity to engage in escalatory or provocative action,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters in a briefing aboard Air Force One. […] Earlier, US State Department spokesman John Kirby termed the court’s decision “an important contribution to the shared goal of a peaceful resolution to disputes in the South China Sea.” “The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations,” Kirby said.//Source: SCMP, 13 July 2016.

Other countries’ responses in support of the ruling:

• //“[J]apan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” Kishida said. “Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of disputes in the South China Sea.” […] “Vietnam strongly supports the resolution of the disputes in the South China Sea by peaceful means, including diplomatic and legal processes and refraining from the use or threats to use force, in accordance with international law.”//Source: SCMP, 13 July 2016.

• //Paul Reichler, of the law firm Foley Hoag LLP, who coordinated the Philippines’ legal team, said: “The tribunal’s ruling not only benefits the Philippines, it also benefits other states bordering the South China Sea like Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. If China’s nine-dash line is invalid as to the Philippines, it is equally invalid to those states and, indeed, the rest of the international community.” […] Philippe Sands QC, who represented the Philippines in the hearing, said: “This is the most significant international legal case for almost the past 20 years since the Pinochet judgment.”// Source: The Guardian, 13 July 2016.

Debates around the South China Sea Dispute:

Some commentators debated on the justifications of China’s rejection of the arbitration in Hague:

• //The dispute is not just about maps and national pride, but also about a nation’s exclusive rights to natural resources in the surrounding seas and beneath the seabed, and about its sovereign right to manage the ships and aircraft of other nations passing through the area, which contains some of the world’s busiest and most important sea lanes. Maochun Miles Yu, a professor of East Asian military and naval history at the United States Naval Academy, said all the claimants used some of or all the three academic disciplines to back their arguments, but the disputes all boiled down to one question: what qualifies one country as the rightful sovereign owner of certain islands in the South China Sea. “For China, the justification is historical mentions by ancient texts; for the Philippines, Malaysia and others, it’s geographical proximity; for Vietnam, it’s active ruling and administration since the 17th century that should really give Hanoi the right to own these islands,” Yu said. […] The article, published in both The National Interest magazine in the United States and China Newsweek magazine, said the international community – including the US – had historically recognised China’s sovereignty over the islands, until recently. But Mohan Malik, a professor of Asian security at Honolulu’s Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, said that as far as “jurisprudential evidence” was concerned, the vast majority of international legal experts had concluded China’s claim to historical title over the South China Sea, implying full sovereign authority and consent for other states to transit, was invalid. Benjamin Herscovitch, a research manager at China Policy, a Beijing-based policy analysis and advisory firm, said Beijing had still not clarified the meaning of its historical territorial claim encompassed by the nine-dash line, which he said had always been historically dubious and remained so, despite Beijing’s recent efforts to provide justification. […] Analysts said sovereignty issues could not be settled under international law, and nor were they within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Herscovitch said China would continue to consolidate its de facto control over large stretches of the South China Sea. “International law might delegitimise China’s nine-dash line and broader South China Sea policy in the eyes of the international community. However, international law is largely powerless in the face of China’s determination and superiority in the realm of raw military power,” he said.// Source: SCMP, 04 July 2016.

Prof. Julian Ku from Hofstra University argues that China as the signatory of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea is bound to accept automatically the verdict of the international court:

• //中国方面声称其曾做出过限制仲裁庭管辖权的声明，排除了“边界及主权”争议的管辖权，因而没有责任遵守联合国仲裁庭裁决。事实上，中国官员不仅已经声明，抵制裁决是在维护国际法，而且进一步谴责菲律宾提起仲裁是违反了国际法。这一观点不成立，原因很简单。它有意忽视了《联合国海洋法公约》的288（4）条款：“对于法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决。”该条款意味着，中国的声明是否排除和限制了菲律宾诉求的管辖权，应由仲裁庭来决定。[…] 中国1996年加入《联合国海洋法公约》时，中方曾同意受制于296条款下的强制性争议裁决（“根据本节具有管辖权的法院或法庭对争端所作的任何裁判应有确定性，争端所有各方均应遵从。”)以及288（4）条款(“管辖权问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决。”）。另外，这类条款并非罕见或没有先例。中国曾同意《投资争端解决公约》（ICSID条款41）及《国际法院规约》（见条款34）的类似条款。法院或仲裁庭管辖权由自己确定，该原则最早可追溯到美英之间19世纪的“阿拉巴马”裁决。管辖权自定这条规则的原因显而易见。如果仲裁庭不能裁定争议事项是否属于管辖权范围，那么一方总能以缺乏管辖权为由规避仲裁（正如中国当前情形下的所为），仲裁的“强制性”则无从谈起。而中国签署和加入联合国海洋法公约时，正是同意了强制性仲裁条款的。//Source: Financial Times (Chinese Edition), 01 July 2016.

Liu Haiyang from Nanjing University and Zhou Yishui from Xiamen University counter-argue that China has included the reservation clause when signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

• //1899年设立常设仲裁法院的海牙公约第18条强调了选择仲裁需国家间达成协议，如果失去了仲裁前双方合意这一本质特征，仲裁就不是仲裁了。古教授认为，中国在批准《公约》的同时就给予包括第三方强制争端解决程序在内的所有《公约》条款以国家同意。但事实上，中国于2006年根据《公约》298条规定提出了保留，中国是在保留的前提下给予《公约》以国家同意的，对于中方提出保留的部分，比如涉及到海域划界、历史性权利和军事活动等排除适用第三方争端解决程序的事项，中方并未给予国家同意。如果不考虑这一点而笼统地认为中国给予的国家同意是对《公约》所有条款的国家同意，那么条约法上的保留制度就没有任何意义了。// Source: Financial Times (Chinese Edition), 09 July 2016.

In another article in Foreign Policy, Prof. Julian Ku also observes that the Chinese legal scholars are unanimous in support of the Chinese government’s position and diverse opinion does not quite exist:

• //State broadcaster China Central Television America recently reported that “300 Chinese legal experts” reached a “unanimous” opinion that “China should abstain from participating in the case, because the arbitration panel has no jurisdiction over the dispute [and] China has legitimate rights under international law to reject the arbitration.” State news agency Xinhua noted that the China Law Society, an organization which represents all academic lawyers in China, released a similarly unanimous and supportive statement of China’s legal position. Xinhua also recently touted an open letter endorsing China’s legal position signed by hundreds of young Chinese international law scholars studying overseas. And leading Chinese scholars have written essays defending the government’s position. Sienho Yee, a professor at Wuhan University and a former professor at the University of Colorado, told Reuters that “[o]bjectively the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the dispute,” while Cai Congyan, a scholar of international law at Xiamen University and a visiting scholar at Humboldt University in Germany, called the process of appointing arbitrators “obviously unjust.” According to my own research, scholars within the Chinese legal establishment have indeed either expressed support for Beijing’s position or have kept silent. I have searched Chinese databases and the internet for articles or scholarship produced in China even indirectly critical of Beijing’s legal position in this arbitral dispute. But I have only found one Chinese-born and educated scholar of international law who has offered a dissenting opinion: Professor Bing Ling of the University of Sydney Law School in Australia. In an essay distributed widely in Chinese social media in December, Ling sharply criticized Bejing’s refusal to participate in the arbitration and its claims that it has no legal obligation to comply with the arbitral award. Ling does not advocate China’s compliance with the award, but he suggests that China might have been able to prevail on jurisdiction if it had participated in the proceedings. As far as I know, no other scholar or advocate who was born and educated in China has published support for Ling’s views. Moreover, as a chaired professor at an Australian university, Ling is not a part of the Chinese academic legal establishment.// Source: Foreign Policy, 14 July 2016.

2. The deployment of a missile system to South Korea by the United States

• //South Korea and the United States announced on Friday that they have decided to deploy an advanced American missile defense system in the South, despite strong protests from China, which sees it as a threat to its own security. The two allies agreed to the deployment of the so-called Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, or Thaad, to better protect South Korea and the United States military in the region from North Korea’s growing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, a senior Defense Ministry official, Ryu Jae-seung, said at a news conference.// Source: New York Times, 07 July 2016.
  
• //In Beijing, the decision was seen as a major setback, one that went beyond its interests on the Korean Peninsula to the larger strategic question of an arms race in Northeast Asia that could impel China — and Russia — to develop more sophisticated weapons. Analysts said the deployment of the so-called Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, or Thaad, would reinforce the already high level of mistrust in United States-China relations as the Obama administration nears its end, adding to the raw nerves over disputes in the South China Sea and differences over American business access to the Chinese market. […] In announcing the American missile defense system, which has been under discussion for years, the top commander of the United States military in South Korea, Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, said Friday that it was needed to protect South Korea from the North’s nuclear weapons. But Chinese officials have repeatedly said that they do not believe the North Korean threat is the true reason for the American-initiated deployment. Rather, they say, the purpose of the Thaad system, which detects and intercepts incoming missiles at high altitudes, is to track missiles launched from China. Now that the system’s implementation has been confirmed, China will almost certainly consider developing more advanced missiles as a countermeasure, said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor at Renmin University in Beijing and a North Korea expert.// Source: New York Times, 08 July 2016.

CHINA – ENVIRONMENT

Flood from heavy rain across Central China

Heavy rain across Central China for several days in a row has led to large-scale flood in the region. Wuhan of the Hubei Province was hit the hardest with record high of weekly rainfall. The cause for heavy rain is attributed to the strong El Nino effect, but the flood experienced in many cities and counties raises concerns (especially in Wuhan) about the usefulness of the Three Gorges Dam, the negative consequence of filling up lakes and wetlands in many cities for urban development and the claimed money spent on flood prevention by the Wuhan Government. For images of the flood, please see here by Caixin and here by ImagineChina.

• //Several days of heavy rain lashed areas of central and eastern China, resulting in widespread flooding, deaths, and property damage. According [to] the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters (SCDRH), by Sunday 186 people had died, while another 45 were missing. Damage to property amounted to more than 50 billion yuan (nearly $7.6 billion). As people around the country are coping with the deluge of water, the SCDRH warned on Sunday that there are two more periods of heavy rain forecast for the coming 10 days. Authorities warned in March that this year’s rainy season, from May to August, would be one of the worst in recent history, owing to a particularly strong El Nino effect.// Source: The Sixth Tone, 05 July 2016.

State authority’s reply to the concerns about the Three Gorges Dam:

• //人民网北京7月8日电 （金晨）连日来，长江中下游地区遭遇强降雨侵袭，已致多省市受灾，部分城市内涝严重。其中湖北武汉6月30日20时至7月6日15时累计雨量1毫米，周降雨量更是突破历史记录最高值。 […] 中国水利水电科学研究院防洪减灾专家程晓陶指出，武汉被“淹城”，三峡绝没有帮倒忙。武汉被“淹城”是因为本身的持续强降雨，并非来自上游的洪水，三峡减少下泄流量，为加快排水创造了条件。早在今年6月6日，长江防汛抗旱指挥部在武汉召开新闻发布会，对长江防洪形势和防汛工作进行了通报，并表示为了应对长江中下游可能发生的大洪水，已将三峡水库全部的防洪库容腾出。而今年7月1日在长江上游形成的1号洪峰，经过三峡大坝的抵挡后，其50000立方米/秒的流量已经被削峰19000立方米/秒。// Source: Renmin Wang, 08 July 2016.

The representative of a green group “Green City of River” (武漢綠色江城) in Wuhan Mr. Ke Zhiqiang expressed views towards the flood: the sewage system was damaged by over-development and the flood situation got worsened this year.

• //在過去，對防洪工程的忽視和腐敗行為削弱了中國的洪水防禦能力。包括李克強總理在內的一些領導人宣稱，今年，政府的準備工作要比以往任何時候都更加充分。然而，專家和受暴雨影響地區的居民卻表示，當地政府對排水很不重視，填湖造地，導致城市容易遭受大型洪水的衝擊。柯志強是環保組織「武漢綠色江城」的負責人，他說，「今年，城區淹水退不下去的情況變多了。」武漢位於華中地區，今年遭受了長江流域洪水的重創。「這是一個系統性的問題：湖泊一直在萎縮——自然排水系統遭到破壞，」柯志強在電話採訪中說。「每個人，包括政府，都意識到整個水系統受到過度開發的傷害。」[…]武漢的一些居民抱怨，官員在改善排水方面幾乎無所作為，而且允許填湖進行城市開發。王昕煜是在當地長大的一名大學生，上週她要求市政府官員披露在升級排水系統方面花了多少錢，引起了全國性的關注。三年前，武漢官員承諾，他們將投資130億元人民幣加強城市排水管網建設。王昕煜認為，他們的行動遠遠落後於計劃。「我就想知道這130億是怎麼花的，」王昕煜告訴中國的新浪網站。「現在都過了三年了，還沒有解決。」還有武漢居民抱怨，一些本來可以儲水再慢慢排水的湖泊在不計後果的開發計劃中被填平。他們說，政府還允許開發商在容易受災的地方修建住房。《新京報》引述的一項估算數據稱，武漢的湖泊面積在過去30年中縮減了近三分之一。「湖泊是天然的蓄水池，」環保人士柯志強說。「下大雨時，本來可以流到湖裡的水，現在就聚集到了住宅區。」// Source: New York Times (Chinese edition), 11 July 2016.

According to statistics by scholars and the authority, the surface area of lakes in Wuhan has been reduced by one third over the past three decades for property development, reducing its capacity to absorb and resist flood.

• //武汉市防汛指挥部新闻发布会上，武汉市水务局相关负责人提出：武汉的地势很低，排水条件很差。这次的暴雨很大，就像最后一根稻草，让武汉瘫痪。另外，武汉市的排水系统建设标准偏低，很容易渍水。武汉市被称为“千湖之城”。新京报记者发现，在渍水严重的地区，很多原来都是湖泊、湿地，原本就是承担蓄水、分洪功能的。这些湖被填后建起住宅小区，如今渍水难题困扰着居民。[…] 华中师范大学春野环境保护协会从2011年起对武汉的南湖做过系列调查。其中，关于“填湖”的调查有一段概述,“随着铺天盖地的城市房地产开发浪潮，围湖造田已经成为地产商皆可染指的行为，整个南湖面积每年急剧下降。相关资料显示，1996-2006年这十年间，南湖面积共减少了35%。尤其是2001年-2002年前后，南湖发生了大规模的人工填湖现象。仅这一年，南湖被填面积高达7公顷。”最终他们将这个调查做了一个叫“湖殇”的纪录片。“其实，当时我们不止走访了南湖，去了很多个湖。有些湖已经消失，连名字都没有了。”当时参与调查的春野协会成员方圆说。[…] 武汉市水务局最新的调查数据显示，近30年武汉湖泊面积减少了228.9平方公里，50年来，近100个湖泊人间“蒸发”。杨汊湖、范湖等耳熟能详的名字仅仅成为带“湖”字的符号。武汉中心城区建国初期127个湖泊如今仅存38个，仍面临着继续被侵蚀的危险。[…] 1987年时武汉的湖泊面积是370.97平方公里，2001年是336.50平方公里，到2013年时，只剩下264.73平方公里。二十多年间，湖泊面积减少近三分之一。填湖背后是巨大的利益。根据国土资源部官方网站公示，武汉市今年初出让的紧邻沙湖的165号地块，1.5公顷土地出让价格是4.95亿元，相当于每亩土地2200万元。武汉民间环保组织“绿色江城”负责人柯志强说，建国后武汉填湖分两个阶段。第一个阶段是改革开放前，那时填湖的主要目的是造田，“人吃不饱饭，所以向湖要地种粮食。”第二个阶段，则是改革开放以后。“城市建设、房地产项目没有地怎么办？填湖。”[…] 2011年，南京大学地理与海洋科学院研究生胡茂川、张兴奇曾做过一项“南京市内涝灾害成因”的研究。城市地表不透水面积增加，原本可以地面渗透的水量大大减少，大部分雨水转化为地表径流。”他们以南京市龙江小区为例，该区域原为河漫滩，全区都是透水性地面，现在成为南京河西新城的一个居住小区。目前，龙江小区与以前相比雨水流出量增加了4.4倍。两位学者认为，与武汉一样，长江穿南京城而过，留下了大量的水域和低洼地。近几年，城市开发速度加快，低洼地由原来的主要起蓄水作用的水域，发展成了城区。他们举例，南京市河西地区原先为长江河岸的缓冲地带，每逢大水之年都与长江混为一体，起到汛期蓄水的作用，其地势低于汛期的秦淮河和长江水位。// Source: The New Beijing News, 08 July 2016.

CHINA – URBANISM

1. State Council’s finding reveals that over 3,500 New Towns are planned and could accommodate a population of 3.4 billion if implemented

State Council recently releases an estimate that there are over 3,500 New Town/New District being planned above county level as of May this year. A significant proportion of the new urban area will be used for residential purpose. If implemented, these projects could house as many as a population of 3.4 billion, half the population of the world. Analysts argue that such housing capacity is beyond the need and its over-development could be attributed to land finance of the local government, where the existing regulations of land use encourage aggressive population projection in order to make greater return on land value.

• //“国务院有关部门数据显示，据不完全统计，截至2016年5月，全国县以上新城新区超过3500个，规划人口达34亿。 […] “规划人口34亿，约相当于中国目前人口规模的5倍，足以装下全世界约一半人口。”华南城市规划学会会长、暨南大学管理学院教授胡刚表示，这种规划显然脱离实际。国家行政学院教授汪玉凯表示，中国人口的生育高峰已经过去，即便全面放开二胎，人口增速不会出现大幅上涨，城镇化的主要增量来源于进城农村转移人口。考虑进城意愿、落户能力等多方面因素，不管怎么算，也填不满34亿人口的“大坑”。规划人口的激进扩张，背后是地方政府对土地指标的狂热追求。”胡刚表示，每多一个人进入城镇化序列，与此对应的人均建设用地指标就多。例如，按照目前人均城市建设用地100平方米计算，20万人口和40万人口的土地指标差别很大，潜在的土地出让收益就多，根由还是土地财政在作怪。最新公布的《国土资源“十三五”规划纲要》显示，“十二五”时期全国城镇建设用地增长约20％，远高于同期城镇人口11％的增幅，城镇建设用地增长速度约为同期城镇人口增幅的180％。专家指出，规划、土地、人口三者紧密联系，规划人口“画大饼”，直接的影响就是房地产过度开发，去库存艰难。国家发展改革委城市和小城镇改革发展中心的研究显示，云南某城市一个新区，招拍挂土地中，住宅高达74.63％，商业服务业设施项目只占15.53％，工业项目只有5.24％。// Source: The Paper, 13 July 2016.

 2. Release of rankings to shame cities that fail to contain pollution

• //Chinese environmental officials are increasingly turning to naming and shaming cities that fail to bring down pollution levels. The latest effort involves water pollution, which, like that of air and soil, has reached toxic levels across much of China. The Ministry of Environmental Protection has said it plans to release rankings of cities by water quality. It already does this with air quality, which is how ordinary Chinese know that coal-burning cities in Hebei Province, surrounding Beijing, are among the worst offenders when it comes to smog. Chinese news organizations reported on the plans this week, after the ministry released a draft proposal last month. The ministry said in its announcement that it was seeking feedback on the proposal by Sunday.// Source: New York Times, 07 July 2016.

 6. Amendment to the environmental law unfavorable to environmental protection

• //For green activists, environmental impact reviews – despite their often poor implementation – are a critical weapon in the fight against polluting industrial projects. But under a revision to the assessment law, quietly passed by the National People’s Congress over the weekend, the review is no longer a “precondition” for a project to begin the approval process with other departments. The change is ostensibly aimed at cutting red tape and removing hurdles to private investment. But activists fear it could usher in a new permissive era, where approval by one department gives a project enough momentum to steamroll a legitimate examination into its effects on the environment. The review process was enshrined into law in 2003 and effectively gave environmental authorities veto power over a project, and the public a channel to formally register their concerns over a project. Senior environmental officials – including former vice-minister Pan Yue – used the mechanism to take on powerful state-owned companies and halt construction of dams and petrochemical projects. Beijing-based lawyer Xia Jun said environmental authorities might now come under greater pressure to green light a controversial project if other departments had approved it. […] “It’s not a problem to cut red tape and weaken government power. The question is: has the public been given more power to challenge potential polluters instead? It’s a pity I don’t see such a change in the revision,” Xia said. Zhou Rong, an environmental consultant in Beijing, said the government was right to cut red tape holding up projects, given the drive to boost private investment amid slower economic growth. “The amendment weakens the vetoing power of the environmental review mechanism, and no feasible alternative has been offered,” she said.// Source: SCMP, 05 July 2016.

CHINA – MEDIA

 New rules to ban news sourcing from social media posts

• //China’s Cyberspace Administration, the top level Internet regulator, has banned news outlets from citing social media messages as sources. The new policy is part of an ongoing crackdown on “fake” news and rumors. All media outlets received an official notice of the ban in early July, according to press release posted on the Administration’s website late on the evening of July 3. The press release, which quoted several cases of “fabricated news” circulated online, said authorities had penalized one dozen online news outlets including Sina, Caijing, Tencent, and NetEase and forced them to delete a number of columnists’ accounts due to their use of social media sources.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 12 July 2016.

 Commentator Oiwan Lam argues:

•  //There are certainly cases in which journalists have failed to verify facts taken from social media, but what the Cyberspace Administration intentionally ignores is the positive impact of sourcing news from social media. […] Take the Wei Zexi incident, which was sourced from social media. Wei was a 21-year-old college student who died in April of synovial sarcoma, but not before his family spent thousands on a phony treatment that exacerbated his condition. They had based the decision on what they thought was a search result on Baidu, the dominant Internet search engine in China, but was actually an advertisement. This particular story, which included video testimony from Wei taken shortly before he died, led to widespread discussion about the problem of search engine advertisement practices and the disorder of the Chinese health system. Eventually, the Cyberspace Administration stepped in to tighten the regulations on advertising on search engines. Chang Ping, a prominent Chinese journalist who now resides in Germany, pointed out that though some “fabricated” stories are indeed spread by online media outlets, most of them are just sensational local news that have little to no consequences when compared to government-fabricated news that affect the country’s development.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 12 July 2016.

HONG KONG – POLITICS

Turmoil at Independent Commission for Anti-Corruption (ICAC) over the dismissal of the Acting Head of Operation

The Commissioner of ICAC explains the dismissal of the Acting Head of Operation:

•  //Hong Kong’s anti-corruption chief took sole responsibility on Monday for removing a top investigator, saying she “failed to meet the job requirements”, and denying the city’s leader had anything to do with the controversial move. Simon Peh Yun-lu, head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, said he had personally conducted the appraisal for Rebecca Li Bo-lan, acting head of the operations department and the first woman to lead the watchdog’s powerful investigative unit. “I notified the chief executive before [deciding to terminate Li’s acting appointment], and he did not give his views or take part in the decision-making process,” he said. “In my appraisal, Li failed to meet the job requirements, so I terminated her acting capacity. It is my own judgment.” But Peh would not specify what Li had failed to deliver, citing privacy reasons. It was his own decision, he reiterated, when asked whether Beijing’s liaison office in the city had any say.// Source: SCMP, 12 July 2016.

• //Many have asked the corruption watchdog to explain the unusual staff shake-up to the public, while the Democratic Party have raised questions over whether the decision was related to investigations into the Chief Executive’s HK$50m UGL payment controversy, which Li had been involved in. […] Peh said that the assessment of her work performance was conducted by himself, as Li’s direct supervisor, and he had then notified Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying of the decision. Peh said that Leung did not take part in the decision-making process and that no one had interfered or given their opinion. When asked by reporters whether this had anything to do with Li’s previous cases such as her involvement in the UGL case, Peh repeated that this was to do with her work performance and there were no other considerations. “I hope that after the clarification, there will be no more speculation.”// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 11 July 2016.

• //The city’s anti-corruption agency, facing turmoil at the top, has postponed its annual staff dinner on Friday after most of the workers who had signed up pulled out. The mass snub was an apparent reaction to the removal of former acting head of the organisation’s powerful investigative unit Rebecca Li Bo-lan. On Wednesday night a spokesman said the staff club of the Independent Commission Against Corruption would select another date for the annual dinner after speaking to members. He did not say how many staff members had planned to drop out. Lam Cheuk-ting, a former ICAC investigator – who is standing for the Democratic Party in September’s Legislative Council elections – said he was told most of the agency’s staff who signed up for the annual event had changed their mind. The dinner, planned to take place at the agency’s staff canteen at its North Point headquarters, charged several hundred dollars per head, said Lam, who served at the agency from 2007 to 2011.// Source: SCMP, 13 July 2016.

Political journalist Shirley Yam explains the significance of the role played by the Head of Operation, the title carried by Rebecca Li Bo-lan before her dismissal, and argues about the abnormality of the sacking, urging the government to face the public in order to protect the integrity of the ICAC:

• //Last week, the 53-year-old career graft-buster was told to leave her [Li Bo-lan’s] job as its Acting Head of Operations. The move is unprecedented. The commission has given no explanation. […]  To appreciate the problem, one must know the Head of Operations plays a much more significant role than the title suggests. It is part of the commission’s own checks and balance system. The Commissioner is generally considered number one at the watchdog given his or her overwhelming power. In reality, the Commissioner has little knowledge of the commission’s core business – investigation – up until the very last minute of a case. This is due to the “need-to-know” principle which has been guiding the watchdog since its establishment in the 1970s. The Head of Operations oversees the probes while the Commissioner takes care of policy, public image and international relations. The former’s role is so vital that he or she is also, by practice, the Deputy Commissioner who is appointed by the Hong Kong Chief Executive; not by the ICAC Commissioner. By the same token, the Operations Department is accountable not to the Commissioner; but the Operations Review Committee (ORC), comprising largely members of the public appointed by the Chief Executive. In short, the top investigator is one of the three pillars of the commission’s independence alongside the Commissioner and ORC. What has caused the swift change in such a important job within a year?  Li’s credentials cannot help explain it. She has spent almost three decades bringing corrupters to justice, cracking major cases and winning the ICAC medal for distinguished service in 2007. […] Neither can the poor condition of the commission’s human resources explain it. It has been suffering a high turnover rate and succession failure in recent years. At least two retired employees were hired to fill senior jobs. Among them was the former Head of Operations. The decision to get rid of Rebecca Li also went against the norms of bureaucracy. Demotion is never easy in the establishment. To avoid appeal, prior warning and extension of probation is always the answer to any “unsatisfactory” performance. Li is understood to have been offered none of these. The tough investigator was so shocked by the decision that she left in tears. The commission owes the public an answer. Sensitivity and the secrecy of its job is no excuse when a key job, as well as the ICAC’s integrity, is at stake. […] At the same time, the commissioner is seen to be losing its seniority in the establishment. In the colonial days, it was a job reserved for retiring administrative officers who were policy makers high up the hierarchy. After 1997, instead of having a retired judge to strengthen its independence, the top job was passed to “policy takers” further down the hierarchy.// Source: SCMP, 08 July 2016.

Profile of Rebecca Li Bo-lan:

• //She became the first woman to lead the Operations Department in the ICAC’s 41-year history when she took over, in an acting capacity, from retired graft fighter Ryan Wong Sai-chiu on July 17 last year. Her job also carried the title of deputy commissioner. It was a second first for Li, who in 2000 became the first ICAC officer to be sent for special training with the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. […] Li joined the ICAC in 1984 as an assistant investigation officer in the Operations Department.// Source: SCMP, 08 July 2016.

TAIWAN – DIPLOMACY

South China Sea dispute and Taiwan’s response to the 12 July ruling

Before the ruling on 12 July:

• //In March, the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, of which former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou is a member, submitted written evidence to the tribunal to convince its five judges that Taiping was entitled to be classified as an island and enjoy the rights of an exclusive economic zone.// Source: SCMP, 13 July 2016.

After the ruling on 12 July:

• //A Taiwanese warship set sail for the South China Sea on Wednesday “to defend Taiwan’s maritime territory”, a day after an international tribunal ruled China has no historic rights in the waterway and undermined Taipei’s claims to islands there. […] Crucially for Taipei, it ruled that Taiwan-administered Taiping, the largest island in the Spratlys chain, was legally a “rock” that did not give it an exclusive economic zone, undermining Taiwanese claims to waters surrounding the island. Taiwan’s government said the ruling was “completely unacceptable” and had no legally binding force since the arbitral tribunal did not formally invite Taipei to participate in its proceedings or solicit its views.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 13 July 2016.

A legislator in Taiwan suggests that the well water on Taiping Island is drinkable and should use it as an evidence to support the status of Taiping as ‘Island’ but not just ‘rock’:

• //國民黨立委王育敏13日在內政委員會質詢時，要求內政部長葉俊榮，用太平島上生成的淡水開發成包裝礦泉水，此想法引發正反兩極化評論。內政部次長花敬群14日上午受訪時表示，如果海巡署認為島上的水資源充足，可以與國人和南海諸國分享的話，「我們也樂見」。 花敬群表示，太平島上的水資源非常充沛，不會乾涸，絕對是一個適合安居樂業的地方，因此太平島「絕對是一個島」。// Source: New Talk, 13 July 2016.

• //針對南海仲裁出爐的報告中指出，根據聯合國海洋法公約，海上地物具備可維持人類居住及維持本身經濟生活的要件，才能被定位為「島嶼」，不過，仲裁報告中卻說太平島上雖有淡水，卻有枯井期，導致島上不適合提供人類居住。前總統馬英九14日出席南海仲裁座談會中反駁，「淡水就是太平島的強項，品質好到不行，跟evian礦泉水差不多」。// Source: New Talk, 14 July 2016.