Administrative fees or protection money?

Chengguan — the minor officials who are supposed to maintain order on public streets — are back in the news. An article in the China Daily earlier this week discussed how the new private property law might affect the activity of the “urban administration,” and included this observation:

The Guangzhou “Chengguan”, however, claimed they exercised their power in accordance to the city’s administration regulations, which doesn’t interfere with the Property Law.

As a result, some law experts worried that the Property Law may not help to tackle the problem with the power of “Chengguan” because the relation between “power” and “law” has been for long confused. Other experts said the Property Law is not responsible for regulating administrative departments.

Chengguan violence was last year’s big concern; this year it seems to be “protection money.” Even as Shanghai relaxes restrictions on street-side stalls, conflict between chengguan and vendors continues in other areas. Gansu’s Xidu Business News reported on Monday that chengguan in Lanzhou had been ignoring the city’s zoning laws and allowing vendors to set up their stalls in restricted areas so long as they paid a monthly fine as an “administration fee.” One of the paper’s reporters went undercover as a vendor and had this exchange with the chengguan:

At 5pm on 22 March, the reporter met with the chengguan squad in the guise of a roadside vendor. “Pay 100 yuan every month and that’s it,” captain Liu Wenjun said frankly.

“And after I’ve paid, you won’t investigate? I’m a bit concerned,” the reporter continued.

“Ah, we’re a government department, an administrative organ – how could we be that untrustworthy? Contact lieutenant Xie for details….”

…

On 27 March, after handing over his money at a butcher near Xiaoxihu, the reporter received two 50-yuan receipts reading “Fined for violating vendor stall regulations.” “Remember to keep a photocopy at your stall; otherwise, when other officers who don’t recognize don’t find a fine receipt, they may take you away,” lieutenant Xie warned the reporter.

The report also quoted other chengguan who claimed that they were under orders from higher-ups to collect a certain amount of fines every month. The paper reported today that the city had declared the fine-for-protection system void and ordered all of the vendors cleared out (the photo shows a number of chengguan keeping order); Xidu Business News declares this a win for the supervisory role of the media, and predicts that the swift response of the chengguan has earned them the respect of the common people.

Their swift response is understandable – with term “protection money” being thrown around and many commentators comparing the chengguan to organized crime, it’s not the best situation for an branch of government that’s trying to justify its continued existence.

This is only the latest in a string of reports about law enforcement taking payoffs in exchange for allowing violators to continue doing business. In February, the quality inspection office in Jiujiang County, Jiangxi, was found to be collecting an annual “technical service fee” in lieu of doing actual inspections. Once again, “protection fee” was the name given to the practice by locals.

In response to that report, the blogger who goes by the name Ten Years Chopping Timber wrote an op-ed for The Beijing News (here, taken from an expanded version posted on his blog):

What is “service,” what is “protection”? In this writer’s understanding, true service and protection have two crucial elements – one is that the recipient of the service and protection is willing, and the other that in providing service and protection to someone, the rights of others are not infringed. So from this viewpoint, when the government uses the its power to serve and protect its citizens, fees naturally can be paid for this service and protection, and taxes are legal for this reason. So it is perfectly justified for the government to use tax collection as a way to collect “service fees” and “protection fees” to train police, the army, and public officials in other parts of the government.

…

Harming the interests of the majority to protect and serve the minority should not be something that the government does in a country ruled by law. Only certain professionals who are “paid money to make problems disappear” act that way. More frightening is the fact that serving and protecting A few businesses not only harms the interests of the larger consumer group, but is also detrimental to the image of the government and the party in power. No company boss would permit his underlings to use his resources to harm the interests of a client, thus destroying the company’s public image and causing the market to whither.

Wu Si once wrote two articles discussing “the people as the chief victim” and “the emperor as the chief victim.” The age of empire was one of nepotism; bad officials used their positions for private gain, harming on the one had the public interest, and on the other the “legal entity” of the dynasty – the interests of the emperor. When the public came to harm, they would most likely aim their accusing fingers at the imperial court. Similarly, in a modern society where the people are the masters, selling off the government’s credibility and the public power for gains that fall under personal interest harms the public masses, and also harms the government and ruling party in whom the public masses have placed their trust.

The piece ends with a reference to Bai Juyi, whose poem “The Elderly Charcoal Seller” (卖炭翁) paints a picture of Tang Dynasty chengguan harrassing a poor vendor from out of town. In March, a forum post by Tu Guowen also cited the poem. Inspired by a report of watermelon sellers forced to sell their produce for a few fen on the yuan after being turned away at the Zhengzhou city limits, Tu recast Bai’s poem as “The Elderly Watermelon Seller.”

Finally, a post by John Kennedy at GVO features a photo series of chengguan chasing down a watermelon seller.