The image on the computer screen is shocking: a man, lying on a hospital bed, his head bandaged, with long trickles of blood running from the top of his scalp.
The man, now sitting next to me, explains with a bit of understatement: "Of course I must continue to have faith in the Chinese legal system, although I must admit that this incident has somewhat dampened my optimism."
The "incident" occurred last December, as he and another attorney traveled to prepare the retrial of a blind, self-taught legal activist.
That activist had been framed by local authorities after he had denounced abuses by the local family planning authorities.
As the two lawyers were traveling on a bus, a gang of men, some of them wielding metal pipes, boarded it and brutally assaulted them.
The injuries proved minor, but the incident embodies the paradox of China's legal system: Over the past two decades, China has enacted hundreds of laws and elevated "ruling the country according to law" to ideological and constitutional prominence.
Legal awareness in society has soared to unprecedented levels.
Last week, China finally enshrined private property by passing the long-awaited property rights law, in what the government called "significant progress in promoting rule of law in the country."
Yet access to justice remains tightly constrained, courts are still controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and lawyers involved in litigation against local state agencies remain highly vulnerable to retaliation by state and non-state actors.
Reprisals range from suspension of lawyers' licenses by the judicial bureaus to physical intimidation or assault by criminal elements.
After their attackers left, the two lawyers made repeated calls to the police to report the incident, but police did nothing beyond take the call.
Formal complaints to the justice ministry and the national bar association weren't even acknowledged, let alone actually answered.
Ever since Deng Xiaoping (
But as China's society progressively emancipated itself from direct state control -- with the notable exception of sectors viewed by the CCP as crucial to maintaining its monopoly on power -- citizens increasingly appealed to the law for protection against arbitrary administrative interference and to limit the bureaucracy's discretionary powers.
In turn, the government encouraged the idea that ordinary citizens had legal rights as a way to ensure social stability, check petty corruption and channel social grievances through a party-controlled mechanism.
The new property rights law undoubtedly offers stronger protection to Chinese citizens, in particular homeowners, by equalizing the legal status of private and state property.
Increased predictability and transparency in the property system is likely to bring with it economic benefits, reassure international investors and signal the leadership's determination to pursue further economic reforms.
Perhaps more importantly, the law indirectly consolidates, at least in theory, the concept of a private sphere in Chinese society: a physical and legal area protected from arbitrary state intervention that could potentially serve as a basis for demanding greater political participation.
What the new law will not do, however, is address the most serious property rights disputes: land seizures and forced evictions for urban redevelopment.
Most of these protests stem from acts by local officials that were already clearly illegal under existing Chinese law.
The real problem is to make officials respect legality.
With little oversight from the central government and no independent judiciary or a free press to hold them accountable, local authorities in rural areas are often a law unto themselves.
According to China's Ministry of Land Resources, there were more than 90,000 cases of illegal land transfers last year, yet there were precious few prosecutions during the same period.
Local courts, whose judges are appointed and paid by the local government, often simply refuse to file cases that challenge official decisions.
In the few cases where a court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the judgments often remain unenforced.
When lawyers and legal activists try to help villagers or evicted residents to fight through the legal system, they often become victims of retaliation.
Because people cannot get justice through the courts, unrest has skyrocketed nationwide in recent years: Official statistics record more than 200 protests a day, four times the number a decade ago.
The central authorities have recognized the link between abuses, unrest and the need to develop legal services for preventing the escalation of disputes.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
But reality doesn't match official rhetoric. In the past year, three prominent lawyers and rights activists were arrested.
Administrative restrictions on lawyers were tightened to discourage class action or multiple plaintiff suits -- typically cases against arbitrary or corrupt government actions -- and to facilitate local authorities' intervention and control over cases.
And the media were prohibited from reporting cases involving land disputes and forced evictions.
The new property law won't be the breakthrough for rights protection that the government claims it is until it is matched by increased access to justice for ordinary citizens.
The government is fortunate to have my lawyer friend's faith in the legal system, but now it must earn ordinary citizens' trust by enacting reforms.
Removing constraints on lawyers and ensuring that they are not attacked with impunity would be a good place to start.
Nicholas Bequelin is China researcher at Human Rights Watch.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry