Authorities Impose Special Procedures on Release of Shanghai Lawyer Zheng Enchong

December 12, 2006

Local authorities have announced plans to take Shanghai lawyer and property rights advocate Zheng Enchong into temporary custody upon his scheduled release from prison, according to a June 1 Human Rights in China (HRIC) report. Zheng is serving a three-year prison sentence for "illegally providing state secrets to entities outside of China" and is due for release on June 5, 2006, according to court documents from the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court and Shanghai High People's Court.

Local authorities have announced plans to take Shanghai lawyer and property rights advocate Zheng Enchong into temporary custody upon his scheduled release from prison, according to a June 1 Human Rights in China (HRIC) report. Zheng is serving a three-year prison sentence for "illegally providing state secrets to entities outside of China" and is due for release on June 5, 2006, according to court documents from the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court and Shanghai High People's Court. The trial court judgment subjects Zheng to an additional punishment of deprivation of political rights for one year following his release. Under Article 54(2) of the Criminal Law, these political rights include "the rights of freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

In July 2001, the Shanghai Justice Bureau revoked Zheng's license to practice law after he advised more than 500 households displaced by Shanghai's urban redevelopment projects on their rights to government compensation. In May 2003, the month before public security officials detained Zheng, a group of Shanghai residents who were advised by Zheng attempted to sue Zhou Zhengyi, a prominent Shanghai property developer, alleging that corrupt officials colluded with him to deprive them of compensation funds for their demolished homes. Later that month, Shanghai municipal authorities placed Zhou under house arrest, and in June 2004, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court sentenced him to three years imprisonment. According to a May 26, 2006, Xinhua report (via China Daily), Zhou was released on that date. An April 26 RFA article (in Chinese) notes that Zheng Enchong has expressed his desire to continue appealing on behalf of Shanghai residents after his own release in June. But the HRIC report suggests that authorities remain cautious, and have arranged for police to hold Zheng in temporary custody on June 5 and 6, to confirm arrangements for his deprivation of political rights and complete other formalities.

Five years after Shanghai authorities suspended Zheng's license to practice law, controversy over land disputes and forced demolitions remains prevalent there and throughout China. In October 2005, a New York Times report (registration required) discussed the existence of a property bubble and rampant land speculation in China. An April 18, 2006, South China Morning Post (SCMP) article (subscription required) characterized the Shanghai property market as "perhaps the most speculative on the mainland" and notes that analysts attribute this to a variety of factors, including the 2010 World Expo, massive redevelopment projects, and inflows of overseas capital. According to the SCMP, government measures to curb property speculation are not working. Hundreds of Shanghai residents addressed a November 2005 open letter (in Chinese, via Citizens Rights Net) to the Shanghai municipal government and a December 2005 open letter (via the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders) to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. In these letters, residents complained about continuing government abuses, forced relocation, and confiscation of personal property. A January 25 Radio Free Asia (RFA) report and April 24 Voice of America report (both in Chinese) estimate that the number of households that the government will forcibly evict from the site of the 2010 World Expo falls between 18,000 and 20,000.

Zheng's case provides an illustration of how Chinese authorities have abused state secrets laws to silence those who lawfully challenge government abuses. The procuratorate based its case against Zheng on his sharing of an internal Xinhua news agency document with the U.S. human rights NGO Human Rights in China. Court officials convicted Zheng based on the "confidential" and "secret" nature of Xinhua's report, which was entitled "Forcible Demolitions Trigger Conflicts, Reporters Surrounded and Assaulted While Conducting Interviews." As the CECC previously noted, the appeals court in Zheng's case concluded that he should have known Xinhua's story was a "state secret" because it was marked "internal." However, stories from Xinhua's "Internal Selections" are freely available on Chinese Communist Party Web sites, including those of the Beijing Communist Party Central Committee and the Chongqing Communist Party Central Committee. Government laws and regulations require news outlets to determine whether news on current events constitutes a "state secret," and Communist Party rules require news organizations to decide whether the subject matter of a news report is too sensitive for public reporting. Xinhua did not make either of those designations.

New opinions issued by the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) and at least one provincial justice bureau demonstrate that the Chinese government regards information on forced demolitions and land requisitioning to be sensitive and thus subject to increased government oversight and intervention. The ACLA opinion explicitly identifies forced demolitions and land requisitioning as two major causes that give rise to "mass" cases. It urges lawyers and law firms who take on such cases to be cautious in their commentary to the news media. The opinion of the Henan Justice Bureau prohibits lawyers and law firms that take on "sensitive" cases from publishing commentary that affects the outcome of the case or the mood of the public, and warns them not to establish contact with overseas organizations or news media in violation of disciplinary rules. Both opinions state that lawyers cannot use the media to "stir up" news. They also legitimize the suspension of a lawyer's practice and other more severe punishments when lawyers engage in legal activities similar to Zheng's legal advocacy efforts since 2001. These opinions have a chilling effect on the work of lawyers who otherwise wish to take on cases similar to Zheng's.

For information on Zheng Enchong's criminal case, see the CECC's January analysis and case information searchable through the CECC Political Prisoner Database. See also the section on "Denial of Fair Public Trial" in the U.S. Department of State's 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China.