When some lives are more equal than others

• Source: Global Times
• [20:29 July 22 2009]
• Comments

By Yin Hang

Sooner or later, he would change China. Soaked in sweat and carrying two heavy envelopes from his office to the nearest Guangzhou post office on the foggy morning of January 1, 2007, Zhou Yuzhong believed the letters might make all the difference.

One year and two months later, the 32-year-old lawyer sent two more envelopes up north, one to the Law Working Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), the other to the secretariat of the First Session of the 11th NPC.

Zhou told the Global Times he regarded both these actions as “sacred”.

“We were born equal and we should receive equal treatment when we are dead,” he said. “So I’m sending letters, asking them to abolish these unreasonable regulations.

“I hope the equality clearly claimed in the current Constitution of the People’s Republic of China will not be ignored.”

The “unreasonable regulations” Zhou mentioned are specifically Article 25, Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury.

The article states compensation should be based on annual average income according to the registered domicile. By this rule, urban victims and rural victims involved in identical incidents can receive vastly different levels of compensation based on the hukou.

The weakening Chinese hukou or huji system dates back to ancient China and has been used by all Chinese governments to control population movement. On an individual level this much-loathed system continues to categorize Chinese people into two clear and separate types of human beings: urban and rural. Based partly on mode of occupation, mode of land usage and parents’ dan wei, or work unit, the hukou plays a discriminating role in every Chinese citizen’s life opportunities in terms of education, health care, housing, pensions and yes, even legal compensation.

Based on 2006 annual average disposable income for an urban resident of 11,780 yuan ($1,724) and a rural resident at 3,587 yuan, Zhou and his colleagues found a 160,000 yuan gap where both were involved in the same kind of accident where standard compensation was fixed at 20 times annual income.

Much of Zhou’s naive optimism stemmed from the fact he knew that no less an authority than the Supreme Court in Beijing had once expressed an interest in changing the rule.

Seventy-two days after Zhou sent his first two envelopes, former Chief Justice Xiao Yang said the Supreme People’s Court was working to amend the controversial rule.

Reportedly Xiao stated that if everything went smoothly, the amendment would be made public after the March 2007 session of the NPC.

“However, the next thing we heard was Chief Justice Xiao retiring one year later with that interpretation still on the books.

“That’s why we sent another two letters a year later,” Zhou said.

Regulations and more regulations

The contentious Interpretation is the highest level of regulation in China and went into force May 1, 2004. But according to the Chinese Administrative Law, legislative bodies at the provincial level can draft their own lower-level regulations as long as they follow the sprit of that higher interpretation.

Guangdong traffic police on May 15 unveiled its 2009 compensation package for personal injury caused by traffic accidents: an urban resident hukou holder would be paid 760,000 yuan, twice the compensation of a rural resident.

A police spokesman reportedly told the Guangzhou Daily that their new rules represented a step forward as anyone – peasant or urban resident – received the same compensation if an accident occurred within the city boundaries of Guangzhou.

Zhou begs to disagree. He pointed out not only do urban and rural victims now receive different compensation, but residents of different Guangdong cities receive different levels of compensation.

Zhou despises any regulation, no matter how well-intended or pragmatic, that assigns different value to individual life, a principle widely upheld by the Chinese mainland media in reporting news concerning the Interpretation.

But Lü Shuqin, a lawyer and civil law professor from the Shanghai-based East China University of Political Science and Law, is not afraid to stand against fashion.

“Superficially speaking, the conclusion that the Interpretation leads to equal lives being paid different prices sounds persuasive. But actually, it’s rootless.

“Life is invaluable and should not and could never be judged by money. The purpose of setting compensation is to compensate relatives and successors of the victims,” Lü told the Global Times.

“Since the compensation is to compensate victims’ relatives, it’s easy to understand that the losses their relatives suffered as a result are different. So with different living standards and expenses between urban and rural areas, the compensation should be different.”

Tan Weishan, a lawyer from Shenzhen-based China Commercial Law Co of Guangdong Province, agreed partially with Lü, although he held a different view on the issue of what compensation is intended to compensate.

“I believe compensation is about making up for expected benefits the victims would have created for society. So we should absolutely acknowledge that different compensation will help achieve equality,” Tan told the Global Times.