彻查中国首贪温家宝及其家人

2013-01-01 23:54:46

http://blog./post-272703.html

转发编者注：薄熙来上任地方官大连市长时，就让其妻子谷开来关闭经营良好的律师事务所。如果谷开来的律师事务所一直开着，早就不知名正言顺地捞到了多少律师顾问费。而温家宝作为国家领导人副总理（1998－2003）和总理期间（2003－目前），其老婆开设戴梦得珠宝，其子温云松在2000年创办了私人的优创科技有限公司,在2005年所开设的私募基金新天域更是疯狂敛财上百亿，而温家宝作为国家领导人，却没有阻止他们经商，这违反了1997年3月中国共产党发布的《中国共产党党员领导干部廉洁从政若干准则（试行）》中的第5条禁止省部级以上领导干部配偶、子女经商创办企业的规定。两相对比，谁的境界高，谁家在敛财，不是一目了然吗？薄熙来完全可以象温家宝或其他高官对家人经商睁一只眼闭一只眼，可薄没有，而是坚决要谷开来关掉律师事务所，由此可见，薄熙来是有原则的干部，不是贪钱之辈。仅此一点就可看出，温家宝的境界与人格，完全无法与薄熙来相提并论。中央如果不彻查温家宝家族的至少27亿美元财富（纽约时报已经提供了清晰证据），无法令全国百姓心服，其清洗薄熙来的政治阴谋只会激起全国人民的愤怒。

转发文章：

温总理家人尚未回答的问题（中英文版）

作者徐开彬，美国宾夕法尼亚费城 天普大学（Temple University）媒体与传播学院助理教授

中国外交部发言人洪磊先生声称，纽约时报对中国总理温家宝家人的报道是“抹黑中国、别有用心。”纽约时报在近日的一篇报道中，记载了温先生家人积聚至少价值27亿美元资产的详情。被温总理的儿子温云松（英文名Winston Wen）授权的两名北京律师，就该报道发表了一份声明。

尽管如此，对于中国政府和总理家人来说，还有一系列尚未回答的问题。

首先，纽约时报的报道就温先生亲属获取资产的途径提供了清晰证据。在进行调查之前，中国政府怎么能在报道发布的当天，就否认报道的真实性呢？毕竟，中国政府并没有否定这些证据的存在及其真实性。

其次，当中国外交部发言人说纽约时报的报道是“抹黑中国”的时候，他显然认为批评温先生就是抹黑中国、温先生等同于中国。这种逻辑是明显有问题的。比如，我们能否说，批评奥巴马先生等同于“抹黑美国”呢？

第三，温先生家人所发表的声明太过含糊，并没有回答纽约时报的报道所关注的真正的问题。比如说，该声明称，“温家宝家人中部分成员没有从事商业活动。部分从事商业活动，但没有进行任何非法商业活动。他们不拥有任何公司的股份。”纽约时报并没有说温家所有人都在从事商业活动，也没有说他们进行了非法商业活动。纽约时报只是报道了其亲属所从事的商业活动。不过，纽约时报确实曾提到，根据公司纪录，在温总理母亲名下，5年前有一笔投资的价值达到1.2亿美元。这份声明称其家人“不拥有任何公司的股份”，但是，在“不拥有”一词上使用的是动词现在时，这意味着它只告诉了目前的状况 ——他们现在不持有股份；它并没有否认纽约时报的报道所说的内容——温先生的母亲和其他亲属在5年前曾持有大量平安股份。另外，这份声明是在认为温先生的母亲不是其家人吗？该声明本该回答这些问题，却没有回答。

第四，早在纽约时报的报道发布之前，对平安保险公司与总理夫人之间的关系，多年来就存在很多疑问。纽约时报披露，泰鸿公司就是总理母亲与其他亲属持有平安股份的投资平台。泰鸿公司老板段伟红声称，这些股份是她本人的，她用他人的身份证登记她的股份，是“为了隐藏自己持股的规模。”她说她不知道这些身份证是总理 亲属的，她通过她自己的家属找到这些身份证，纯碎是“巧合”。这种解释难以令人相信。既然段伟红说她自2000年就认识总理的夫人，她怎么会不知道总理近亲属的姓名呢？一个一般人怎么能获得总理亲属的身份证呢？即使我们相信段女士所说的，这也表明，总理的亲属了解他们的身份证用于了购买平安股份, 因为购买股份需要个人签字。但根据中国法律，将自己的身份证出借给他人是非法的，使用他人的身份证登记自己的股份也是非法的。如果不是温的家人，谁能使得贵为国家总理的老太太干这种违法的事情呢？另外，正如一些网友指出的，温总理母亲的年龄也足以与段伟红的说法相矛盾：平安股份于2007年在内地股市上市，当时温的母亲已经85岁，这个年龄的人，随时都可能去世；万一她突然去世，她名下的股份就成了其家人的遗产，借 用她身份证的人怎么把钱要回来？谁会傻到做这种事呢？所以，可以肯定，段伟红在撒谎。

第五，尽管总理家属没有从事非法商业活动，但是，对他们来说，从事商业活动本身违反了党的纪律原则。自1980年代末以来，中国政府的党内纪律就禁止高干家属在其管辖的地区及管辖的业务范围个人经商办企业。1997年3月，中国共产党发布了《中国共产党党员领导干部廉洁从政若干准则（试行）》)。其中第5条规定：

省（部）级以上领导干部的配偶、子女及其配偶，不准在该领导干部管辖的地区及管辖的业务范围个人经商办企业和在外商独资企业任职。

同年9月，中国共产党发布了《中国共产党党员领导干部廉洁从政若干准则试行（实施办法）》。就以上原则的实施办法在第31条：

省、部级以上领导干部的配偶、子女及其配偶，在该领导干部管辖地区的业务范围个人经商办企业和在外商独资企业任职的，领导干部应要求其配偶、子女及其配偶限期纠正。拒不纠正的，领导干部应当辞去现任职务或者由组织上调整其职务，并比照《纪律处分条例》第八十八条的规定处理。

既然温先生身为总理，那么全中国都在其管辖地区内，所有的商业领域也都在其业务范围内。这意味着总理的家人在中国不能在任何商业领域个人经商。但是，公开的商业纪录显示，总理的儿子在2000年创办了私人的优创科技有限公司，在2005年又创立了利润丰厚的私募基金公司新天域，后者已成为中国排名前三的私募基金，为他带来了巨大的收益。

例如，媒体曾广泛报道（见http://stock.hexun.com/2011-01-07/126661406.html ），新天域在2008年曾在一家名为“华锐风电”的风电能源公司投资7500万人民币（约1200万美元），到2011年1月华锐风电上市时，新天域在该 公司的股份价值达到了108亿人民币（约16亿美元），相当于投资额的145倍。后来出于避嫌，他在2010年离开新天域加入国企中国航天科技集团，但他 在新天域仍有大量的投资。

显然，这些商业活动发生在《中国共产党党员领导干部廉洁从政若干准则（试行）》与《中国共产党党员领导干部廉洁从政若干准则试行（实施办法)》生效之后。他的父亲，先是作为副总理（1998－2003年），接着是总理（2003－至今），既没有按照党的纪律原则阻止儿子经商，也没有按党纪原则在 2000－2010年间辞职或由组织上调整其职务。

最后，该声明称：“温家宝从未在家人的经营活动中起任何作用，更没有因家人从事经营活动对他制定和执行政策产生任何影响。” 纽约时报的文章并没有说温家宝曾亲自干预，帮助家族成员的投资获得优待。文章只是指出，“在中国，国家在经济中起着很大的作用，而作为总理，温家宝管辖着众多政府官员，这些官员的决策可能会对企业和投资者的命运起着重大作用。” 鉴于中国的裙带关系非常普遍，这当然是事实，这也是党阻止高干家属经商的主要原因。如果总理的家人经商，以温先生这样高级别的政府官员，肯定不必为家人亲自出面，但政府官员和富商们也会知道如何讨好其家人。

正是在这种语境下，很多中国百姓经常谈到新天域的投资，特别是上文提及的在华锐风电公司的投资及其巨额收益。温总理曾在2007年9月7日访问华锐风电公司(这次访问被中国风能协会记载在《2007年中国风能大事纪》http://www.cwea.org.cn/circular/display_info.asp?cid=61 )，新天域则在2008年3月完成了对华锐风电的投资。此外，新天域在2006年12月对金风科技投资450万美元，温总理则在2007年8月19日访问了该公司（也记载在《2007年中国风能大事纪》），同年12月金风科技上市，新天域带着3.24亿的收益成功退出（见新天域投资介绍http://www.investide.cn/subject/nhfund/index.html）。这些事件之间也许不存在直接的联系，但人们有理由表示担心。

 

以下为英文版

Unanswered Questions by Premier Wen’s Family

The author of this article is Kaibin Xu, an Assistant Professor in the School of Media and Communication,Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Mr. Hong Lei, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, claimed that The New York Times report on the family of the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao “smears China and has ulterior motives.” The New York Times recently published an article documenting how the relatives of Mr. Wen have amassed assets worth at least $2.7 billion. Entrusted by Yunsong Wen (English name Winston Wen), the son of the premier, two attorneys in Beijing have released a statement regarding this report.

Even so, there are a series of questions that remain unanswered by the Chinese government and the premier’s family.

First, The New York Times story provides clear evidence about how Mr. Wen’s relatives obtained their assets. Before an investigation is launched, how could the Chinese government claim, on the same day when the report was published, that the story is false? After all, the Chinese government does not deny the existence or authenticity of the evidence.

Second, when the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry says that The New York Times report “smears China,” he appears to be assuming that criticizing Mr. Wen means smearing China, and that Mr. Wen is equivalent to China. Such logic is obviously problematic. Shall we say, for example, that criticizing Mr. Obama is equivalent to “smearing the United States?”

Third, the statement issued by Mr. Wen’s family is too vague and does not address the real issues covered by The New York Times. For example, the statement claims, “Some of Wen Jiabao’s family members have not engaged in business activities. Some were engaged in business activities, but they did not carry out any illegal business activity. They do not hold shares of any companies.” The New York Times has neither claimed that all of Wen family members had engaged in business, nor that they had engaged in illegal business. The story just reported the business activities of Mr. Wen’s relatives. The story, however, does mention that according to corporate records, one investment, which was in the name of the premier’s mother, had a value of $120 million five years ago. While the statement claims the family members “do not hold shares of any companies,” the use of the present tense for the verb (“do not hold”) means that it tells only about the current situation – they do not hold shares at present; it does not deny what The New York Times report says – Mr’s Wen’s mother and other relatives held a vast amount of Ping An shares 5 years ago. Also, is the statement assuming that Mr. Wen’s mother is not his family member? The statement should have, but did not, answer these questions.

Fourth, for years, there have been many speculations about the relationship between the insurance company Ping An and the premier’s wife, prior to release of The New York Times story.  The New York Times disclosed that Taihong Company was the investment vehicle for the Ping An shares held by the premier’s mother and other relatives. Duan Weihong, the boss of Taihong, claimed that the shares were her own, and that she had used others’ IDs to register for her own shares in Ping An “in order to conceal the size of her shares.” She also said that she did not know that the IDs belonged to the relatives of the premier, and it is “by accident” that she chose them through her own relatives. It would be difficult for people to believe this explanation. Since Duan Weihong said that she has known the premier’s wife since 2000, how can she not know the names of the premier’s close relatives? How can an average person have access to the IDs of the premier’s relatives? Even if we believe what Ms. Duan says, this also shows that the relatives of the premier knew their IDs had been used to purchase the shares of Ping An because their signatures are required. However, it is illegal to lend one’s ID to others, and also illegal to use others’ IDs to register for one’s own shares, according to the Chinese laws. Who else, if not Mr. Wen’s family, can lead the premier’s mother to do such illegal things? In addition, as some netizens pointed out, Duan Weihong’s claim is contradicted by the age of Premier Wen’s mother: when Ping An was listed on China’s domestic stock market in 2007, the old lady was already 85, and people of this age can die at any time. If she died suddenly, the shares under her name will become the heritage of her family. How can those who borrow her ID get their money back? Who is so silly to do such things? Thus, it is certain that Duan Weihong lied.

Fifth, although Mr. Wen’s family did not engage in illegal business, it is a violation of the Party’s disciplinary rules for them to engage in business activities. Since the late 1980s, the Chinese government has had Party rules prohibiting the family members of senior officials from engaging in business and setting up enterprises within the region and the subject-matter scope of their jurisdiction. In March 1997, the Party released the “Chinese Communist Party Several Principles on Clean Administration of Government by Party Member Leading Cadres (for Trial Implementation)”.  Article 5 states:

The spouse, children, and spouses of children of leading cadres at or above the level of province (ministry) may not personally engage in business, set up enterprises or work in a fully foreign-owned enterprise within the region and the subject-matter scope of that leading cadre’s jurisdiction.”

In September the same year, the Party issued the “Chinese Communist Party Several Principles on Clean Administration of Government by Party Member Leading Cadres (Implementing Measures)”. The enforcement measure regarding the above-mentioned principle is in Article 31:

If the spouse, children, and spouses of children of leading cadres at or above the level of province (ministry) are personally engaging in business, setting up enterprises or working in a wholly foreign-owned enterprise within the region and the subject-matter scope of that leading cadre’s jurisdiction, the leading cadres should require the spouse, children, and spouses of children to stop doing the forbidden things within a limited time period. If the leading cadres fail to get them to stop, then resign or ask for a re-assignment. At the same time, the matter should be handled in accordance with Article 88 of the Party’s Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments.

Since Mr. Wen is the premier, all of China falls within his geographical jurisdiction, and all areas of business are within the scope of his subject-matter jurisdiction, as well. This means that his family members cannot personally engage in any business in China. However, public corporate records show that his son founded a private Internet data services company called Unihub Global Network in 2000, and established a lucrative private equity firm New Horizon Capital in 2005, which has become one of China’s top 3 private equity firms and has brought him huge earnings.

For example, it has been widely reported by the Chinese media that, through an investment of 75 million yuan ($12 million) in a wind energy company called Huarui Wind Energy （华锐风电）in 2008, the value of the shares held by New Horizon Capital in this company reached 10.8 billion yuan ($1.6 billion), or 145 times its investment amount, in January 2011, when the energy company was listed in the stock market. Although he left New Horizon Capital and joined the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Group in 2010 in order to avoid arousing suspicion, he still has a vast investment in New Horizon Capital.

Obviously, these business activities occurred after the “Chinese Communist Party Several Principles on Clean Administration of Government by Party Member Leading Cadres (for Trial Implementation)” and the “Chinese Communist Party Several Principles on Clean Administration of Government by Party Member Leading Cadres (Implementing Measures)” were in effect. His father, a vice premier first (1998-2003) and then the premier (2003-current), failed to stop his son’s business, and did not resign or ask for a re-assignment as well between 2000 and 2010, as required by Party disciplinary rules.

Finally, the statement of the premier’s family claimed that “Wen Jiabao has never played any role in the business activities of his family members, still less has he allowed his family members’ business activities to have any influence on his formulation and execution of policies.” The New York Times article did not say that the premier personally intervened to get preferential treatment for his family members’ investments. The article just pointed out that “as prime minister in a country where the state plays a large role in the economy, Mr. Wen oversaw many government officials whose decisions could play a large role in the fortunes of businesses and investors.” This, of course, is true, given nepotism is prevalent in China, and this is the main reason that the Party prevents the family members of senior officials from engaging in business.  If the premier’s family members engage in business, it is certainly unnecessary for Mr. Wen, such a high-rank government official, to say anything for his family, but government officials and rich business people will know how to please his family.

It is in this context that many Chinese have often talked about the investment of New Horizon Capital, especially in the above-mentioned Huarui Wind Energy Company （华锐风电）and the enormous earnings. The premier has visited Huarui Wind Energy Company on September 7, 2007 (the visit was documented by the China Wind Energy Association in the “Major Events in China’s Wind Energy for 2007”), and New Horizon Capital’s investment in Huarui Wind Energy Company was carried out in March 2008. In addition, New Horizon Capital invested $4.5 million in Goldwind Science and Technology （金风科技）in December 2006; the premier visited this company on August 19, 2007 (also documented in the “Major Events in China’s Wind Energy for 2007”). In December the same year when Goldwind was listed on the stock market, New Horizon Capital exited successfully with earnings of 324 million yuan. There may not exist a direct link between these events, but people have reasons to worry.