Resouce:
Shanghai (CNN) -- The only souvenir that Xie Jinghua has from her stay at a Holiday Inn Express located in a vast tourism park alongside the East China Sea is a room key.
The 52-year-old said she was not able to buy any of the beach toys in the lobby, walk around a lake nearby, or enjoy the ocean just outside of her window. Xie was there, she said, because she was forced to be - held in a hotel room for eight days after she and her 56-year-old husband, Ma Haiming, traveled to Beijing in March to protest the compensation they were given for the demolition of the family's farmhouse to make way for the expansion of Shanghai's Pudong International Airport in 2005. When the couple arrived in Beijing, Xie said they were picked up by plain clothes police and forced to travel hundreds of miles back to Shanghai, then held separately at the hotel.
"I really felt quite sick inside," said Xie, who now lives in a tiny apartment near the airport where her son works as a janitor. Xie said she tried to escape from her third floor hotel room on March 10 via its balcony but was stopped by at least seven guards who, she said, "put me on the bed and used the bedspread" to hold her down. She said she stole the room key when a guard was not looking.
Xie and her husband were not alone. Three other people have told CNN they were held against their will at the Holiday Inn Express Nanhuizui - located in Lingang New City on the outskirts of Shanghai - to keep them from airing grievances to the central government during the 10-day annual meeting of China's legislature in March. The hotel management and owners deny their claims.
But people being detained without charge is nothing new in China, according to Human Rights Watch, which says authorities use hotels, homeless shelters, mental health facilities, farmhouses and obscure government compounds as so-called "black jails" -- unofficial prisons where Chinese officials hold citizens without charge.
However activists say this is the first time a facility run by a western company has been allegedly used for these unofficial detentions."I have not come across an American branded hotel being used as a black jail," said Phelim Kine, a senior Asia researcher with the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "That is a first, and it is noteworthy."
The InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), the UK-based firm that owns the Holiday Inn Express brand, said there was no indication that guests at the hotel were being held against their will last March.
"We have found no evidence which would confirm these accusations or any sign that the hotel owner knew or cooperated with (the) government on this hotel stay and the hotel is operated in accordance with PRC [People's Republic of China] local laws and regulations," IHG said in a statement, noting that it had conducted a "thorough investigation" of the allegations. "As you'll appreciate, we can't provide details of the booking or guests due to privacy laws."
'Black jails' in China
According to a 2009 Human Rights Watch report on China's alleged "black jails," local courts often refuse to take cases from residents who have complaints against local officials, which means petitioning Beijing is the only option those residents have.
But their trips to Beijing present a major problem for local officials, who face demotions or other forms of retribution from higher levels of government based on the number of petitioners who come to Beijing, according to Human Rights Watch. As a result, local governments intervene, abducting the petitioners either before they leave or once they arrive in Beijing, Kine said.
The forced detention of dissidents has become its own cottage industry as public security offices subcontract people to work for them who "are paid per head for each person that they abduct and hold," Kine added. "This is a huge grey economy."
As Communist Party officials meet this week to decide China's new leadership, outside will be people like Wang Yifeng and Fan Jianjiang who are petitioning government leaders directly for compensation after the demolition of their homes. Both Wang and Fan are among the five interviewed by CNN who said they attempted to make their case last March, but were intercepted by police who took them into custody and held them in the Holiday Inn Express Nanhuizui.
Human rights groups say detentions without charge are common, particularly during times of central government meetings. "We always expect that around significant political events that there will be a tightening of surveillance and control over key individuals who the government considers to be troublemakers," said Catherine Baber, director of Asia Pacific for Amnesty International. "But certainly in the lead up to the transition, there is a growing list of people who are under house arrest."
"Phenomenal resources are used for keeping tabs on [petitioners]," Baber said. "Detaining them and bringing them back, putting them under surveillance, sending them to reeducation through labor [camps]."
A spokeswoman for IHG said that during the time in question a group of rooms were booked by a government official from the Pudong district of Shanghai. That area is home to the five alleged detainees. They say their movements are constantly monitored by security officials in their home district after years of appealing for better compensation for their properties. According to the five, local officials have either intercepted them before they arrived in Beijing to make their petitions or tracked them down in the capital and sent them on the 665-mile journey back to the Shanghai area, where they were held.
An official at the Petition Bureau of Zhuqiao Town, home of the five petitioners, denied their claims. "I don't know what you are talking about, our channels of petitioning are open," said the official, who declined to give his name when he was reached by phone. "There's no such thing."
CNN contacted China's Ministry of Public Security on November 5 for a response to these claims, but there has not yet been a reply. However, in the past, Beijing has denied the existence of so-called "black jails" in China. The central government also last year issued new regulations outlawing violent forced eviction and offering new protections, including fair compensation.
'Violent forced evictions'
But rights groups say problems remain. "Violent forced evictions in China are on the rise as local authorities seek to offset huge debts by seizing and then selling off land in suspect deals with property developers," according to an October report by Amnesty International, called "Standing Their Ground."
The 85-page report also said there is ineffective redress for Chinese citizens like Xie and her husband, who - without cash to hire legal help - petition the central government directly with local grievances that range from allegations of illegal land seizures and forced evictions to corruption and abuse from local authorities. They often face weeks or sometimes years of forced detentions without charge, human rights groups say.
"From our research and research from domestic Chinese human rights [groups], they are held from a few days to several months and routinely subjected to physical abuse, sleep deprivation and very often they have to buy their way out of custody," Kine said. "The government has denied there are any such black jail facilities in China. Even though [Chinese] state media run stories about black jails, there is an official disconnect."
Baber at Amnesty International said it is hard to quantify the number of people who are detained illegally in China, but "it is a large phenomenon," she said. "Just from the volume of people who put their energies into pursuing petitioning and continue to do so. It will be a large problem still."
Petitioner: Kept under guard
Xie said there were several guards posted outside of her Holiday Inn Express room and two women who were living in the room with her whose job was to monitor her.
She said while held at the hotel, she was told she would be given "classes about petitioner regulations." But there were no classes, she added. Xie took a reporter to the hotel to show where she was allegedly detained. The rooms were neatly furnished, with a flat screen TV and abstract art hanging on the walls.
When the front desk worker was asked whether they were aware people had allegedly been held against their will in the hotel, the employee said there were a number of guests who were staying in their rooms and were not leaving, and there were people standing outside their room, but that they had no idea why.
Amnesty International report
IHG said they interviewed all employees at the hotel in June after being first contacted by CNN, none of whom confirmed this story. A review of hotel security tapes was impossible, the hotel said, because recordings are erased after one month. The hotel had the employees sign affidavits attesting to their version of events, a hotel spokeswoman said.
"IHG is committed to operating our company with integrity and we have a Human Rights Policy applicable across the business. We have signed up to the UN Global Compact, aligning our operations and strategies with the ten universal principles that include commitments to human rights and labor standards," IHG said in its statement. "Our staff is trained to handle different situations and were a situation to arise, our staff would report an incident to the relevant authorities and IHG."
China has become a leading market for the InterContinental Hotels Group, which owns the Holiday Inn Express, Intercontinental and Crowne Plaza brands. Greater China led its first half, with a 9.7% increase in revenue per available rooms. IHG, headquartered outside London, generates revenue from 181 hotels in greater China, with plans to open 160 more hotels, according to the company.
IHG's local partner in the hotel is Shanghai Harbor City Hotel Investment and Management Co.-- a subsidiary of Shanghai Harbor City Development Group. Like most of IHG's properties in China, a local partner legally owns the hotel but IHG manages the property. Zhu Gang, a manager with Shanghai Harbor City Development, said the company "knows nothing about" people being detained at the Holiday Inn Express. "No violence happened in the hotel," he said.
Harry Wu knows firsthand the atrocious conditions of the Laogai. In 1960, Wu was imprisoned at the age of 23 for criticizing the Communist Party, and subsequently spent 19 years toiling in the factories, mines, and fields of the Laogai.
He was released in 1979 and came to the US in 1985 with just $40 in his pocket. Since then, he has traveled back to China multiple times to further invesitgate Laogai camps and continue his call for human rights in China.
Wu founded the Laogai Research Foundation in 1992 to gather information on and raise public awareness of the Chinese Laogai.
The Laogai Museum is the first museum in the U.S. to directly address human rights in China. It is the hope of the Laogai Research Foundation that the Laogai Museum will preserve the memory of the Laogai's countless victims and serve to educate the public about the atrocities committed by China's Communist regime. First founded in 2008 with the support of the Yahoo! Human rights Fund, the museum reopened in its present location in 2011, becoming a place for human rights victims and advocates to reach out to a larger audience.
The Laogai Research Foundation
1734 20th Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20009
We are two blocks north of Dupont Circle Metro's North Exit on the Red Line (corner of 20th and S Streets).
Free 2-hour and metered street parking is available throughout the neighborhood.
Hours of Operation
| Monday – Friday | 10:00 AM – 06:00 PM |
| Saturday | 10:00 AM – 05:00 PM |
(202) 730-9308
laogai@laogai.org
www.laogaimuseum.org
The Laogai Archives are in the offices of the Laogai Research Foundation in Washington, DC.
Due to the suppression of free speech within China, much of the material housed within the Laogai Archives is not available to researchers in mainland China. Thus, the Laogai Archives are in a unique position to support academics, journalists, students, and activists in freely conducting research on human rights in China.
-
What is the Laogai?
The Laogai is the People’s Republic of China’s prison system. The name of the system is derived from the Chinese expression, laodong gaizao (勞動改造) meaning “reform through labor”. Generally referred to as labor reform camps (勞改隊), the prison system’s structure was developed by the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong. Modeled on the Soviet Gulag, the prison forces prisoners to do hard labor and gives them “political reeducation” to reform their thoughts and behaviors. The PRC also uses the Laogai as a source of free labor for various work, from infrastructure construction and mining, to farming and manufacturing. Through a variety of prison enterprises, the Chinese government earns income off the backs of Laogai prisoners.
The Chinese definition of the Laogai entails six components.- REFORM THROUGH LABOR CAMPS/BRIGADES (勞改營 OR 勞改隊)
“Reform through labor camps or brigades” house officially convicted and sentenced criminals. - PRISONS (JIANYU)
In 1994, the Chinese government stopped using the word of “laogai,” instead it restored the traditional name of jianyu (prison). But the nature of the laogai system as a tool of rerpression remains the same. - REEDUCATION THROUGH LABOR FACILITIES (勞動教養所OR勞教所)
“Reeducation through labor facilities” house prisoners under “administrative discipline,” meaning that they may be sentenced to up to three years of forced labor without ever having been charged or tried. - DETENTION CENTERS (看守所)
Detention centers house prisoners who are awaiting trial or have gone through a trial but the sentenced prison term is less than one year. They too can be forced to labor. - JUVENILE OFFENDER FACILITIES (少年管教所OR少管所)
Juvenile offender facilities house adolescent convicts or reeducation through labor detainees. In 1983, a regulation was issued that decreased the age from 16 to 14 years old at which children can be sent to reeducation through labor camps. - FORCED JOB PLACEMENT (留場就業)
These facilities were for prisoners who had served out their sentences but were deemed “not completely reformed.” Such prisoners had to stay in the same prison facility, facing the same conditions, and performing the same work just as when they were formal prisoners. The CCP ceased the forced job placement system in the early 1980s.
- REFORM THROUGH LABOR CAMPS/BRIGADES (勞改營 OR 勞改隊)
-
How is the Laogai different from other prison systems?
DIFFERENCE IN PURPOSEBecause of international attention to human rights violations in the Laogai in the early 1990s, the Chinese Communist Party has attempted to create the impression that the Laogai is only a prison system for detaining, punishing, and reforming criminals. It was for this reason that in 1994, the CCP ordered that Laogai, meaning “reform through labor,” no longer be used in government documents. Instead, the system’s institutions were to be called jianyu, “prison.” However, contrary to CCP propaganda, the Laogai is different from prison systems in other countries. Laogai inmates are forced to labor and forced to do brain wash. What is more, they are unprotected by law, including laws against torture and abuse, as can be seen in the following section “Difference in Conditions.” The Laogai system also strengthens the CCP’S control by suppressing dissent among the Chinese people. The Laogai is an integral part of China’s economy, providing an abundance of free labor for manufacturing goods sold in both domestic and international markets.
DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE LAOGAI
The conditions that persist in the Laogai constitute an additional distinction between it and other prison systems, with the Laogai perpetuating many of China’s most serious human rights abuses. - Who has suffered in the Laogai?
-
What is the political function of the Laogai system?
Besides punishing criminals, the Laogai serves as a tool of political repression. China sentences outspoken critics of CCP policy to imprisonment in the Laogai to quell dissent. Suspects punishable by means of laogai or prison terms include the previous “anti-revolutionaries” and present-day “endangering state security” according to the Criminal Law. Suspects punishable by means of Re-education Through Labor according to the CCP’S “Measures for Reeducation through Labor (1957)” include, “counterrevolutionary and anti-socialist reactionaries, whose crimes are minor and not subject to criminal prosecution, and who have been dismissed by government offices, organizations, and enterprises, educational institutions or other units and have no way to make a living.”
Fear and submission to CCP rule are also perpetuated by recurring “strike hard” campaigns. During these campaigns Chinese authorities implement various penalties, public trials, and previously, public executions, to intimidate its citizens and clamp down on political “crimes”. Trials and sentencing occur rapidly, and those accused of a crime are deemed guilty even before trial. It is under these circumstances that the CCP has continually silenced dissidents.
-
What is the economic significance of the Laogai?
Besides being important to China’s communist regime as a tool of repression, the Laogai is also an integral part of China’s economy. Chinese authorities use the millions locked in the Laogai as free labor. Totaling an estimated three to five million, they make up the world’s largest forced labor population. The CCP seeks to use the Laogai for profit.
Forced labor is seen as another input for economic output. The deliberate application of forced labor by the Chinese government is codified in the Ministry of Justice Criminal Reform Handbook: “Laogai facilities…organize criminals in labor and production, thus creating wealth for society. Our Laogai units are both facilities of dictatorship and special enterprise.” The CCP hopes that by being forced to labor in the Laogai, prisoners will be molded into “new socialist persons.”
-
Are Laogai goods exported?
While much of what is produced in the Laogai is consumed domestically, Laogai-made goods also filter into foreign markets by way of third-party trading companies. Recently, rather than attempting to do business directly with foreign companies, Laogai prisons will find a government-owned trading company to act as a middleman and conceal the forced-labor origins of products from importers. Many Laogai prisons also have a second enterprise name; for example, Jinzhou Prison, where Nobel Laureate and democracy activist Liu Xiaobo is believed to be held, also operates under the name “Jinzhou Xinsheng Switch, Co.”, which it uses to market its products to foreign companies over the internet. LRF has evidence that shows Laogai goods repeatedly find their way onto American shelves, despite laws forbidding their importation. Notwithstanding the Chinese government’s claims to the contrary, the CCP encourages exporting Laogai goods. -
What is existing U.S. law regarding the importation of Laogai goods?
Importing forced-labor goods to the U.S. is illegal according to section 1307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In 1992, the need to confront China about this problem led to the signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China on Prohibiting Import and Export Trade in Prison Labor Products.” However, China still exports prison labor goods to the U.S. To promote compliance with MOU’s terms, in 1994, the U.S. and China negotiated another agreement: the “Statement of Cooperation on the 1992 MOU between the U.S. and the PRC on Prohibiting Import and Export Trade in Prison Labor Products” (SOC). The SOC defines a mechanism to ensure that China promptly cooperates with U.S. Customs on forced labor inquiries. However, China has done nothing to ensure compliance, and the U.S. never committed resources to enforce the agreement. According to the 1997 “State Department Country Reports on Human Rights,” U.S. Customs unsuccessfully pursued eight standing visitation requests, seven of which dated back to 1995. In all cases, visitation requests were refused or ignored, and allegations were denied without explanation. Cooperation was judged as “inadequate.” In State Department reports from 1999, authorities admit that the MOU has been “nearly impossible” to enforce because China has been “uncooperative.” Throughout the 1990s, only around 20 cases of forced-labor product importation were pursued under the U.S. customs ban. Since 2000, the U.S. government has not attempted to restrict the flow of Laogai goods into the country. -
How can I avoid buying products made in the laogai?
Identifying goods that are made entirely or in part in the Laogai is increasingly difficult. Sub-contracting and complicated global supply chains make discerning the origins of a product daunting. For example, a U.S. clothing maker may contact a Chinese import-export company to find a Chinese plant to cheaply make its clothing. That company may then contract the account to a legitimate Chinese textile firm, which will further sub-contract a portion of the production process to a Laogai camp, where prisoners must fill quotas to earn their food rations, rather than money. Laogai prisoners, toiling in horrible conditions, may also have grown the cotton the clothes are made from. If a product is “made in China” then it is possible it could have been produced in a Laogai. - Should consumers boycott goods made in China?
- Are organs harvested from executed prisoners in the Laogai?
- What is the "One Child Policy"?
- Why do so few know about the Laogai?
- What does international law say about the Laogai?
- Who is Harry Wu?
- What is the Laogai Research Foundation?