溫家寶及其家人尚未回答的問題 （中英文版ZT）

 

徹查中國首貪溫家寶及其家人

2013-01-01 23:54:46

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

轉發編者注：薄熙來上任地方官大連市長時，就讓其妻子穀開來關閉經營良好的律師事務所。如果穀開來的律師事務所一直開著，早就不知名正言順地撈到了多少律師 顧問費。而溫家寶作為國家領導人副總理（1998－2003）和總理期間（2003－目前），其老婆開設戴夢得珠寶，其子溫雲鬆在2000年創辦了私人的優創科技有限公司,在2005年所開設的私募基金新天域更是瘋狂斂財上百億，而溫家寶作為國家領導人，卻沒有阻止他們經商，這違反了1997年3月中國共產黨發布的《中國共產黨黨員領導幹部廉潔從政若幹準則（試行）》 中的第5條禁止省部級以上領導幹部配偶、子女經商創辦企業的規定。兩相對比，誰的境界高，誰家在斂財，不是一目了然嗎？薄熙來完全可以象溫家寶或其他高官 對家人經商睜一隻眼閉一隻眼，可薄沒有，而是堅決要穀開來關掉律師事務所，由此可見，薄熙來是有原則的幹部，不是貪錢之輩。僅此一點就可看出，溫家寶的境界與人格，完全無法與薄熙來相提並論。中央如果不徹查溫家寶家族的至少27億美元財富（紐約時報已經提供了清晰證據），無法令全國百姓心服，其清洗薄熙來 的政治陰謀隻會激起全國人民的憤怒。

轉發文章：

溫總理家人尚未回答的問題（中英文版）

作者徐開彬，美國賓夕法尼亞費城 天普大學（Temple University）媒體與傳播學院助理教授

中 國外交部發言人洪磊先生聲稱，紐約時報對中國總理溫家寶家人的報道是“抹黑中國、別有用心。”紐約時報在近日的一篇報道中，記載了溫先生家人積聚至少價值 27億美元資產的詳情。被溫總理的兒子溫雲鬆（英文名Winston Wen）授權的兩名北京律師，就該報道發表了一份聲明。

盡管如此，對於中國政府和總理家人來說，還有一係列尚未回答的問題。

首先，紐約時報的報道就溫先生親屬獲取資產的途徑提供了清晰證據。在進行調查之前，中國政府怎麽能在報道發布的當天，就否認報道的真實性呢？畢竟，中國政府並沒有否定這些證據的存在及其真實性。

其次，當中國外交部發言人說紐約時報的報道是“抹黑中國”的時候，他顯然認為批評溫先生就是抹黑中國、溫先生等同於中國。這種邏輯是明顯有問題的。比如，我們能否說，批評奧巴馬先生等同於“抹黑美國”呢？

第 三，溫先生家人所發表的聲明太過含糊，並沒有回答紐約時報的報道所關注的真正的問題。比如說，該聲明稱，“溫家寶家人中部分成員沒有從事商業活動。部分從 事商業活動，但沒有進行任何非法商業活動。他們不擁有任何公司的股份。”紐約時報並沒有說溫家所有人都在從事商業活動，也沒有說他們進行了非法商業活動。 紐約時報隻是報道了其親屬所從事的商業活動。不過，紐約時報確實曾提到，根據公司紀錄，在溫總理母親名下，5年前有一筆投資的價值達到1.2億美元。這份 聲明稱其家人“不擁有任何公司的股份”，但是，在“不擁有”一詞上使用的是動詞現在時，這意味著它隻告訴了目前的狀況 ——他們現在不持有股份；它並沒有否認紐約時報的報道所說的內容——溫先生的母親和其他親屬在5年前曾持有大量平安股份。另外，這份聲明是在認為溫先生的 母親不是其家人嗎？該聲明本該回答這些問題，卻沒有回答。

第 四，早在紐約時報的報道發布之前，對平安保險公司與總理夫人之間的關係，多年來就存在很多疑問。紐約時報披露，泰鴻公司就是總理母親與其他親屬持有平安股 份的投資平台。泰鴻公司老板段偉紅聲稱，這些股份是她本人的，她用他人的身份證登記她的股份，是“為了隱藏自己持股的規模。”她說她不知道這些身份證是總 理 親屬的，她通過她自己的家屬找到這些身份證，純碎是“巧合”。這種解釋難以令人相信。既然段偉紅說她自2000年就認識總理的夫人，她怎麽會不知道總理近 親屬的姓名呢？一個一般人怎麽能獲得總理親屬的身份證呢？即使我們相信段女士所說的，這也表明，總理的親屬了解他們的身份證用於了購買平安股份, 因為購買股份需要個人簽字。但根據中國法律，將自己的身份證出借給他人是非法的，使用他人的身份證登記自己的股份也是非法的。如果不是溫的家人，誰能使得 貴為國家總理的老太太幹這種違法的事情呢？另外，正如一些網友指出的，溫總理母親的年齡也足以與段偉紅的說法相矛盾：平安股份於2007年在內地股市上 市，當時溫的母親已經85歲，這個年齡的人，隨時都可能去世；萬一她突然去世，她名下的股份就成了其家人的遺產，借 用她身份證的人怎麽把錢要回來？誰會傻到做這種事呢？所以，可以肯定，段偉紅在撒謊。

第五，盡管總理家屬沒有從事非法商業活動，但是，對他們來說，從事商業活動本身違反了黨的紀律原則。自1980年代末以來，中國政府的黨內紀律就禁止高幹家屬在其管轄的地區及管轄的業務範圍個人經商辦企業。1997年3月，中國共產黨發布了《中國共產黨黨員領導幹部廉潔從政若幹準則（試行）》)。其中第5條規定：

省（部）級以上領導幹部的配偶、子女及其配偶，不準在該領導幹部管轄的地區及管轄的業務範圍個人經商辦企業和在外商獨資企業任職。

同年9月，中國共產黨發布了《中國共產黨黨員領導幹部廉潔從政若幹準則試行（實施辦法）》。就以上原則的實施辦法在第31條：

省、部級以上領導幹部的配偶、子女及其配偶，在該領導幹部管轄地區的業務範圍個人經商辦企業和在外商獨資企業任職的，領導幹部應要求其配偶、子女及其配偶限期糾正。拒不糾正的，領導幹部應當辭去現任職務或者由組織上調整其職務，並比照《紀律處分條例》第八十八條的規定處理。

既 然溫先生身為總理，那麽全中國都在其管轄地區內，所有的商業領域也都在其業務範圍內。這意味著總理的家人在中國不能在任何商業領域個人經商。但是，公開的 商業紀錄顯示，總理的兒子在2000年創辦了私人的優創科技有限公司，在2005年又創立了利潤豐厚的私募基金公司新天域，後者已成為中國排名前三的私募 基金，為他帶來了巨大的收益。

例如，媒體曾廣泛報道（見http://stock.hexun.com/2011-01-07/126661406.html ），新天域在2008年曾在一家名為“華銳風電”的風電能源公司投資7500萬人民幣（約1200萬美元），到2011年1月華銳風電上市時，新天域在該 公司的股份價值達到了108億人民幣（約16億美元），相當於投資額的145倍。後來出於避嫌，他在2010年離開新天域加入國企中國航天科技集團，但他 在新天域仍有大量的投資。

顯 然，這些商業活動發生在《中國共產黨黨員領導幹部廉潔從政若幹準則（試行）》與《中國共產黨黨員領導幹部廉潔從政若幹準則試行（實施辦法)》生效之後。他 的父親，先是作為副總理（1998－2003年），接著是總理（2003－至今），既沒有按照黨的紀律原則阻止兒子經商，也沒有按黨紀原則在 2000－2010年間辭職或由組織上調整其職務。

最 後，該聲明稱：“溫家寶從未在家人的經營活動中起任何作用，更沒有因家人從事經營活動對他製定和執行政策產生任何影響。” 紐約時報的文章並沒有說溫家寶曾親自幹預，幫助家族成員的投資獲得優待。文章隻是指出，“在中國，國家在經濟中起著很大的作用，而作為總理，溫家寶管轄著 眾多政府官員，這些官員的決策可能會對企業和投資者的命運起著重大作用。” 鑒於中國的裙帶關係非常普遍，這當然是事實，這也是黨阻止高幹家屬經商的主要原因。如果總理的家人經商，以溫先生這樣高級別的政府官員，肯定不必為家人親 自出麵，但政府官員和富商們也會知道如何討好其家人。

正是在這種語境下，很多中國百姓經常談到新天域的投資，特別是上文提及的在華銳風電公司的投資及其巨額收益。溫總理曾在2007年9月7日訪問華銳風電公司(這次訪問被中國風能協會記載在《2007年中國風能大事紀》http://www.cwea.org.cn/circular/display_info.asp?cid=61 )，新天域則在2008年3月完成了對華銳風電的投資。此外，新天域在2006年12月對金風科技投資450萬美元，溫總理則在2007年8月19日訪問了該公司（也記載在《2007年中國風能大事紀》），同年12月金風科技上市，新天域帶著3.24億的收益成功退出（見新天域投資介紹http://www.investide.cn/subject/nhfund/index.html）。這些事件之間也許不存在直接的聯係，但人們有理由表示擔心。

 

以下為英文版

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 （華銳風電）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 （華銳風電）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 （金風科技）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.