'The Rise of the Security State' by Yuhua Wang and Carl F. Minzner
argues that
Over the past two decades, the Chinese domestic security apparatus has expanded dramatically. “Stability maintenance” operations have become a priority for local Chinese authorities. We argue that the birth of these trends dates to the early 1990s, when central Party authorities adopted new governance models that differed dramatically from those that of the 1980s. They increased the bureaucratic rank of public security chiefs within the Party apparatus, expanded the reach of the Party political-legal apparatus into a broader range of governance issues, and altered cadre evaluation standards to increase the sensitivity of local authorities to social protest. We show that the origin of these changes lies in a policy response to the developments of 1989-1991, namely the Tiananmen democracy movement and the collapse of Communist political systems in Eastern Europe. Over the past twenty years, these practices have flowered into an extensive stability maintenance apparatus, where local governance is increasingly oriented around the need to respond to social protest, whether through concession or repression. Chinese authorities now appear to be rethinking these developments, but the direction of reform remains unclear. ...
The past two decades have witnessed increased levels of domestic protest in
China, despite a growing economy and rising living standards. While the literature on
resistance has flourished, there remains limited scholarship on how China’s coercive
institutions have responded to this challenge. We join a rising scholarly interest in
coercive institutions in China, but our approach is distinctive in focusing on Party-state
leaders and the internal organization of the Chinese bureaucracy.
Beyond China, we also speak to the broader literature on authoritarian regimes.
There has been a long tradition in the social sciences that views coercion as the pillar of
model nation states. The recent uprisings in the Arab world have again called attention
to the dependence of authoritarian regimes on coercive organizations. The loyalty of such
organizations is said to explain the survival of the Bahraini monarchy, while the defection
of the military contributed to the breakdown of autocratic rule in Tunisia and Egypt.
However, our study argues that the response of the authoritarian Chinese regime
to the “survival dilemma” goes beyond simply ratcheting up the use of coercion.
Chinese authorities have remodeled the internal bureaucratic organization of the Party state
apparatus, incentivized local authorities to aggressively respond to citizen protests (whether through repression or concession), and reworked the political-legal apparatus to address citizen grievances in a more flexible and coordinated manner.
Our research is based on both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Quantitatively,
we manually constructed a Chinese Political-Legal Leaders Database, covering all
national and provincial political-legal committee chairpersons, public security heads,
procuratorate presidents, and court presidents from 1978 to 2013. The database includes
variables measuring the Party bureaucratic positions concurrently held by these leaders.
Qualitatively, we conduct a close reading of government and Party documents (including
analyzing the public speeches of Qiao Shi, Party political-legal head during the late 1980s
and early 1990s) to explain relevant changes in these bureaucratic practices.
The next section details our quantitative data collection methods. The third
section offers a descriptive analysis of the rank of political-legal leaders at the national
and local levels. The fourth section identifies the early 1990s as a turning point of
development in the political-legal apparatus and provides a historical analysis of relevant
shifts. The fifth section examines recent developments. The sixth section discusses
possible implications of our findings. The last section then concludes with a summary of
our findings and broader implications of the study.
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute's report on
Protecting the Anonymity of Victims
of Sexual Crimes comments
The purpose of this Report is to review the operation of s 194K of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) which
prohibits the publication of information likely to identify the complainant in sexual offences cases. It
examines the adequacy of the law in achieving its objective of affording appropriate protection to
victims of crimes of sexual assault. The Report also considers the position of victims who do not seek
the protection of anonymity but who prefer that their voice be heard. The prohibition also applies to
information likely to identify other witnesses in sexual offences cases, with the exception of the
defendant. Although in some instances the observations and recommendations made may apply
equally to other witnesses in sexual offences trials, the principal focus of this report is on the victims
of sexual crimes. A related matter that falls outside the terms of reference for this Report is the extent
to which authorised reports of cases, such as the Supreme Court’s published Comments on Passing
Sentence, are edited to ensure compliance with the requirements of s 194K. In responding to IP 18,
Women’s Legal Service Tasmania noted that the details contained in these can lead to identification
whereas media reports are edited to avoid that likelihood. Detailed consideration of these issues is
beyond the scope of this inquiry, although it may be something that the Court may like to pursue. The
Report examines whether the current law requires clarification both of its scope and terminology,
whether its purposes might be better achieved either by the introduction of additional features into s
194K or by the creation of a new statutory scheme, and whether it strikes the appropriate balance
between protecting victims of sexual assault and the paramount public interest in open justice.
The Institute makes the following recommendations -
Recommendation 1
(a) That legislation be enacted to provide as follows:
In sexual offences cases,
(i) publication of name, address or image (broadly defined) of
the complainant or witnesses other than the defendant is
prohibited;
(ii) publication of the name, address or image (broadly
defined) of the defendant is prohibited where it is likely to
identify the complainant;
(iii) publication of such other information as is likely to
identify the complainant or witnesses other than the
defendant is prohibited;
(iv) the prohibitions in (i) and (ii) also apply to the defendant
in cases under s 133 of the Criminal Code (incest)
(v) in determining (ii) ‘likely’ shall mean ‘an appreciable risk,
more than a fanciful risk’;
(vi) in making determinations pursuant to (ii) and (iii) the
court shall have regard to potential identification by a
reader, viewer or listener, equipped with knowledge in the
public domain, in all the circumstances of the case;
(vii) the court shall have a discretion to prohibit the publication
of any other details which may cause harm, distress,
humiliation or embarrassment to the complainant;
(viii) in exercising this discretion the court is required to have
regard to the fact (if it be the case) that the complainant is
‘especially vulnerable’;
(ix) ‘especially vulnerable’ complainants shall include persons
under 18, persons with a mental impairment and persons
with an intellectual disability;
(x) unless otherwise specifically provided, all determinations
by the court shall have regard to the public interest.
Recommendation 2
(a) That the court may, at the commencement of proceedings relating
to a sexual offence, or at any other time, make an order prohibiting
the publication of such information (as the court thinks fit) as may
be likely to identify the complainant.
(b) That the court may, at the commencement of proceedings relating
to a sexual offence, or at any other time, make an order prohibiting
the publication of any other details which may cause harm, distress,
humiliation or embarrassment to the complainant.
(c) Orders referred to in (a) and (b) may be made on the application of
a party to the proceedings or the prosecutor or on the motion of the
judge.
Recommendation 3
(a) That a statutory right to apply for both publication and nonpublication
orders and to be heard in relation to the determination
of applications be granted to the victim of the offence, the parties to
proceedings, news media organisations and any other person
considered by the court to have a sufficient interest in the making
of the order.
(b) That a similarly broad right be granted to apply for revocation or
variation of orders and to appeal against a decision whether or not
to make an order.
Recommendation 4
(a) That, with leave of the court, the publication of details which
identify the victim is not prohibited if, prior to publication, the
victim who has attained the age of 18 years and who has the
capacity to consent and who has not been coerced, defrauded or
otherwise manipulated into giving consent provides written consent
to publication.
(b) That in deciding whether to authorise the publication of details
under (a) the court must give consideration to all the circumstances
of the case including the risk that other victims may be identified
without their consent.
(c) That a court shall not make a non-publication order (as per
Recommendation 2(a)) in relation to potentially identifying details
without considering the views of the victim.
Recommendation 5
(a) That unless otherwise ordered by the court non-publication orders
remain in force permanently.
(b) That court orders are binding on all those who have actual or
constructive notice of them.
Recommendation 6
(a) That the sanction for breach of the statutory prohibition against
publication pursuant to the legislation replacing s 194K or for
breach of any court order made under that legislation shall be a
criminal offence in the following terms:
Any person who engages in conduct that contravenes the
legislation replacing s 194K who does so intentionally or who
knew or ought to have known that the conduct amounted to
such a contravention is guilty of a crime.
Recommendation 7
(a) That penalties for contravention of the rules relating to publication
are clearly set out.
(b) That the sanction for breach should be a penalty imposed following
summary prosecution for a criminal offence.
(c) That proceedings may be brought in the Magistrates’ Court or the
Supreme Court at the discretion of the prosecution and that
maximum penalties should be applied accordingly.
(d) That the penalty structure should include a discretion for the
Supreme Court to impose a custodial sentence in cases of
deliberate, flagrant, repetitive or egregious breach.
Recommendation 8
(a) That the legislation replacing s 194K include an introductory
definition section which provides:
In this section:
‘likely’ means an appreciable risk, more than a fanciful risk.
‘picture’ includes all drawings, images, representations, or
photographs whether in the form of documents or electronic forms.
‘publish’ means disseminate or provide access to the public or a
section of the public by any means, including by:
(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other
written publication, or
(b) broadcast by radio or television, or
(c) public exhibition, or
(d) broadcast or publication by means of the internet, or
(e) broadcast by means of telecommunications generally.
For the avoidance of doubt, ‘sexual offence’ includes a child
exploitation material offence
