Refugee Review Tribunal

AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: CHN33025 Country: Date: 11 March 2008

Keywords: China – Family Planning in Pingtan and – Family Planning Targets – Unregistered Christians in Pingtan

This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein.

Questions

1. Is there any information about the application of family planning policies and birth control procedures in Pingtan County? 2. Is there any record of a particular period of heightened activity by the Bureau of Birth Control referred to as the ―big battle of the spring season‖ in March 2007? 3. Is there any evidence of bureaucrats working to achieve set targets in the birth control programme as late as 2007? 4. Is there any information available about the attitude of local authorities in Ping Tan County to house churches and religious practice outside the approved church?

RESPONSE

1. Is there any information about the application of family planning policies and birth control procedures in Pingtan County?

No recent information was found in the sources consulted regarding family planning in Pingtan including the enforcement of the one child policy, abortion, sterilisation or the repercussions for having a second child. However, a 2001 report co-authored by Susan Greenhalgh, professor of Anthropology at the University of California provides a profile of Pingtan and reports on the “poor birth program performance” in the county. General information has also been provided on the enforcement of family planning in wider Fujian.

The 2001 report Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990’s and Beyond by Susan Greenhalgh and Edwin Winckler provides the following description of Pingtan and its enforcement of the one child policy: Changle and Pingtan have had poor birth program performance, and for that reason merit special attention.

Poor and populous Pingtan. The island county of Pingtan specializes in fishing. It is fairly poor but not extremely so. Pingtan has 310 square kilometers, 344,400 people, not even 0.3 mu of cultivated land per capita, but a net agricultural income of 1065 yuan per capita. Of special interest, Pingtan is the locality in China that is closest to . (Pingtan is 128 kilometers from City but only 68 kilometers from Hsinchu City on Taiwan.) During the Maoist period, despite bans, Pingtan fishermen continued to have contact with Taiwan fishermen. Pingtan hopes to benefit from eventual direct communication and trade with Taiwan. In the meantime, evidently superior levels of government have tried to figure out how to help Pingtan develop. They have designated Pingtan a scenic area, a coastal open area, an experimental point for comprehensive sea island development and an experimental zone for open comprehensive reform. In 1992, the province and city held a meeting there and declared 32 preferential policies. Beginning in 1989, some of its 70,000 fishermen were hired as fisherman abroad. As regards birth planning, fishermen have a strong desire for sons to continue the family occupation. Fujian policy does allow fishermen with a first girl to try again for a boy. However, they are supposed to stop after the second child— which they do not. The overall multiple child rate is about 10% but in some villages ranges above 25%. Another program problem on Pingtan is that the cadres there are poorly off economically and ―deficient‖ administratively (Greenhalgh, S. & Winckler, E. 2001 „Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990’s and Beyond’, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, September, p.158, Citizenship and Immigration Services website, http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/pschn01001.pdf – Accessed 3 April 2007 – Attachment 1).

Family Planning in Fujian – Reports from 1999-2007

The population and family planning regulations for Fujian province stipulate the circumstances in which a couple may have a second child (Articles 9-12) and the penalties for having an out of plan child. These penalties include a family planning fine (Article 39), administrative punishments for government employees (Article 44) and the loss of financial benefits given to people who agree to only have one child (Articles 31-36). The Fujian family planning regulations do not require compulsory abortion or sterilisation for couples who have out of plan children. However, Article 18 of the regulations states those who have out of plan pregnancies “should take remedial action in time” and that the relevant committees and units “should urge them to take remedial measures in time” (Population and Family Planning Regulation of Fujian Province, Adopted by the 33rd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth Provincial People‟s Congress on 26 July 2002 – Attachment 2).

Limited recent information was found in the sources consulted regarding the actual enforcement of the one child policy in Fujian. A 2007 profile on China by the US Department of State (USDOS) states that there have been reports of individuals being punished for non payment of family planning fines but that these cases have not been independently verified. No other reports were found in the sources consulted regarding the repercussions for non payment of family planning fines in Fujian. DFAT advised in a 2004 report that they understand that compulsory abortions and sterilisation occur in Fujian but are „much rarer than in the 1980‟s‟. The most recent USDOS report on Human Rights Practices in China states that incidences of forced sterilisation in Fujian were reported in 2006 but gives no further details. No recent reports of forced abortions in Fujian where found in the sources consulted. It is worth noting that a 2005 report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on forcible sterilisation and abortion in Fuzhou, Fujian describes the difficulty in gaining independent information due to the “strict control of information by the authorities” and the political sensitivity of these issues (US Department of State 2007, China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, May, p.103, point 103 http://www.pards.org/paccc/china_may_2007.doc – Accessed 4 March 2008 – Attachment 3; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2004, DFAT Report 317 – RRT Information Request: CHN16905, 2 September – Attachment 4; US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China, March, Section 1.f Attachment 5; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, CHN43165.E – China: Any reports of forced abortions and forced sterilization within the regions of Guangzhou (Guangdong Province) and Fuzhou (Fujian Province) covered by the urban hukou; any reports of an easing or a tightening of family planning regulations since 2002 (2002-2005), 21 February http://www.cisr- irb.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?action=view&doc=chn43165E – Accessed 4 April 2005 – Attachment 6).

The following reports provide information on family planning in Fujian, from the period 1999-2007. No information on the enforcement of family planning in Fujian was found in the sources consulted for 2008. Information has been provided for the years; 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2001, 2000 and the 1990‟s.

2007

The USDOS 2007 China Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions provides information on the enforcement of the one child policy in Fujian. The report states that according to the Fujian Province Birth Planning Committee (FPBPC) “there have been no cases of forced abortion or sterilization in Fujian in the last 10 years” and that since the early 1990‟s all individuals who undergo surgical procedures must provide written consent. However, the USODS report that „it is [im]possible to confirm this claim, and, in 2006, reportedly there were forced sterilisations in Fujian‟. The USDOS has reported that Consulate General Officials interviewing visa applicants in Fujian found that many „violators‟ of the one child policy have paid family planning fines and “found no evidence of forced abortions or property confiscations”. The report also provides the following information on the implementation of family planning fees in Fujian:

There is wide variation in the amount of social compensation fees, and the severity of hardship they impose, for out-of-plan births.

…Social compensation fees range from the baseline or less for unmarried couple that has a child to greater than six times the baseline for couples with four children or more and are determined by the local birth planning committee in the city or county where the couple resides.

…According to the FPBPC, couples unable to pay the fee immediately may be allowed to pay in instalments. Local birth planning committees have the power to sue families that refuse to pay the requisite fees, but they cannot garnish wages. The FPBPC asserts that parents cannot be sterilized if they are unable or refuse to pay the fee.

…The media have reported some cases in which a person was punished because his or her relatives either violated birth planning restrictions or had not paid fees for violating birth planning regulations, although these cases have not been independently verified. Chinese birth planning officials admit the possibility of „overzealous‟ officials exceeding their authority, but they assert that such behaviour is neither the norm nor sanctioned by the government (US Department of State 2007, China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, May http://www.pards.org/paccc/china_may_2007.doc – Accessed 4 March 2008 – Attachment 3).

A November 2007 Research Response provides information on the one child policy in Fujian and penalties for couples who have out of plan children, including financial penalties and the loss of government employment and other benefits (RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response CHN32667, 7 December – Attachment 7).

2006

Research Response CHN31026, dated 15 December 2006 outlines the regulations in Fujian for having a second child, children born out of wedlock and tubal ligation (RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response CHN31026, 15 December 2006 – Attachment 8).

The USDOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China states that women were reportedly forcibly sterilised in Fujian during the year and also includes Fujian in a list of provinces that “require unspecified „remedial measures‟ to deal with out-of-plan pregnancies”. The relevant sections of the report are reproduced below:

The country‟s birth planning policies retained harshly coercive elements in law and practice. The laws restrict the rights of families to choose the number of children they have and the period of time between births. The penalties for violating the law are strict, leaving some women little choice but to abort pregnancies. In addition, implementation of the policy by local officials resulted in serious violations of human rights. Reports of forced sterilizations and abortions, in violation of the national law, continued to be documented in rural areas. During the year officials in Chongqing municipality and in Fujian Province reportedly forcibly sterilized women.

…Seven provinces--Anhui, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, and Ningxia--require “termination of pregnancy” if the pregnancy violates provincial family planning regulations. An additional 10 provinces--Fujian, Guizhou, Guangdong, Gansu, Jiangxi, Qinghai, Sichuan, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Yunnan--require unspecified ―remedial measures‖ to deal with out-of-plan pregnancies (US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China, March, Section 1.f Attachment 5).

A March 2006 article by the Voice of America reports that in October 2005 a woman in Fujian province who had a second child in contravention to family planning regulations was forcibly sterilised four days after giving birth (Bayron, H 2006 „Experts: China‟s One-Child Population Policy Producing Socio-Economic Problems‟ Voice of America, 7 March http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-07- voa38.cfm?cfid=278034385&cftoken=83505359 – Accessed 5 March 2008 – Attachment 9).

2005

With respect to the Fuzhou region of Fujian province a report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada did not find reports of specific incidents of forced abortions and sterilisation in the period 2002-2005. The report does however, provide general information on the use of coercive family planning techniques in China which suggests that forced abortions are becoming less common and “that the current trend is to impose a fee on those who violate the policies”. The report notes that in December 2004 the head of the US Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration commented that while declining there are still reports of physically forced abortions and that forced sterilisations continue to occur on women who have out of plan children in China. The IRB also describe the difficulties in obtaining independent information on forced sterilisation and abortion in China (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, CHN43165.E – China: Any reports of forced abortions and forced sterilization within the regions of Guangzhou (Guangdong Province) and Fuzhou (Fujian Province) covered by the urban hukou; any reports of an easing or a tightening of family planning regulations since 2002 (2002-2005), 21 February http://www.cisr- irb.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?action=view&doc=chn43165E – Accessed 4 April 2005 – Accessed 4 April 2005 – Attachment 6).

2004

In October 2004 DFAT provided the following advice regarding the amount of the family planning fees in Fujian:

…Fujian Province Population Regulations (available at www.fujian.gov.cn) stipulate (in article 39) that the fee for the first “out of plan” or “in excess of the plan” birth is between two and three times the county or township per capita annual income; the fee for the second such birth is between four and six times the per capita annual income; and the third and any subsequent births will require payment of an additional (unspecified) fee (DFAT 2004, DFAT Report No. 327 – RRT Information Request: CHN17017, 7 October – Attachment 10).

DFAT also provided advice to the Tribunal on family planning in Fujian in September 2004. DFAT report that while they understand that compulsory abortions and sterilisations occur in Fujian, that „such measures are much rarer than in the 1980s‟ and are not listed in the Fujian family planning regulations. DFAT reports that:

We understand that compulsory abortions and sterilisations occur in Fujian, but that such measures are much rarer than in the 1980s. Fujian‟s provincial regulations on population and family planning do not impose compulsory abortion or sterilisation for people with a history of out-of-quota births, but rather observe that guidance on birth control methods and family planning should be available to all to prevent out-of-quota births. Furthermore, in present day China, particularly in provinces such as Fujian and Guangdong, sanctions relating to family planning can be avoided through payment of a fee to local authorities, parts of which may be both above and below the table. Such fees are generally not excessive by middle-class Chinese standards, though fees vary from locality to locality (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2004, DFAT Report 317 – RRT Information Request: CHN16905, 2 September – Attachment 4).

A July 2004 news article by National Post reports that family planning in Fujian is “strictly enforced.” The following is an extract from the National Post report:

In places such as Fujian province, family planning is strictly enforced. Children must be spaced at least four years apart

Asked what happens if a couple defies the child-bearing limits, Mr. Bai responded: “It is not possible (Johnson, Tim 2004, „Chinese encourage parents to keep girls: Too many boys in population: Government will build houses, exempt taxes, do anything for females‟, National Post, 10 July – Attachment 11).

On 22 April 2004 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advised that “Fujian has one of the least coercive family planning regimes in China”. DFAT provided the following advice on the enforcement of the one child policy in Fujian: The Family Planning Law in Fujian is regulated by a mixture of national, provincial and local laws and rules. Enforcement is by local authorities and evidence suggests that some local governments enforce family planning rules more vigorously than others. This has created a patchwork of different rules and enforcement across the province. Family planning rules are more strictly enforced in the larger cities such as and Fuzhou, than in the poorer countryside. The rules are also more strictly enforced in areas where state-owned industry is stronger, such as the steel making city of , than in the mountainous or coastal fishing areas. In general, however, Fujian has one of the least coercive family planning regimes in China. In rural areas of Fujian more then half of all families have more than one child. The number of one child families is greater in the larger cities. However, even here, multiple child families are not unknown.

…The post found no record of enforced sterilisation of women in Fujian since the early 1990s (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2004, DFAT Report 287 – RRT Information Request: CHN16609, 22 April – Attachment 12).

2001

A report by the IRB cites a 2001 news article which refers to a Fujian woman who died after family planning authorities took her to a birth-control clinic. The woman died after the authorities reportedly beat her death after she refused to be sterilized; the authorities stated that the woman jumped to her death (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2003, CHN40400.E – China: Reports of forced sterilization in Fujian province; conditions under which forced sterilization might occur; consequences enforced by the family planning authorities for a woman, under the age of marriage, who gives birth outside of wedlock (2000-2003), 13 January – Attachment 13).

2000

In January 2000 officials from the Canadian Embassy in Beijing made a fact finding mission in Fuzhou, a prefecture level city in Fujian. The report of the mission states that forced abortion and sterilisation are not officially tolerated and describes the enforcement of family planning in Fuzhou as “less effective” than in other parts of China. The IRB state that:

There is less effective enforcement of the “one child” policy here than in other parts of China. Almost one third of families in the four counties have three children or more. Sanctions against “out of plan” births have not proven effective. There are incentive programs to encourage compliance instead. Family planning workers are now required to pass qualifying examinations to demonstrate understanding of Government birth control policies and practices. Forced abortion and forced sterilization are reportedly not tolerated now, although local official acknowledge there were problems with this in the past.

…Briefing by the officials of the Fujian Family Planning Committee described new procedures to ensure professional standards in family planning work at the local level which involve qualifying examinations and refresher courses. Forced abortion and forced sterilization are no longer accepted methods for resolving noncompliance with the Government‟s birth control policy. At present, the average number of children per family in Fujian is 1.56

33.7% of families have one child

33.1% of families have two children 27.8% of families have three or more children.

…After two children, sterilization by tubal ligation is encouraged, but not required.

c. Meetings with local officials in Lianjiang, and Changle counties confirmed local implementation of these policies

…Fines for “out of plan” babies typically amount to 60-100% of a family‟s annual income. The officials in Fuqing asked that it be noted that use of the word “fine” to describe the monies extracted from families with out of plan babies is not accurate. It is rather a “social subsidy fee” as the rationale is to have families compensate society at large for the cost of maintaining and educating “extra” children. In all three counties it was noted that extracting these fines from villagers is difficult.

d. It is evident that to date the Fujian local authorities in the four counties visited have lacked the capacity or will to effectively implement the Central Government‟s national birth control policy. Fujian is far from Beijing and a long tradition of false reporting to central authorities and only feigned compliance with national edicts is very well established in the province‟s history. The Chinese saying for this phenomenon translates as “Heaven is high and the Emperor is far away.” (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2000, CHN34099.E – China: Report of a fact-finding mission to Fuzhou by Political Counsellor, Canadian Embassy, Beijing, 23 March – Attachment 14).

1990’s

In Fujian, during the 1990s, Greenhalgh and Winckler write:

Until about 1990, Fujian‟s birth program implementation was distinctly lax, relying too much on crash campaigns and too little on routine work. During the 1990s, the program received higher priority and more funds, as a result of which implementation became both more strict and more lawful. Within Fujian, program implementation is solid in most of the advanced coastal plain, but not all of it. Enforcement remains weak in poor mountainous rural areas and among urban migrants. Fuzhou City has generally strong implementation, but its coastal counties are notoriously unruly and resistant to the demands of municipal and provincial birth planners (Greenhalgh, S. & Winckler, E. 2001 „Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990’s and Beyond’, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Citizenship and Immigration Services website, http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/pschn01001.pdf – Accessed 3 April 2007 – Attachment 1).

A report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada also provides information on the implementation of family planning in Fujian in 1990‟s (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1999, CHN33035.EX – China: Update to various aspects of family and family planning law and policy, particularly as it affects Fujian province, 18 October http://www.irb- cisr.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?docid=9&cid=50&version=printable&disclai mer=show – Accessed 4 April 2005 – Attachment 15).

2. Is there any record of a particular period of heightened activity by the Bureau of Birth Control referred to as the ―big battle of the spring season‖ in March 2007?

No information was found in the sources consulted regarding a family planning „big battle‟, crackdown or campaign in March 2007 or 2007 generally. 3. Is there any evidence of bureaucrats working to achieve set targets in the birth control programme as late as 2007?

No information was found regarding the use of family planning targets in Fujian. However, information on China generally suggests that family planning targets are implemented.

The USDOS Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China reports on the current existence of family planning targets set by administrative regions. According to the USDOS „physical coercion‟ has been reported in order to meet these targets. The UDSOS states that:

Central government policy formally prohibits the use of physical coercion to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization, although reports of physical coercion to meet birth targets continued.

Officials at all levels remained subject to rewards or penalties based on meeting the population goals set by their administrative region. Promotions for local officials still depended in part on meeting population targets. There continued to be sporadic reports of violations of citizens‟ rights by local officials attempting to reduce the number of births in their region. The most egregious reports occurred in 2005 in Linyi, Shandong Province. International press reports alleged that local official detained some 130,000 persons and forced them to submit to abortions or sterilization procedures. At least 7,000 persons were forcibly sterilized. Local officials profited from this illegal system by charging detention fees. Local rights activists documented several cases of forced late-term abortions (US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China, March, Section 1.f – Attachment 5).

In April 2007 riots were reported in the Guangxi province in reaction to the harsh implementation of the one child policy, including forced abortions. Reports state that the family planning crackdown in Guangxi was the result of pressure to improve its family planning targets. A report on the National Public Radio website describes this situation:

Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5 percent. This is significant because the career prospects of local officials depend upon meeting these goals (Lim, L 2007 „Cases of forced abortions surface in China‟, National Public Radio website, 23 April – Attachment 16)

The following report by The Straits Times also reports on how pressure to meet family planning targets resulted in the family planning crackdown in Bobai, Guangxi in 2007:

Hong Kong media reports said that Bobai officials had begun a brutal crackdown on violations of the one-child policy because of recent pressure to meet birth control targets set by Beijing and the Guangxi government (Oon, C 2007 „Violation of China‟s one child policy raised “spectre of overpopulation”„, BBC Monitoring Alert, Source: The Straits Times website, 7 June – Attachment 17).

A 2004 publication titled Better Ten Graves Than One Extra Birth by the Laogai Research Foundation describes the setting of national population targets in China and the resulting enforcement of birth targets at a local level. The following is an extract from the book:

Despite the priority placed on achieving population goals, the one-child policy is anything but uniform. Over the last 25 years, implementation of the one-child policy has varied greatly year-by-year and province-by-province. Essentially, policy varies according to whether China, or a particular province, is meeting its set population targets. Jiali Li, a prolific, independent scholar of China‟s population policy, explains how the on-child policy is transmitted from national to local levels, i.e., how quotas are set and permissions allocated.

According to Li the SFPC [The State Family Planning Commission] sets a national population growth target, or quota, each year, which is then allocated downward to each province through its administrative bureaucracy. The provincial government then allocates the precise numbers of children to be born to local officials in cities, counties, towns and villages.

Local officials and cadres, e.g. the head of a danwei in urban areas or village chiefs in rural areas, coordinate efforts to select and approve families for birth permits with family planning cadres at the corresponding levels.(p.24)

…Once the population –growth quota , or target, reaches the local level, policy is revaluated, adapted, and implemented according to local conditions and needs. In other words, depending on adjustments in quotas, the actual policy, e.g. varying allowances for couples to have a second child, will change to allow for fewer or more births. This means that there is a significant variance of policy from province to province (p.25) (The Laogai Research Foundation, Better Ten Graves Than One Extra Birth 2004, Washington, D.C., pp. 24 – 25 – Attachment 18).

4. Is there any information available about the attitude of local authorities in Pingtan County to house churches and religious practice outside the approved church?

Tony Lambert, in his 2006 edition of China’s Christian Millions estimates that there are 60,000 Christians in Pingtan of which half belong to unregistered congregations. Lambert describes the official religious policy as “applied relatively liberally in Fujian, although there have been occasional crackdowns on house churches and underground Catholics”. Lambert has provided this profile of Christian churches in Fujian:

Fujian has a thriving and rapidly growing Christian community. As a coastal province in the south-east, it was one of the first to be evangelised from the early nineteenth century. By 1949 there were about 100,000 Protestants. Official estimates of numbers of Protestant Christians in 2004 were 1,179,000 – a twelve-fold growth after fifty-five years of Communism. In early 1999 a TSPM spokesman stated there are 4,000 registered churches and meeting points. In 2000 the TPSM magazine Tianfeng revealed there were over 1,200 pastoral workers in Fujian.

Fuzhou, the capital, with its six surrounding rural counties and two smaller municipalities had at least 350,000 Protestants in 2002, meeting in 300 registered churches and 2,000 meeting points. In 2004, Fuqing City had 350,000 believers meeting in 520 churches, according to a Hong Kong pastor. After Wenzhou, it is the area with the second greatest number of churches in the whole country, and has been dubbed “China‟s Second Jerusalem”. About 26 per cent of the population are Christian. Pingtan, a large island off the coast, has also seen incredible growth, from under 5,000 Christians in 1959 to 60,000 today, divided equally between registered and unregistered congregations. At least 15 per cent of the island’s population are Christians.

…In general, the official religious policy has been applied relatively liberally in Fujian, although there have been occasional crackdowns on house churches and „underground‟ Catholics (Lambert, Tony 2006, China’s Christian Millions, Monarch Books, Oxford pp240- 241– Attachment 19). No other information was found in the sources consulted regarding the treatment or attitude of local authorities in Pingtan regarding unregistered or underground Protestant Christians. However, reports were found of previous attacks on unregistered Catholics in Pingtan.

Asia News have reported that in September 2006 police in Pingtan destroyed an unregistered Catholic church which serviced „at least 10, 000 unofficial Catholics‟. The police also reportedly stated that they would do the same to another church with 400 practitioners in a neighbouring village. Asia News provide the following report:

Police of Pingtan (Fujian) have destroyed a church in Yutouchang village and have sworn to demolish another in a neighbouring village.

Around 500 policemen and local officials appeared at 8am (local time) on 1 September to destroy a church of the unofficial community of Fujian. The church stood in Yutouchang village on the islet of Pingtang off Fuzhou (Fujian). For some time, the island, not far from the Chinese coast, has hosted at least 10,000 unofficial Catholics.

AsiaNews sources in China revealed that the police arrived with bulldozers to destroy the building illegal according to Chinese law and they beat some believers who sought to stop the demolition. Two people were injured. The church was completed in July 2006: covering an area of 1000 square metres, it cost 400,000 yuan (40,000 euros).

The police also warned that in the coming days they will destroy another church that is under construction in Ao Qian village. In recent years, Ao Qian‟s community of 400 believers, mostly fishermen, contributed tithes to raise more than 500,000 yuan to build the church.

…In Fujian, there is a strong unofficial community that refuses to be registered for fear that it would have to submit to controls by the Patriotic Association, which aims to create a national church detached from the Holy See („Church destroyed in Fujian, another to follow shortly‟ 2006, Asia News, 4 September http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=7112# – Accessed 7 March 2008 – Attachment 20).

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that on 25 July 2005 Chinese authorities arrested “underground Catholic priest Father Lin Daixan” and nine other parishioners. This was reportedly the fourth time Father Lin Daixan had been arrested:

th On 25 July 2005, at about 8 pm, Chinese security personnel arrested the underground Catholic priest Father Lin Daixian, 40, of the Pingtan Parish of Fuzhou Diocese, Fujian Province. A seminarian and nine of his parishioners were arrested alongside him. The arrests occurred during the celebration of a private Holy Mass held at a private home in Pingtan, attended by around 50 parishioners. The security personnel violently assaulted parishioners who sought to prevent the arrest of Father Lin, leaving them with severe injuries, including broken bones, broken teeth and head injuries that caused severe swelling and fainting. The house where the meeting took place was ransacked, causing significant damage. Father Lin and others were detained in the Pingtan Detention Centre. This is the fourth time Father Lin has been arrested. His current status cannot be ascertained (Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 2005, „China: Current Developments and Cases of Concern‟, November, p13 – Attachment 21).

In 2000 Human Rights Without Frontiers reported on „strong government repression‟ of the Catholic community in Fujian and noted a police attack on a church in Pingtan: In Pingtan county, police destroyed the altar of the Yutou Church and chased and beat worshippers when they attempted to flee, it said („Catholic bishop held, worshippers beaten in China, foundation says‟ 2000, Human Rights Without Frontiers, 17 September http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/china2000.html – Accessed 7 March 2008 – Attachment 22).

Research Response CHN32667, dated December 2007 provides additional information on the treatment of Christians in Fujian. The response states that while several sources report on the generally liberal application of official religious regulations in the Fujian province occasional crackdowns on underground Christians and the demolition of house churches in Fujian are also reported (RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response CHN32667, 7 December – Attachment 7).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources:

Government Information & Reports Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada http://www.irb.gc.ca/ UK Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk US Department of State http://www.state.gov/ US Department of State website http://www.state.gov US Citizenship and Immigration Services website – http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis United Nations (UN) UNHCR http://www.unhchr.ch/ Non-Government Organisations Amnesty International website http://www.amnesty.org/ Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1 Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/ International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights http://www.ihf-hr.org/welcome.php Human Rights Internet (HRI) website http://www.hri.ca International News & Politics Asia News http://www.asianews.it/ BBC News website http://news.bbc.co.uk/ Human Rights Without Frontiers http://www.hrwf.net/index.html Political Asylum Research and Documentation Service http://www.pards.org/ Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/portal.cfm Search Engines Google search engine http://www.google.com.au/

Databases: FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIMA Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Country Research database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments 1. Greenhalgh, S. & Winckler, E. 2001 „Chinese State Birth Planning in the 1990’s and Beyond’, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Citizenship and Immigration Services website, http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/pschn01001.pdf – Accessed 3 April 2007.

2. Population and Family Planning Regulation of Fujian Province, Adopted by the 33rd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth Provincial People‟s Congress on 26 July 2002.

3. US Department of State 2007, China: Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, May http://www.pards.org/paccc/china_may_2007.doc – Accessed 4 March 2008.

4. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2004, DFAT Report 317 – RRT Information Request: CHN16905, 2 September.

5. US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006 – China, March.

6. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2005, CHN43165.E – China: Any reports of forced abortions and forced sterilization within the regions of Guangzhou (Guangdong Province) and Fuzhou (Fujian Province) covered by the urban hukou; any reports of an easing or a tightening of family planning regulations since 2002 (2002-2005), 21 February http://www.cisr- irb.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?action=view&doc=chn43165E – Accessed 4 April 2005.

7. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response CHN32667, 7 December.

8. RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response CHN31026, 15 December 2006.

9. Bayron, H 2006 „Experts: China‟s One-Child Population Policy Producing Socio- Economic Problems‟ Voice of America, 7 March http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-07- voa38.cfm?cfid=278034385&cftoken=83505359 – Accessed 5 March 2008.

10. DFAT 2004, DFAT Report No. 327 – RRT Information Request: CHN17017, 7 October.

11. Johnson, Tim 2004, „Chinese encourage parents to keep girls: Too many boys in population: Government will build houses, exempt taxes, do anything for females‟, National Post, 10 July.

12. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2004, DFAT Report 287 – RRT Information Request: CHN16609, 22 April.

13. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2003, CHN40400.E – China: Reports of forced sterilization in Fujian province; conditions under which forced sterilization might occur; consequences enforced by the family planning authorities for a woman, under the age of marriage, who gives birth outside of wedlock (2000-2003), 13 January.

14. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2000, CHN34099.E – China: Report of a fact- finding mission to Fuzhou by Political Counsellor, Canadian Embassy, Beijing, 23 March. 15. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1999, CHN33035.EX – China: Update to various aspects of family and family planning law and policy, particularly as it affects Fujian province, 18 October http://www.irb- cisr.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?docid=9&cid=50&version=printable&dis claimer=show – Accessed 4 April 2005.

16. Lim, L 2007 „Cases of forced abortions surface in China‟, National Public Radio website, 23 April. (CISNET China (CX176099)

17. Oon, C 2007 „Violation of China‟s one child policy raised “spectre of overpopulation”„, BBC Monitoring Alert, Source: The Straits Times website, 7 June. (CISNET China CX178906)

18. Better Ten Graves Than One Extra Birth 2004, The Laogai Research Foundation, Washington, D.C

19. Lambert, Tony 2006, China’s Christian Millions, Monarch Books, Oxford.

20. „Church destroyed in Fujian, another to follow shortly‟ 2006, Asia News, 4 September http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=7112# – Accessed 7 March 2008.

21. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 2005, „China: Current Developments and Cases of Concern‟, November

22. „Catholic bishop held, worshippers beaten in China, foundation says‟ 2000, Human Rights Without Frontiers, 17 September http://www.hrwf.net/religiousfreedom/news/china2000.html – Accessed 7 March 2008.