China – Kuomintang Party – Milk Money – Income Support – Discrimination
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: CHN32428 Country: China Date: 22 November 2007 Keywords: China – Kuomintang Party – Milk money – Income support – Discrimination 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. Information about Kuomintang Party. 2. Are records kept of subsequent generations/family members of former members of the Kuomintang Party? 3. What evidence is there of income-support? When is it paid? 4. Is there such a thing as “milk money”? When is “milk-money” paid or not paid? 5. Is there any evidence that subsequent generations of Kuomintang party members would be discriminated against by the police, in the army, education, social security payments or work? RESPONSE 1. Information about Kuomintang Party. The Kuomintang Party (KMT or “Chinese Nationalist People’s Party”) was a Chinese political party which emerged in the 1920s and contested for control of the country against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) until 1949, when the CCP led by Mao Zedong gained complete authority over the nation. A brief description of this period in Chinese history is provided in a Background Note on the People’s Republic of China written by the US State Department in August 2007: In the 1920s, Sun Yat-sen established a revolutionary base in south China and set out to unite the fragmented nation. With Soviet assistance, he organized the Kuomintang (KMT or “Chinese Nationalist People’s Party”), and entered into an alliance with the fledgling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). After Sun’s death in 1925, one of his proteges, Chiang Kai-shek, seized control of the KMT and succeeded in bringing most of south and central China under its rule. In 1927, Chiang turned on the CCP and executed many of its leaders. The remnants fled into the mountains of eastern China. In 1934, driven out of their mountain bases, the CCP’s forces embarked on a “Long March” across some of China’s most desolate terrain to the northwestern province of Shaanxi, where they established a guerrilla base at Yan’an. During the “Long March,” the communists reorganized under a new leader, Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung). The bitter struggle between the KMT and the CCP continued openly or clandestinely through the 14-year long Japanese invasion (1931-45), even though the two parties nominally formed a united front to oppose the Japanese invaders in 1937. The war between the two parties resumed after the Japanese defeat in 1945. By 1949, the CCP occupied most of the country. Chiang Kai-shek fled with the remnants of his KMT government and military forces to Taiwan, where he proclaimed Taipei to be China’s “provisional capital” and vowed to re- conquer the Chinese mainland. Taiwan still calls itself the “Republic of China.” (US Department of State 2007, Background Note: China, 9 March – Attachment 1). The party is also referred to under its Chinese Pinyin spelling – “Guomindang”. This and further information on the KMT, especially on the various forms under which Kuomintang named parties still operate in Taiwan and on mainland China, can be found in Research Response CHN14497 (RRT Country Research 2001, Research Response CHN14497, 1 November – Attachment 2). Reports on the current treatment of people from KMT families are provided in answer to questions five below. 2. Are records kept of subsequent generations/family members of former members of the Kuomintang Party? A personal dossier or file system does exist in China and there is evidence that Kuomintang membership, including of previous family members, is recorded in it. This personal file is usually held by a persons work unit and is a called a dang an (or dangan). It has been recently referred to and commented on by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This year DFAT stated that a person’s failed asylum attempt in Australia may be recorded in their dang an, which could have consequences for employment and future education: …In terms of the possible treatment the person might receive on return to China, it is not particularly important how the person comes to the attention of Chinese authorities. As advised in reftel, it is not possible to comment definitively on how Chinese authorities would treat returnees to China who were failed asylum seekers. If Chinese authorities believed them to be a member of one of these groups (Falun Gong, underground church, political dissidents), it would be likely that authorities would interview them and might keep them under surveillance or detain them for a short period. Authorities may record the failed asylum attempt in the person’s dossier (“dang an”), which could impede the person’s attempts to obtain employment (particularly government employment) or engage in further education. If the person was a high-profile activist in Australia (for example a prominent Falun Gong leader, or someone known for publicly criticising the Chinese leadership) it is likely that the authorities would treat them more severely (longer-term surveillance, administrative detention) than if the person was a low-profile member of one of these groups (DIAC Country Information Service 2007, Country Information Report No. CHN8980 – China: Publication of client details (sourced from DFAT advice 20 March 2007), 22 March – Attachment 3). In June 2003, DFAT described the contents of the dang an in detail and referred to its diminishing use by authorities with regard to those who are not party members or cadres: The Chinese government maintains different records for rural and urban residents. It does not keep personal files or dossiers on all citizens. The political significance of personal dossiers for those who are neither party members nor cadres has diminished in recent years. With greater freedom of movement between provinces and employers and the growth in the non-state sector, it is becoming easier to find employers who do not require a continuous personal dossier from a previous employer or work unit. Chinese citizen may possess one or both of two basic documents. One is a household registration booklet (hukou), issued by the local public security authorities at birth. It lists the place and date of birth, parents’ names and siblings’ names (if any), sex, ethnicity, marital status, and the holder’s registered place of residence (rural or urban). It is possible to change one’s registered residency from rural to urban: this change and the date are also recorded. Beginning from primary school, a Chinese may also possess a personal dossier (dang’an). This is a collection of papers containing personal comments by teachers, records of marks, official commendations or records of disciplinary offences. It is passed through high school and on to university authorities. The dossier takes on real significance after university, when it can be used by potential employers in place of a personal resume or references to determine employment opportunities and promotion prospects. Some large state-run employers, including government ministries and party organs, physically retain individuals’ dossiers, which are maintained by the personnel section. Smaller, private sector or foreign-owned work units can contract centralised “human resource centres” or employment agencies to retain the dossiers. Neighbourhood committees retain dossiers for the unemployed. Rural Chinese employed in agriculture do not require dossiers after leaving school. Village or county-level personnel departments may keep records of rural households. We have no specific information on how the dossier system works in particular provinces. But it would be reasonable to assume that the system would be used more strictly in relation to individuals in certain occupations (such as the military and cadres in government and party employment), rather than in relation to individuals’ geographic location per se. We have no evidence suggesting the dossier system is imposed more strictly on members of ethnic minorities. The dossier is chiefly a record of official merits or demerits, qualifications, and evaluations by employers, including political evaluations, party membership and party standing. It may also record social welfare or insurance contributions. The system is clearly open to abuse, as individuals do not generally have access to their own dossier and work units can use retention of a dossier to pressure individuals contemplating changing their work unit. The personnel section which maintains the dossier may pass on incriminating comments (including information from third parties) directly to public security or state security authorities. Local public security authorities maintain separate records of individuals, based on unique identity numbers recorded on identity cards and linked to hukou records. Individuals must carry their identity cards (shenfenzheng) at all times. Local public security authorities also maintain individual criminal records (DIAC Country Information Service 2003, Country Information Report 82/03 Personal Files, (sourced from DFAT advice 10 June 2003), 17 June – Attachment 4). A 1989 book by Suzanne Ogden titled China’s Unresolved Issues – Politics, Development and Culture refers to Kuomintang membership and “bad class background or origin” of family relations as being recorded in the dang an: …In addition to black marks, letters, and the supervisor’s own comments, a dossier will also contain information about a person’s class background, education, friends and relations (especially if they have bad class backgrounds or have lived abroad), and participation in political organizations. If a person has a bad class origin or has ever been labelled as one of the “five bad elements,” that fact can haunt him for the rest of his life.