Professor Calls for Special Investigation into Train Crash

On July 28, five days after the deadly high-speed train crash in Wenzhou, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao visited the scene and gave a press conference. Responding to a question about investigations into the causes of the incident, Wen said:

After the incident, the State Council has immediately set up an accident investigation team. This team is independent, and it involves the departments of safety, supervision and the procuratorate. Through on-the-ground survey, sampling, scientific analysis and expert reasoning, the team will reach a solid conclusion that can stand the test of history.

But the credibility of such an investigation has been called into question. Earlier on July 26, He Weifang, law professor at Peking University and an activist for the reform of the Chinese judicial system, wrote three posts on Sina Weibo calling for the setting up of a special investigation committee according to Article 71 of the Chinese Constitution, which says:

The National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee may, when they deem it necessary, appoint committees of inquiry into specific questions and adopt relevant resolutions in the light of their reports. All organs of state, public organizations and citizens concerned are obliged to supply the necessary information to those committees of inquiry when they conduct investigations.

The three posts, translated below, have altogether attracted over 45,000 forwards and 10,000 comments. Netizens on Weibo are overwhelmingly in support of Professor He’s proposal, although they know that it has a slim chance of being adopted.

After the 2003 Sun Zhigang incident, I and four other legal experts called for the triggering of the special investigation procedures as stipulated in Article 71 of the Constitution. The suggestion fell on deaf ears. The Wenzhou accident sparked a public outcry, and investigation by the Railways Ministry would be unconvincing. The reliability of the high-speed rail system is now in doubt. I once again call for the opening of the special investigation committee in order to conduct hearings and give an answer to the public. (link)

The system of special investigation committee as stipulated in the Constitution has been in force for 30 years. But it has never been used. The article is therefore a “sleeping beauty”. The committee is a normal act of power by our highest authority, which has an obligation to do so. In February last year, the US Congress conducted a hearing on Toyota following its vehicle recalls. Our media called it “US Congress interrogating the safety of Toyota”. Who is to interrogate the safety of our railways? (link)

Article 21 of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee rules of procedures said: “The Standing Committee may, when they deem it necessary, appoint committees of inquiry into specific questions and adopt relevant resolutions in the light of their reports.” This means that such committees can still be appointed when the NPC is not in session. The motions can be raised by the State Council, other authorities, or ten or more members of the Standing Committee. (link)

Yesterday, Professor He also wrote a blog post (translated in full below) calling for the waking up of the “sleeping beauty”. An abridged version of the post also appears in the Southern Weekend.

After the serious incident on July 23, the nation is paying much attention to the causes, number of deaths, handling of the scene and issues of responsibilities. From media reports, it is clear that the State Council is playing a major role in the on-site investigation, while the Railways Ministry does the explanation to the public. Apparently, the media, including official ones, is dissatisfied with the answers given by the spokesperson in response to questions raised by the public. The Railways Ministry itself is the involved party bearing responsibilities, and the State Council, being the supervising authority, also has a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the investigation itself is non-transparent. We can expect the results to be unconvincing.

This is worrying. It is clear that the problem stems from the investigating bodies themselves and the defects in the procedures. On July 26, I wrote on Weibo that the investigation should be based on Article 71 of the Constitution, and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee should start a special investigation committee. According to relevant regulations, this committee should be composed of members from the legislature and outside experts. From overseas experience, the works of the committee could include investigations into the causes of the accident, identifying relevant personnel to testify in subpoena, holding debates between experts with different views, and reaching a conclusion.

To achieve some basic credibility, the hearings should be open to the public, and broadcasted live on television, except if it involves state secrets. This puts the truth in front of the public and is an important channel of public supervision. It also helps people, including those accountable, to accept the final conclusion of the committee.

Furthermore, the committee can conduct wider investigations. Using this incident as an example, apart from the above matters, the committee can investigate and assess the current state of development of the high-speed rail system, the hidden problems (such as quality of rails and bridges) and the management system. Only through this can the accident be turned into an opportunity to redress the defects of the system.

My suggestion has attracted widespread responses. Within the first ten hours or so, the first post has been forwarded over 20,000 times and attracted over 5,000 comments. However, many people worry that the NPC Standing Committee is not likely to trigger the special investigation procedures. After all, during the 30 years that the present Constitution has been in force, there is not even one precedent case. Article 71 can be described as a typical “sleeping beauty article”. In the 2003 Sun Zhigang incident, I, together with four other legal experts, called in vain for the triggering of this procedure. Can the tragedy in Wenzhou wake this “sleeping beauty” up?

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Professor Calls for Special Investigation into Train Crash”

  1. Back to the point, there’s alot of fallacies to the this guy’s statement.

    1) The Railways Ministry itself is the involved party bearing responsibilities, and the State Council, being the supervising authority, also has a conflict of interest.

    How do this guy know whom the State Council hires to do this investigation have some kind of conflict of interest?

    2) On July 26, I wrote on Weibo that the investigation should be based on Article 71 of the Constitution, and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee should start a special investigation committee.

    The problem is that the Chinese Media did not say that Article 71 of the constitution was invoked.

    3) According to relevant regulations, this committee should be composed of members from the legislature and outside experts. From overseas experience, the works of the committee could include investigations into the causes of the accident, identifying relevant personnel to testify in subpoena, holding debates between experts with different views, and reaching a conclusion.

    Assuming that article 71 was invoked, it says nothing about use of outside experts overseas. It does say about holding identifying relevant personnel to testify, but not holding experts with different views and reaching a conclusion.

    4) To achieve some basic credibility, the hearings should be open to the public, and broadcasted live on television, except if it involves state secrets. This puts the truth in front of the public and is an important channel of public supervision. It also helps people, including those accountable, to accept the final conclusion of the committee.

    Where does this fits into Article 71?

    Like

  2. I feel for Professor He. He seems to mean well. However, the article of the Constitution he cites states that the NPC may call a public inquiry when “they deem it necessary”. That is a truck-sized loophole. Wen is already at the wheel, expertly steering things through the loophole by suggesting that State Council come up with the answers that will stand the test of time. He has already ordered the council to come up with the mother of all inquiries. What other kind of inquiry could one possibly want? An open, transparent, and public one? That won’t be necessary since the mother of all inquiries is already pending. Come now. It’s the CCP we’re talking about. Just be glad they’re at least doing a half-baked self-serving inquiry.

    Professor He also does himself no favours by drawing comparisons to a US Congressional inquiry. That will bring out the full force of the Chinese-American FQ.

    Besides, the Constitution is really only about as good as the paper it’s written on anyway. The CCP disregards their own constitution when it suits them. It would take tremendous faith to believe that this case will be any different.

    And now, to deconstruct Pugster’s …um… “points”.

    1)”How do this guy know whom the State Council hires to do this investigation have some kind of conflict of interest? ”
    —It has nothing to do with who the council actually hires. The council itself has a perceived (and perhaps real) conflict of interest, being the organ in charge of the railway ministry. So anything the council does (including hiring decisions) will have a perceived conflict of interest. To remove any perception of a conflict of interest, you need an independent inquiry. Which is why the professor is asking for one. Not that complicated.

    2) “The problem is that the Chinese Media did not say that Article 71 of the constitution was invoked.”
    —The problem is actually your inability to read. Professor He says that Article 71 SHOULD BE INVOKED (ie.”the investigation should be based on Article 71″). Nowhere does he say that it has been. In fact, that would be the problem. Not sure what “Chinese Media” have or haven’t said would have any relevance to anything.

    3) “it says nothing about use of outside experts overseas.”
    —Hey, you got something right for a change. However, it also comes down to whether you want to find out what happened, or not. If you do, and recognizing that CHina simply does not have the track record of HSR expertise as some other countries, it would make sense that you would count on experts to help you find out what happened, even if they’re “foreign” experts. So the question you should ask yourself here is: do you want to find out what happened and why, and how to prevent it from happening again, or don’t you.

    4) “Where does this fits into Article 71?”
    —Right again! You are on a roll. He writes those things in a separate paragraph, so you can interpret them as being his own extensions on what is explicitly called for in the Article. His motivations seem to be for the investigation to have credibility, and for “the truth” to come out. He also wants people to be held accountable (yes, there’s a foreign concept for you). What are your motivations, I wonder?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s