The photos that got Wang, a 23-year old model in China, in serious trouble

We live in a world that’s anything but shy of conflicts. That’s why I’m constantly amazed by how much we citizens of the world share many similarities in our taste in uniforms. We love babes in police uniforms, I mean, both Americans (Hello, Magic Mike!) and Chinese, except, while posting sexy photos of oneself wearing, or almost wearing, a police uniform on the social media can get one a few followers and likes, or, with some luck, the status of the “Internet sensation,” in China, that can actually get one some sweet jail time. That’s how “dignified” the Chinese police uniform is. Or not.

That’s what happened to Wang, a 23-year old model who was convicted on the charge of “fraud” — for the lack of an appropriate translation for zhaoyaozhuangpian zui, or 招摇撞骗罪 — and sentenced to 9 months in prison with a one-year reprieve by a district court in Beijing earlier this week. A few months ago, Wang posted on Weibo as @馨儿徽安:

I became a police officer in my hometown, and everything is starting from zero, so I’m learning very hard. As a jinghua (or a “police flower,” a term used in China to refer to female police officers — author), I have a lot of presure on me… Jinghua is just a title. I use these titles such as “jinghua” or “model” for business negotiations at the dinner table, and get deals and investment.

To this post, Wang also attached three photos of herself wearing a police reniform and bikinis.

Wang was reported to Weibo by a user and her post was flagged as “false information” by the website’s administrator. The post was taken down by Wang shortly after, and by then it had been reposted and commented on for hundreds of times, which was, however, pretty inconsequential considering Weibo’s 300 million users.

It’s unusual for somebody to be prosecuted for a post that has so little impact. In fact, Wang is reported to be the first in China who has been sentenced to prison for posing as a police officer online. Many people expressed on Weibo that they think the punishment she received is too severe for her deed. “I don’t think [Wang] should have been punished so severely. Wang was just wearing a police uniform; she didn’t con anybody out of money,” as @笔者楚觉非V commented on Weibo.

The problem with the case, however, is not just about the degree of punishment, but about principles too. What really constitutes “fraud” in China is unclear, both in principle and in this specific case. As a netizen @lucan路璨 has pointed out, Wang has stated in her profile (and her account is “verified” for her identity) that she’s a model. If she did reveal her true identity, that means that she didn’t have the serious intent to mislead others to believe her false identity as police officer. In that case, her posing would be a performance — Wang herself also stated herself that she did it just “for fun” — rather than serious impersonation, or fraud.

If that’s the case, Wang shouldn’t be punished for “fraud,” an opinion shared by some netizens, such as @lucan路璨, who wrote, “Please tell me which law prohibits people from wearing police costume?” Technically, @lucan路璨 was right. Wang’s “uniform” was just a “costume” that she kept after a photo shoot where she was hired to pose in it. So where should we draw the line between performance and fraud? Or, in other words, where should we draw the line between speech and action, for performance is a form of speech, while impersonation is an act?

Now, speech can be the basis for legal action in China, but many Chinese are aware of the lack of freedom of speech in China and their expressions of grievances and demands for the rights to free speech are not rare in online discourse in recent years. However, unfortunately, few have brought up the issue of speech in the debates surrounding Wang’s case. (I have made some comments on Weibo about Wang’s case and free speech. The responses I got were pretty negative and off the point.)

A couple of people did bring up the idea of “thought crime.”

One of them is @NOD净化者, who wrote, “Faint. Only when there’s a victim who has been conned and when her action resulted in serious consequences should we use the Criminal Law. Should we prosecute people for thought crimes?”

@NOD净化者‘s comment is in response to the comments by a user who claims to represent “Central China University Law School Student Union” (@华中大法学院学生会), who supported the court’s decision because “many countries have criminal laws that include crimes of impersonating public servants.”

However, even if the question of speech is put aside, the truth is, Wang is not in trouble just because she’s an impostor, but also because she’s a “slut.” Not only her originally post attracted much criticism, but even after she was convicted, many continued to attack her unsympathetically:

This whore wants a good reputation. Die! — @东坑家人.

[Wang] deserted morality for fame? So sad. — @-必修课.

Look, [you’re] obsessed to be famous, and can’t you be famous in jail now? This is what you get by following the fad. — @zeeyorl

Stupid, you deserve it. Hahaha… Still want to show off, want to be famous? — @红烬Ash

It is safe to read these allegations as misogynistic vent of anger, jealousy, and hatred, from both men and women. Sexism, coupled with the good old authoritarianism, are what Wang is truly up against.

@笔者楚觉非V‘s comment seems to have hit the hail on the head here:

As to her indecent poses, they got her in jail because she tarnished the image of people’s police force. [However,] imagine if Wang was dressed up as a nurse, a teacher, or a maid; would she be punished like this? No. They’re all occupations, but are treated so differently. Why?

The logic behind this hypocrisy is that it’s acceptable to degrade nurses, teachers and maids — occupations traditionally taken by women — but it’s a crime to degrade police officers — an occupation traditionally taken by men — remember? A woman police officer is sexualized as a “police flower” — and, more importantly, an occupation that represents the state and its (masculine) power over its people.

The truth is, Wang’s offense doesn’t lie in her posing as what she is not. There have been plenty of images of beautiful young women and men posing as police officers “with dignity” in the public space but no one would have even bothered to ask whether they are models or real police officers. There’s also plenty of sexy photos that can be considered way more indecent than her photos floating online, but rarely anybody has gotten into trouble with the law for them. (“What if she didn’t wear any clothes? What would that be? Pornography, body art, or body painting… I want to ask how many years can she get for that?” as @烦人先生2447486305 asked.) Wang’s offense lies in her juxtaposing an image of a desired — sexually objectified — young woman with the image of the police force. At the same time, she dared to do so with a certain “shameless” spectacle. And that — THAT is the worst HUMILIATION thrown in the face of the stern-faced paternal state. (Even the name of her crime, zhaoyaozhuangpian zui, screams out this frustration of a self-righteous patriarch. Literally, zhaoyao means to bluff, to show off, or to parade. Zhuangpian means to con, to trick, or to swindle.)

“Don’t you repeatedly make fun of the system. [Remember,] the system has power,” as netizen @林水邑风 wrote. Read: if you dare to disgrace the state, you’re going to jail.

Yao Jiaxin, a junior at Xi’an Conservatory of Music, who was sentenced to death for intentional homicide, was executed today. On the night of October 22, 2010, while driving in his own sedan, Yao hit and injured Zhang Miao, a 26-year old mother who was riding an electric bike. As he saw that Zhang was trying to get his plate number, Yao panicked and stabbed Zhang repeatedly to death with a knife. Yao was convicted and sentenced to death earlier this year. The Supreme Court approved his death penalty today, and he was executed afterwards.

Yao Jiaxin’s has been a high-profile case for many reasons. First of all, as a college student, he had his own car. When the media reported his case, many thought that his parents were powerful officials, which didn’t turn out to be the case. He was seen as a second Li Qiming, the son of Baoding City’s Police Deputy Chief Li Gang. Last October, Li Qiming killed a college student in an accident and claimed that his dad was Li Gang so nobody could touch him. Li Qiming’s case invoked waves of criticism from Chinese public, who are fed up with government officials’ abuse of power. Exposed by the media not long after Li’s case, Yao’s case fueled this anger in the public and took it to another level, especially when his victim was a powerless woman from a village who worked as a helper at a small restaurant. The public opinion, sadly, was predominated by the request for death penalty.

Another reason this case has attracted so much public attention has to do with the violent nature of the crime and the criminal’s identity as a young and promising college student. Yao was said to be a quiet young man, a gentle young pianist. Yet, in order to avoid responsibilities, he chose to kill an innocent injured woman with such violence. The public was shocked by his selfishness and lack of morality. The public has directed the blame on mostly the declining morality in Chinese society in general in Chinese’s crazy for material wealth. Others also blamed Yao’s parents and schools for not doing a good job and raised a “demon” in him. Yet others pointed out the unjust laws under which injuring someone in a car accident costs the responsible driver more than killing someone. Thus there’s a saying in China that “killing is better than injuring.”

As the public’s cry for Yao’s execution was getting louder every day, some Chinese, mostly intellects and law scholars, called for lenience and proposed to use death penalty cautiously if not banning it all together in China. However, the voice of this group of people seemed to be quite weak in the overwhelming discourse on the opposite side. Some angry netizens even accused those who opposed death penalty of being “wumao” (“fifty cents”) or the minions of those in power.

Yao’s execution today triggered another surge of online discourse. On weibo.com, Sina’s weibo (microblogging) site, Yao Jiaxin’s father, Yao Qingwei, has been posting weibos since Yao was convicted. Today, in one of his weibos he writes:

药家鑫之父药庆卫：Yao Jiaxin was executed today. We were waiting at home [for the notice] to bring back his body, but who knows that the Court didn’t let us view his body, but only asked us to wait for his ashes. I said for my child that he wouldn’t donate organs, because Professor Kong (Kong Qingdong, professor from Peking University – author’s notes) said that “Yao Jiaxin looked like a murderer,” and I was worried that Yao Jiaxin’s organs would do harm to others. I only wish that Yao Jiaxin’s death will wash away all of his sin, leaving nothing to harm this world.

Many netizens have responded to Yao Qingwei’s weibo. The sarcastic bitterness in this weibo and Yao Qingwei’s personal tragedy of losing a son won him sympathy from many netizens.

Microblogger 周伟良 writes:

In the end, both family were hurt. Yao papa, please accept my condolence.

Another, 斯凯迪歪, writes:

Yao Jiaxin was a criminal, but Yao Qingwei is only a father. Just as @贺卫方 said, we can sentence a person to death penalty by law, but can’t we refrain from celebrating the execution of one of us with a public fiesta? In the same sense, we can feel that our demand was met, but can’t we stop shouting out our opinions on the weibo of a father who just lost his son?

Others criticized the authority for their insensitivity to Yao’s family. For instance, 梁嘉璟_Ken writes:

Why not show some respect to the family of the deceased?! Even the family of the executed!

蔡文狄vendy writes:

This is helpless. Chinese laws are this inhumane. The belief in “an eye for an eye” has been deeply rooted in China. Live well, and be a model for China’s more humane laws in the future.

Some netizens, unsurprisingly, suspect that there’s some sort of conspiracy on the part of the authority to harvest Yao’s organs for sale.

Microblogger 天涯赵瑜 writes:

Is it true as what they say that they wouldn’t let the family to get close (to the body), and take the opportunity to sale the organs of the executed criminal? What are the facts? If this is real, then it’s really unfair. Yao Jiaxin was executed, and has been punished for his crime, but not releasing the body to his parents is just too much.

There are also netizens who condemn death penalty as an inhumane, such as 蔡一哲, who writes:

Killing to stop killing. Bloody law! No human rights!

象考拉一样地生活着 writes:

Also Yao Jiaxin committed a crime, what happened has happened. Taking another perspective, I think: 1. Chinese law is not humane enough. 2. Public discourse sometimes can destroy people. 3. I see many netizens’ indifference, but although his parents were at fault, with so much pain after they lost their son, they deserve some condolence from others. Isn’t it that hard?

The microblogging above is right. Many netizens still believe that Yao’s father deserved the pain of losing a son because it’s his fault to have raised such a “beast.”

A timeline of Yao Jiaxin’s case

October 20, 2010 – Yao Jiaxin drove a sedan and hit Zhang Miao, who was riding on a electric bike moving in the same direction. Injured, Zhang tried to record Yao’s plate number. Panicked, Yao stabbed Zhang repeatedly to death with a knife and fled the scene afterwards. Later that night, Yao hit another two pedestrians, and was caught by passersby when he tried to run.

October 22, 2010 – Yao was arrested for the second hit-and-run accident, but he did not confess the first accident and the killing of Zhang.

October 23, 2010 – Accompanied by his parents, Yao turned himself in for killing Zhang. He was detained by the Xi’an police that night.

November 25, 2010 – Approved by the Xi’an prosecutorial authority, Yao was officially arrested for intentional homicide.

January 11, 2011 – Yao was charged with intentional homicide by Xi’an Prosecutor’s Office.

March 23, 2011 – Yao was tried in Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court for intentional homicide. He expressed remorse, and his attorney defended him by claiming his action as “passion killing” instead of intentional homicide.

April 22, 2011 – Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court ruled Yao guilty of intentional homicide. Yao was sentenced to death penalty, deprived of political rights for life, and responsible for a compensation of 45498.5 yuan to the victim’s family.

May 20, 2011 – Shannxi Province Superior People’s Court dismissed Yao’s appeal and sustained the original ruling. Yao’s sentence of death penalty was submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.

June 7, 2011 – The Supreme Court approved Yao’s death penalty. Yao was executed.

            More Share and Comments

The recent criminalization of drunk driving, and the Deputy Chief Justice of China, Mr. Zhang Jun’s comments on the interpretation of the Law have triggered such heated debates. Under the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law passed by the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress on February 25, 2011, drunk driving is a criminal offense, and the driver is subject to imprisonment and a fine. Since the Amendment became effective on May 1, many drunk driving arrests have been reported across China, including a high-profile case involving, Gao Xiaosong, one of China’s best-known song-writers and producers.

At a national conference on criminal law held on May 10, Chief Justice Zhang Jun commented on the 8th Amendment that where criminal cases are involved, the courts at all levels must be “cautious” and “not to interpret the 8th Amendment literally.” He emphasized that the judgment should be in line with the amended Law on Road Traffic Safety (Xihua). In other words, Zhang interpreted that to determine drunk driving as a criminal offense, the court needs to consider each incident of offense. Following Zhang’s interpretation, the judgement should be based on the severity of the consequence of the driver’s action, which is determined by whether the action has caused an accident and, if yes, the severity of the accident.

Zhang’s comments and his interpretation of the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law immediately stirred up debates both in the legal circles and in the public. For instance, an article on opinion.hexun.com presented two opposing views from two attorneys. Liu Changsong, attorney, argued that “any interpretation of the law on the substance rather than wording is not interpreting the law, but creating it.” Liu pointed out that the making of this Law was based on extensive research and public deliberation. In response to the severity argument, Liu argued that the severity of the consequences of the driver’s action should be based on the blood alcohol concentration, rather than whether the driver has caused accidents or the severity of the accidents.

Liu’s view is supported by law professor Wang Mingliang at Fudan University in Shanghai. Wang pointed out that dangerous driving is an offense by action that does not require its causing severe accidents to be punished as a criminal offense. Wang held that drunk driving does not equal traffic offenses whose judgment is determined by the severity of the accident.

On the other hand, Sun Ruizhu, attorney, argued that it is unreasonable to treat all drunk driving cases equally. “When a man drives after having a bottle of beer,” he said, “he hasn’t caused others loss of property or lives, nor has he hurt others’ will, but he is judged as a criminal and prosecuted by the Criminal Law, and this is not reasonable according to common sense.” He also argued that there is a tendency of severe punishment in the Chinese legal system, and “this reliance on severe punishment is a sign of short-sightedness in managing the country.”

These two views represent the division in the legal circles on new issues such as this one. In a way, they reflect the tension between the traditional tendency to contextualize legal cases in China, which heavily depends on the judge’s opinions, and the “Western” judicial tradition that is strictly based on the written law.

In public media, many netizens are critical of Zhang’s comments and attitude. For Chinese public, Zhang’s comments are no more than excuses for those in power, that is, government officials, rich business people, and celebrities, to get away with their irresponsible acts. In deed, several high profile drunk driving cases in the past few years involved these privileged citizens. As a blogger 肚大乃容 wrote, Zhang’s comments are to first help the powerful and the rich drunk drivers get away with their crimes, and second, to confuse the local low enforment and turn “rule of law” to “rule of man.” He jokingly complained that “some say that China’s laws are the best laws in the world, but the ones who practice law–the judges–have the least power to execute law” because they have to follow the Deputy Chief Justice’s order. Exasperated, this blogger concluded his post with the following passage:

One is one, and two is two; in front of the clear stipulation of the law, as the leader of the highest judicial entity of the country, why did [Zhang] have to conjure up a different interpretation? As a driver, as a Chinese citizen, I very much hope that this Deputy Chief Justice can work a bit harder, and give us some examples of what types of drunk driving are not considered criminal offenses and are not punishable, so that we can firmly abide by the law in our daily lives!

              More Share and Comments