In a recent episode of a Chinese reality show Only You (非你莫属), where job seekers compete for jobs through live job interviews, Chinese TV viewers had a glimpse of Foxconn’s “military-style management” and what it could do to the employees through the first-person account of a mid-level manager working for the company. The 30-year old interviewee, named Zhang Fei, started working for Foxconn’s factory in Shenzhen as an entry-level employee after he finished technical high school, making 330 yuan ($52) a month. After twelve years working for the company, he is now an IT manager in charge of a team of fifty employees who are responsible for the entire network, communication facilities and security system for the factory.

Zhang Fei, an Foxconn employee, defends his company after his account of an incident of physical penalty that lead to his blacking out (click image for video in Chinese)

On the show, Zhang revealed that he once fell unconscious in the Foxconn compound. He told the audience what happened:

It was arranged that we were going to be “loaned” to another company that day. Usually, we were supposed to get up at six in the morning for a morning drill. This time, we didn’t know whether we were still supposed to participate in the drill, so we stood at the opening of the staircase, wondering what to do. Then the training officer saw us and pointed out that we didn’t participate in the drill as we were supposed to. [I thought] I had a good reason, so I tried to explain to him, but at this point, he said that [he must] penalize me and asked me to go running up and down the stairs. [I think] the military-style management doesn’t allow any excuse. Whatever the boss asks you to do, you must do it. … [I went] up the staircase on this side and came down on the other side. There were six floors all together. I ran for more than an hour, almost two hours, waiting for an order, that is, the order to stop, but it didn’t come. So I was thinking, as long as I didn’t have the order to stop, I must keep running. It turned out that the training officer might have carelessly forgotten about me. When finally somebody told me to stop, I suddenly passed out on the stairs. At that moment, I felt numb all over. It felt like that your face, your eyes, your brain, and every part of your entire body were numb.

What’s even more shocking is, Zhang did not see this treatment as abuse. Instead, he kept defending the company. Before he told his story, he already were saying that “it wasn’t the company’s fault… [but] maybe because I did something wrong.” When the host said after hearing his story, “I don’t think you were at fault,” Zhang responded, with a strong conviction:

This is the military-style management. From the team’s perspective, [if] you don’t perform as you are instructed to, if you don’t operated as you are instructed to, it surely is your fault. As an employee, you must [see this situation] from the team’s perspective rather than the individual’s perspective, because these are two different view points. When you stand on your ground as an individual, you will think that you’re always right, but when you look at it from the team’s perspective, you’ll realize that this may be your problem.

Zhang wants to leave Foxconn and become a career trainer, helping young people who have just joined the workforce become a competitive employee and plan their future. Here’s what he said to his “trainee” in a mock training session on the show:

Every new employee coming into a company must first form a spirit of teamwork that fits yourself. First of all, you must learn to listen [to your supervisor] and know how to behave properly. This is the most basic requirement. I’m not entitled to say “no” to the boss, so I can only obey. So obeying orders is the foremost requirement.

A “boss” on the show pointed out that Zhang’s management style and expectations from employees would work well in manufacturing industry. He said that with Zhang’s experience, he was in demand and would easily find a company that’d hire him. That’s true. The fact is, in reality, military-style management that controls almost every minute of a worker’s life so as to eliminate every trait of individuality has been adopted by many factories in China, not just Foxconn. This dehumanizing rigid control of workers, unfortunately, is where productivity comes from. It is what has brought astronomic profits to companies like Foxconn and put it ahead of other companies on the international market (read about Apple’s example in NYT).

The scariest thing about this dehumanizing culture of the manufacturing industry in China is that it doesn’t only exploits workers, it also changes them, like Zhang, who, working his way up from a lowest-ranking worker to a mid-level manager, has been completely molded into the system, with heart and soul. Having contributed to Foxconn’s big boss Terry Gou’s $5.5 billion, Zhang is now willing, actually, eager to promote Foxconn’s ideology that legitimizes dehumanizing exploitation and its huge human cost in pursuit for profits. Perhaps after all, that’s what capitalism requires in order to grow–the capital must not only control the workers’ bodies, but also their minds. And that’s what’s behind Foxconn’s, and Apples’, success.

“I found this company you work for is indeed very powerful. You worked there for twelve years, and now you’re brainwashed completely,” the host of the show said to Zhang, half-jokingly, after Zhang defended Foxconn. He was right, and that situation is unlikely to change any time soon.

According to Xinjing Bao, a Beijing based newspaper, the government shut down 16 websites because of their “creating and spreading rumors and negligence in management” which have resulted in “extremely negative social impact.” However, Beijing and Guangdong Internet administrative agencies only “severely criticized” Sina Weibo (based in Beijing) and TencentWeibo (based in Guangdong) and “punished them accordingly.” However, there is no information about the specifics of the “punishment.” Xinjing Bao also reports that “the two websites have agreed to abide the relevant laws, implement corrective measures, and further strengthen management.”

I tested both microblogging websites this afternoon and it appears that users can post, comment and repost microblogs as usually. As to what measures the websites are going to implement to “strengthen” their management, I haven’t seen any signs of stricter censorship or blockage.

It is possible that the commenting and reposting functions on weibo sites were suspended and recovered shortly, for some netizens have complained the blockage of comments on these sites. A journalist posted in the group “Chinese Journalists” on Sina Weibo, criticizing the government for “fabricating a harmonious society.” “It’s fine that you (the government) are shameless,” he wrote, “but what makes you really shameless is to block weibo‘s comments.”

It is still unclear what is going to happen to these websites. It will be hard for the government to flat-out close or directly censor these websites largely because of economic reasons. Moreover, like the journalist mentioned earlier, many Chinese are no longer willing to accept whatever imposed on them, and those who see weibo a freer and more open space for information sharing and public debate, many of whom are opinion leaders in China, will not let it to be smothered without a fight.

Updates:

April 1, 1:15 PM EST – As of now, Sina Weibo disabled commenting, but still allows reposting. On Sina Weibo, a message says when one clicks on “comments”: “From March 31, 8 AM, to April 3, 8 AM, commenting is suspended temporarily. We apologize for the inconvenience.” The reason for suspension, according to Sina Weibo, is so that website can “cleanse” the website of “harmful” and “illegal” information.

On Tencent Weibo, it seems commenting and reposting are both still functioning.

April 2, 6:25 PM EST – Tencent Weibo has blocked commenting, citing the same reason as Sina Weibo. However, posting, reposting, and modified reposting are still functioning properly.

Both Sina and Tencent schedule to reopen commenting function at 8 AM on April 3 Beijing Time. That’s less than two hours from now. It seems that the suspension of commenting on these websites are meant for purging the existing posts. Even it is only temporary, netizens are very unhappy and expressive about it. “Two more hours to go? I suddenly want to lash out at someone,” Hong Huang, a well-known business woman and opinion leader, wrote on Sina Weibo, and her sentiment is certainly shared by many.

April 2, 10:58 PM EST – Sina Weibo is back to normal. Commenting is allowed.

A police officer checking an ID in Guangzhou. Image credit: Yangcheng Wanbao

A local paper Yangcheng Wanbao reported last week that from March 16, anybody in public places of Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong Province, may be subject to police’s random questioning and search. The paper warns its readers to bring their papers with them when they go out in case they are stopped and interrogated by the police. The news, once came out, stirred up quite some commotion among those who live in Guangzhou and even made the national news. Many people feel uneasy that they can be detained by the police just because they forget to bring their papers with them.

An online poll by Nanfang Zhoumo, a progressive magazine, shows that two-thirds of the 6,775 respondents oppose this practice, while a little over one-fifth support it. In the same poll, of the 3,253 people who responded, more than one fifth reported that they had been asked for their National Residential IDs by the police in public places.

The law enforcement in China, as most government agencies, used to have unquestionable authority. This is common in a society under authoritarian rule. but in China, obeying authorities is also expected in the culture dominated by Confucian teaching for centuries.

This is no longer true nowadays. Many Chinese are not afraid to publicly express their opinions or even challenge public policies and the practices of the law enforcement and government agencies. The legality of Guangzhou police force’s stops-and-frisks practice, for instance, has been challenged by the public online as, if not illegal, at least inappropriate.

“Without a complete legal system in place to restrict (the police’s) power, citizens’ rights can be infringed,” as a reader of Nanfang Zhoumo points out. “Why should citizens sacrifice their rights for public security?” s/he asks, adding “is this evidence that the law enforcement is ineffective or an excuse of expanding their power?” A reader agrees with her/him, insisting that “there has to be an effective legal system to guard against the abuse of power.”

Of course, nobody is against public security. In fact, those who support stops and frisks make their point clear that citizens bear the responsibility to cooperate with the police force because their goal is to protect the public. However, many critics of stops and frisks point out that the ambiguity of the policy in terms of the specifics of “public security” and the lack of protocol undermine the claimed vague purpose of ensuring public security. Besides, the police have never explained clearly why it is necessary to start this practice now.

Indeed, although the Guangzhou police have repeatedly reassured the public that their officers would only stop those who look or act “suspiciously,” they have never specified what exactly constitutes looking and/or acting “suspiciously.” The police’s actions, it seems, are solely based on arbitrary judgment which can open up opportunities for abuse of power and discrimination.

“What is ‘looking and acting suspiciously’?” a reader asks, and then adds, “we see abuse of power quite frequently nowadays; he who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find his stick.”

“So somebody must be suspicious just because the police say so? Is this how citizens act as the masters (of the state)?” a reader also responds with suspicion.

Many people are also unhappy about the fact that police officers are not even required to show their credentials to stop or search somebody as long as they wear a uniform. “Even if citizens are willing to cooperate, the police officers must show their papers before they interrogate and search anybody,” a reader writes.

The unpopularity of the practice surely reflects the public’s cynicism in the law enforcement, whose enforcement of laws is often arbitrary. Many Chinese nowadays simply do not trust the police force to be fair and just. “I don’t like this practice; if you offend an officer personally, you’ll be in big trouble,” a reader writes. Relating to his/her personal experience, a reader complains: “The police are like bosses; I’ve been stopped and I wasn’t happy!”

Perhaps the most worrisome implication of stops and frisks is that as part of the police routine, they may indicate the government’s tighter control of its people in the name of public security (although public security has always been used as a rationale for the violation of civil rights and political oppression in China). “That sounds like the secret service,” as a reader comments.

Despite the public complaints, the practice continues to be part of Guangzhou police’s daily routine. That’s basically how things are these days in China. People can rant almost however they want behind their computer screens, but making things to change in reality is still a very difficult task.

It could get worse. “Is this going to extend to the whole country? Scary!” worried, a reader asks. Well, s/he can rest assured to see stops and frisks in other Chinese cities under clearly stated policies or otherwise. Beijing police, for example, have been randomly checking people’s National Residential IDs for years. Those who do not have a Beijing Residential ID or a temporary residential permit to live in Beijing can be “deported” from the capital.

So, people in Guangzhou should feel fortunate, for as long as they have their Residential IDs ready, or if they can recite their ID numbers, addresses, and other personal information without a blink of an eye upon the police’s requests, they are completely free. In a police state, “everyone is a suspect,” to use a reader’s words, unless you can prove your innocence, which you surely can, can’t you?

“According to relevant laws and regulations, the search result of ‘Guangdong Wukan’ (广东乌坎) is not shown.” This is what you get if you type in “Guangdong Wukan” in Weibo’s search engine. The same alert will pop up if you type in “Xue Jinbo” (薛锦波).

In Chinese traditional medicine, a doctor can diagnose diseases by pressing the inner side of a patient’s wrist and feeling the pulse alone. It won’t be entirely unfair to say that Weibo’s search engine is like the wrist of China, one of the best places to feel the Chinese government’s pulse. It tells you what the government tolerates, or what it fears or feels absolutely paranoid about.

Since you’re reading this post, I assume you’ve known about the recent villagers’ revolt in Wukan, Guangdong in protest of the death of a villager under the custody of the police. Xue Jinbo was the said villager, one of the 13 representatives representing the villagers to negotiate with the local government on issues surrounding land seize, such as compensation. According to Xue’s family, his body had signs of torture. However, the forensic medical examiner’s report denied the possibility of abuse, and asserted that Xue died of cardiac arrest.

China News Service (CNS), a state news agency, reported the story (zh), which has been reposted on a few news websites. CNS reported that the situation in Wukan had been under control. It also asserted that the revolt was “provoked” by two village leaders, Lin Zulian and Yang Semao, who “spread rumors” and organized villagers to set up blockages to stop a “working group” to go into the village. “The blockages seriously disrupted villagers’ production and life,” according to CNS. The police arrested the two village leaders, who are waiting for punishment. Similar to Weibo, comments for the story are disabled on CNS and those websites that reposted it.

Nobody has a complete list of terms blocked in China online in general or on social media specifically. There are some classic standards such as “free Tibet” and “Taiwan independence,” but the list apparently keeps growing. Speaking only of this year, during the Arab Spring, “jasmine flower” was added to the list, and after Occupy Wall Street started this fall, for a certain time, “Occupy Wall Street” was also blocked. And only a couple of months later, these blocked terms have two new members.

I wouldn’t say that the government has tender nerves. After all, this year is the year of protest, and China is not entirely a country that’s short of things worth protesting.