Ｃｏｍｅ　Ｓｅｅ，Ｃｏｍｅ　Ｓｕｅ:Come and See

　　‘Legal warrior’ Hao Jinsong tries to show people how to make life better by challenging authority through the law
　　
　　“One citizen as an individual, however weak he may seem, can change some unfair and illegal rules depending on how hard this individual tries.” --Hao Jinsong
　　 On October 19, 1752, Benjamin Franklin conducted probably the most famous experiment with lightning by flying a kite into a storm cloud and letting the negative charge travel through the kite, kite string, a key tied to the kite string and a Leyden jar attached to the key. Consciously risking his own life, Franklin wanted to show the public his revolutionary finding that lightning was actually static electricity.
　　Hao Jinsong, a 34-year-old law school student at the China University of Political Science and Law, is doing a social experiment no less significant than Franklin’s. By taking government branches and state-owned industries to court over the past two years, he thinks he is showing the public that the law can be used to effectively protect citizens’ rights.
　　A self-proclaimed winner
　　Hao can be called a legal warrior, since he displays the penetrating eloquence of a lawyer and the relentless vigor of a fighter.
　　“I find in this country many people have weak confidence in the authority of the law and thus don’t use the law to protect themselves; but if people don’t use the law it will become even weaker, which will trigger a vicious circle,” Hao said. “I want to reverse such a conception and instill the idea that one citizen as an individual, however weak he may seem, can change some unfair and illegal rules depending on how hard this individual tries. When everyone else thinks it is impossible, the courage to try is particularly precious.”
　　Hao has been faithfully implementing this philosophy of life. Since August 2004, he has filed eight lawsuits against railway authorities (one was rejected by the court), one against the State Administration of Taxation (rejected by the court) and one against the taxation administration of Beijing’s Dongcheng District. In court, as the plaintiff, Hao questioned the lack of tax receipts for customers using toilets in Beijing’s subways and making purchases on all trains in the country, and argued against the Ministry of Railways for raising railway ticket prices during the Spring Festival without holding public hearings.
　　Asked why his lawsuits are all targeted at the railway department and all tax-related, Hao said the reason is that the railway department is a “formidable enemy” and tax issues concern everyone’s interests. “The railway system in China is one of the biggest monopoly sectors and it even has its own police, court and attorney’s office. By defeating such a giant, I can maximize public attention and symbolic meaning,” he said. Hao explained that he only thought about the significance of protecting the nation’s taxation system later. The absence of tax receipts means the railway sector doesn’t have to pay taxes for onboard retailing.
　　Although Hao has won only two lawsuits out of the eight cases accepted by courts-he is waiting for rulings in two lawsuits-he considers himself a winner, perhaps in the quixotic way of letting optimism trump reality. “Every time I sit in court across from the defendant of a government ministry and argue ferociously for the public interest, I am already a winner,” said Hao.
　　However, Hao’s action has already had national repercussions. Although he only won one of his five lawsuits involving tax receipts on trains, the State Administration of Taxation and the Ministry of Railways jointly issued a circular this year stipulating that starting from March passengers should be provided with tax receipts printed by the tax authorities for any food purchased on a train.
　　“This is the way dripping water wears through rock,” Hao said with a grin. “I have shown people that they have to land successive blows on an unfair system before it collapses.”
　　Hao has already earned himself national fame as a “troublemaker.” Doing a Google search of Hao Jinsong’s name in Chinese characters produces 29,000 entries, including a bylined article, his personal profile and an editorial on his action in People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party.
　　Although he has filed all the lawsuits in his own name as a consumer, their public-interest nature has been widely acknowledged. At the end of last year, his litigation over railway taxation receipts was ranked as one of the 10 most significant lawsuits of the year by www.省略, a website of the Supreme Court. In citing the reasons for his nomination, Hao was praised for “his resolve in fighting social injustices and safeguarding rights through the law.” In another survey sponsored by Beijing-based Legal Daily and the All China Lawyers Association, the same lawsuit was ranked among the top 10 influential lawsuits in China in 2005.
　　Opposing views
　　Despite the encouraging attitude of the judicial system and media, some people in the legal field take a dim view of his actions. Yang Tao, a staff member of the prosecutor’s office of Ganzhou in central Jiangxi Province, wrote an editorial in March 2005 questioning the meaning of initiating litigation for tiny compensation (at that time, the largest amount Hao sought was 100 yuan.) The article said that if Hao’s example were copied infinitely in the country, China’s overloaded judicial system would be bombarded and paralyzed by such cases.
　　Wu Ge, Director of the Constitution and Human Rights Committee of the All China Lawyers Association, told Beijing Review that Hao’s moves have evolved into legal activism that has a mostly symbolic meaning and very little practical value. But Wu also said he admires Hao’s courage in fighting against unfair systems as an individual.
　　Zhou Ze, an associate law professor at the China Youth University of Political Sciences, holds the view that Hao’s experiences are not replicable since very few people can afford the time and energy to fight for nominal compensation. “It is unrealistic to place too much expectation on public litigation and it is obvious that the oft-charged monopoly sectors have done little to reverse their course and improve their services,” he told Beijing Review.
　　Zhou, who formerly was a legal reporter, understood the role of the media in the process of public interest litigation differently from Hao. While Hao believes the intensive reporting about these lawsuits is an important-if not the only-way to combine the forces of the media and the law to push society forward, Zhou holds that too much praise by the media has misled citizens into thinking that it is unconditionally worthwhile to litigate for “self-esteem” and to demonstrate their legal awareness. Zhou said that under such circumstances, the media are doing nothing but kicking up a fuss.
　　Still other people accuse Hao of merely pursuing personal fame. But he is quite forgiving of such criticism and to some extent pleased by it. “By making their judgment after reading reports, at least they have been thinking, and thinking is what we need most for the time being,” he said. He added that he views these critics as much better than people who are indifferent about society, those who read the newspaper only for the sports news. “Citizens’ rights are quietly lost through this kind of numbness,” he said.
　　
　　An odyssey continues
　　
　　After filing 10 public-interest lawsuits and failing most of the time, Hao is clearly aware of the barriers: imperfect legislation, lack of an independent legal system and judges who can work creatively.
　　Of all these factors, Hao singled out an independent judicial system as the most essential one. “Without an independent judicial system, the law can be used as an umbrella for government malfeasance and the criminal activities of special interest groups,” he said. That is why he even enjoys the experience of losing in court, which, according to him, can stimulate thinking on the part of the public and expose more flaws in the current systems.
　　For example, Hao must file lawsuits against the railway authorities in the Railway Court system, whose neutrality in these cases he doubts. “How can such courts issue a verdict in my favor if they have to rely on the railway industry for every penny of their expenses?” he asked. After losing his second lawsuit on train tax receipts, Hao delivered a proposal to the National People’s Congress to dismantle the Railway Court system.
　　Meanwhile, Hao is not fighting alone. He gathered together several like-minded intellectuals and founded the Hao Jinsong Public Interest Research Center this year. He said since his center has four full-time lawyers, the next step is to provide legal aid for the disadvantaged in select cases. Another initiative for the center is to conduct surveys and investigations and write books on public-interest matters. Hao said the center has already finished one book, entitled Public Interest Litigation and Civil Society, and plans to release it soon. “I intend to translate the book into foreign languages and let the international community reverse the stereotype of Chinese people being indifferent to public interests and get to know that a large group of Chinese citizens are pushing for partial reform of the country.”
　　When asked whether he will continue to pursue litigation, he snapped, “Yes, of course. My appearance is in line with the government’s goal of building a society of the rule of law, so the government will be supportive whether I sue eight times or 800 times.”
　　Another reason Hao said he will not stop soon is that he sees more and more people are joining him in public interest litigation. He said he was very pleased to read that a student at his university sued Beijing’s Municipal Administration & Communica-tions Card Co. Ltd. for charging 10 million customers of its super pass cards a 20 yuan deposit per card, five times the cost.
　　Having majored in analytical chemistry in university, Hao worked as an accountant at a local branch of a state-owned bank-a job he deemed pretty repetitive and boring-for eight years before being admitted to the law school of the China University of Political Science and Law. He gained his knowledge and understanding of the law from reading a large number of books and periodicals in his spare time when he worked for the bank. “Compared with other trades, a career in law can really make a difference,” Hao said.
　　He said his icon was Zhang Sizhi, a renowned public interest lawyer who is still working actively at the age of 80. Hao said, “Zhang Sizhi is the only lawyer in China who can be called a grand lawyer and I admire him for his belief in the spirit of the law.”
　　Hao’s next target is the price increase for postal services instituted in November. “How could the State Postal Bureau and the National Development and Reform Commission do that without holding public hearings first? I will ask for an administrative reconsideration. If that fails, I will sue them,” said the warrior, who is making a charge in battle-probably not the final one.
　　

相关热词搜索：Sue Ｃｏｍｅ　Ｓｅｅ，Ｃｏｍｅ　Ｓｕｅ i missed you i miss you crazina