Zhang Hongbao in Blast Furnace

---- A documentary on how the outstanding spiritual leader transformed to a political leader


Back to Index >>

An Analysis of the Fabrications

Deployed in Jiang Zemin’s Calumny Campaign against Zhang Hongbao

Jie Dongyang

 

 

It is Jiang Zemin’s usual practice to throw the dissidents into prison and, if they have survived their incarceration, to cast them out of China and use whatever excuses to make them stay abroad in exile. Jiang’s treatment of Zhang Hongbao, however, seems to be a conspicuous anomaly in China’s political scene. Jiang has been quite adamant in his relentless hunt for Zhang Hongbao, even after Zhang arrived in the United States. Working towards Zhang’s eventual extradition back to China, Jiang’s regime has tried every possible means to prevent the U.S. government from granting Zhang political asylum.

 

What are the excuses Jiang has deployed in this infamous calumny campaign? First, he said that Zhang Hongbao was a perpetrator of “sex crimes”; nine months later, there came another pretext: this time, Zhang was accused of being a “murderer” and someone who had “trained terrorist organizations.” It is really a pity that the so-called “evidence” the Chinese government has presented to back up its charges against Zhang Hongbao has easily crumbled away under serious legal scrutiny and proven to be ludicrous to anyone with common sense. Any person with some analytical ability should be able to conclude that what Jiang’s regime has managed to come up with is obviously spurious evidence. A U.S. attorney has offered an accurate assessment of the “evidence”: “The materials is of zero investigative value.”

 

The first batch of false evidence Jiang’s region manufactured was publicised in July, 2000, at a crucial moment for the deliberations conducted by the judge of the U.S. Immigration Court in Guam on granting Zhang Hongbao political asylum. In their letter to the U.S. Immigration Court in Guam, the Chinese government alleged that Zhang Hongbao was “a criminal who committed sex crimes” against 20 victims. Pressing with these kinds of charges of an atrocious nature, the Chinese regime has attempted to prevent the judge from granting political asylum to Zhang Hongbao.

 

But it took more than two months, and after repeated urges from the judge, for the Chinese government to provide the Court with four concocted “evidences.” In order to get an upper hand in this case, that is, to establish a fait accompli by imposing a conviction upon Zhang Hongbao through the news media, the Chinese government chose to ignore the judicial procedure and unilaterally publicized the “evidences” to the media. By this time, they could only come up with 3 “evidences.” According to these few “evidences,” the alleged “incidents” occurred in the period between 1990 and 1994. One thing that makes it so hard for people to give credit to these so-called “evidences” is the fact that it was 5 to 10 years after the alleged crimes, and after the Chinese government’s all-out crackdown on the Zhonggong organizations, that the investigators working for the Chinese government almost simultaneously, , in a 40-day period between October 24 and December 3, 1999, “received the allegations.”

 

Among the supplementary documents that accompany the “evidences,” the arrest warrant issued by the Public Safety Bureau of Beijing Municipality was signed on June 7, 2000, and the arrest warrant issued by the Public Safety Bureau of Pucheng County, Shanxi Province, was signed on July 25, 2000. In other words, Jiang’s government officials apparently manufactured hastily those so-called “evidences” only after they had launched its comprehensive crackdown on the Zhonggong organizations, after they had become aware that Zhang Hongbao had arrived in the United States, and after they had come to know that the U.S. Immigration Court had agreed to and was about to legalize Zhang’s political asylum. Here lies the political reason that underscored the Chinese government’s intention in pressing with criminal allegations against Zhang Hongbao.

 

Understandably, to run a race against time in its attempt to impede the U.S. Immigration Court’s granting political asylum to Zhang, the Chinese government could only manage to produce some poor and shoddy “evidences.”

 

Zhang X, One of “the victims involved,” only wrote 7 lines of “testimony,” which barely filled out a half page, while the “testimony” produced by the government investigators was as long as 65 lines, occupying two and half pages. Who on earth, one may wonder, is the so-called “plaintiff”? And what is the origin of the content of the “testimony”? Furthermore, in the fabricated testimony, Zhang’s “detailed physical characteristics” are not only rendered in extremely lewd terms, but also totally incompatible with basic facts. For instance, according to a statement in the “testimony” given by Zhang X, a “victim,” “Zhang Hongbao has a dark complexion.” This is totally contradictory to the fact, for people who have seen Zhang Hongbao share a common impression that he is relatively light in complexion among the Asians. This obvious falsehood only serves to demonstrate that the fabricators have never seen Zhang Hongbao in person, and that they are awkward, clumsy manufacturers.

 

Liao XX, another so-called “victim,” alleged that she had been violated against in January 1991, at the age of 17. The manufacturers of this fabrication intended to focus people’s attention on the girl’s status as a teenager. But the premises where, according to Liao XX’s testimony, the alleged crime took place, were purchased from the farmers by a Zhonggong institution eight months after the time of the alleged “crime” as specified in the testimonies. In fact, Liao herself was enrolled in that Zhonggong school eight months after the alleged “crime” took place. Clearly, this “sexual attack” took place at a non-existent location and in a preposterously erroneous time sequence.

 

According to both the testimony of the third “victim,” Zhang XX and the investigators’ testimony, Zhang XX was born in 1935. The photocopy of Zhang XX’s Resident Identification Card provided by the Chinese government, however, clearly indicates that Zhang was born in 1939, four years later. It is hard to believe that Zhang XX could have forgotten her date of birth. Then who manufactured the “testimony”? It is apparently the Chinese government officials who deliberately changed Zhang XX’s date of birth to make her age reach 65 -- the age for retirement in the United States, in their attempt to reinforce their allegation that Zhang Hongbao “persecuted old people,” to make Zhang Hongbao’s “crimes” appear more hideous. But the fabricators of the “crime” obviously made an egregious error, which gave them a slap on the face because of the unconformity with the tale-telling copy of the Identification Card they had attached. Furthermore, as Zhang XX had worked in that Zhonggong institution for more than ten years, people may wonder why she had never reported the “incident” to the police before, and why her “testimony” only came after the Zhonggong institution had been shut down by the government officials and many staff members had been put in prison? The investigators claimed that they had prepared the evidence after “thorough investigations and interrogations of the victim and the witnesses,” but this file includes no testimony from any other witness or any physical evidence, nothing but the transcription of the alleged victim’s verbal testimony. Furthermore, the investigation was conducted and concluded on the same day when this very testimony was taken. Apparently, these so-called “testimonies” were hastily improvised!

 

The “victims” identified in the first batch of evidences provided by Jiang’s regime are, by design, either old, sick, or weak. Their vulnerability was intended to underscore the atrocity of Zhang Hongbao’s “crimes.” According to the testimonies, however, Zhang Hongbao committed these “crimes” as part of his traditional Chinese medical practice of “Yin Yang Implementation.” It is a common knowledge that “Yin Yang Implementation” requires more healthy and robust girls as partners, instead of old, sick, or weak women. Besides, Zhonggong practitioners should try best to avoid contacts with any disease. It is extremely unlikely that, with his 38 million followers, Zhang Hongbao could have chosen to seek those old, week and sick women as his partners.

 

Obviously, the manufacturers of these false evidences made a simple but common error: in concocting “atrocious” stories, they forgot to “tuck away” those tale-telling tails!

 

The second batch of the so-called evidences was publicized through the news media in January 2001, when the lawsuit on Zhang Hongbao’s “physical protection” had entered an important phase of legal prodecure.

 

At 1:36 p.m. on January 20, North America Free Forum carried a piece of news under the title “A Chinese Officer Provided New Evidential Material to Our Correspondents,” but without showing any correspondent’s name. Soon after, this batch of false evidence showed up on the web page of the Chinese Embassy to the United States.

 

Analogous to their maneuverings before the U.S. Immigration Court in Hawaii announced its decision on September 20, 2000, the second batch of false evidence provided by Jiang’s government served the same purpose: to mislead the public opinion through the news media, to impose a pre-conviction on Zhang Hongbao as an attempt to achieve a fait accompli, and to impede the materialization of the court decision of “physical protection.”

 

On the news and announcement bulletin board at the Chinese Embassy to the United States, a public announcement issued by Beijing Public Safety Bureau stated that the bureau intended to keep the public informed about some legal documents related to Zhang Hongbao’s case. These fabricated evidences do not possess some very basic elements essential to any valid legal evidence.

 

In her complaint letter, Zhou XX from Chongqing City, one of the “victims,” gave a detailed description of the incident itself, but in reference to both the time and location of the incident, she simply put a note: “cannot recall the specific time” or “the name of the restaurant.”

 

This is a blatant attempt to obscure the time and location, two essential factors in any criminal evidence. How could the “victim” as a middle-aged woman fail to remember the time and location of an event that, if it had really happened to her, must have left an indelible impression in her mind? The Chinese government may have resorted to this new approach in order to avoid the inevitable embarrassment resulting from the easy dismissal of the first batch of spurious evidences, because the time and locations specified in the first batch of fabricated evidences had made them vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. This new approach adopted by the Chinese government was characterized with a blurring of the time and location, two essential elements that constitute the validity of any legal evidence; consequently, this new approach deprived the fabricated evidence of the two elements, time and location, upon which its credibility has to be built upon.

 

Another “victim,” Xu XX from Xinjiang, was able to produce only a single page in the form of a “letter of petition,” written in a style resembling the rhetorical acrimony prevalent during “the Cultural Revolution.” Again, this letter does not provide any specifics about the time, location, and details of the event.

 

If this type of evidence could serve as the foundation of a conviction, then there would be no reason for enacting the laws regulating the acceptability of criminal evidence; it would be impossible for the judiciary system to function with credibility, and the fabricators of spurious evidence would be even more reckless and unbridled, resulting in rampant persecutions of the innocent.

 

According to the spurious evidence displayed on the Chinese government’s website, the third “victim,” Wang XX, a native of Shanxi Providence, alleged that Zhang Hongbao had raped her in April, 1998. But people will be utterly surprised if they know that, after this alleged rape, in the August of that same year, upon Zhang Hongbao’s approval, Wang was selected to attend the law school of The United University of Sichuan as a sponsored student, enrolled in a MA program in the major of criminal procedure law. If what the Chinese government claimed on its website were indeed true, how could we digest the fact that, after raping her, Zhang Hongbao chose to send her to specialize in law, to learn the judicial procedure about how to bring murderers and rapists to justice? Should we conclude that by sending her to school, Zhang Hongbao expected her to complete her academic career and come back to prosecute himself? Is there anything in the world that is more preposterous? But there is something more difficult to comprehend. In the next year, or more precisely, during the school’s winter break in late January 1999, this so-called “victim” went abroad to visit her respected master Zhang Hongbao, deeply regretted that she was unable to see him on that trip, and left Zhang some presents in care of a friend. Repeatedly, Wang told that friend to convey her greetings and gratitude to her respected master. How could we make sense of this enigma?

 

According to the Chinese government, in early January 2000, these three so-called “victims,” living respectively in three different provinces of Chongqing, Xinjiang, and Shanxi, simultaneously received the news that Zhang Hongbao was planning on a long-term residency abroad (i.e. in the United States). Zhang Hongbao, however, had not arrived in Guam until January 29 of that year. Obviously, in the accuracy of time sequence, the fabricators again made an inexcusable blunder! For it was half a year later, on July 29, that the news of Zhang’s arrival in the United States was made public through the news media. Thus, how could these “victims” have been able to get the information that Zhang Hongbao was planning on a long-term residency abroad? Once again, in the respect of timing, the organizers of the fabrication unwittingly revealed their “tails.”

 

According to the fabricated evidence provided by Jiang’s regime, the three so-called “victims” were violated against respectively in 1995, 1996, and 1998, but they all reported their cases almost at the same period of time, in February, March, and April of 2000: two to five years after the alleged incidents and chronically coinciding with the nation-wide, all-out crackdown launched by the Chinese government against the key members of Zhonggong organizations. And these three so-called “victims” happened to be missing during the period when the Chinese government was hunting down important Zhonggong members. As we are well aware of the fact that the Chinese government have never had any scruples in deploying seduction, coercion, and torture to get what they want, we are probably putting our fingers on the right spot here: the Chinese government must be playing the old tricks again. In this respect, we must concede that the communist regime has carried on a long tradition and enjoys rich experience.

 

Jiang regime’s third batch of spurious evidences was released on April 17, 2001, the third day after Zhang Hongbao’s release from prison by the U.S. government. This batch of fabrications was indeed unparalleled in its audacity and absurdity. This time, the Chinese government bypassed the topic of “sex crimes” that had already been dismissed by the U.S. judiciary authority; instead, they came up with materials intended to implicate Zhang Hongbao as a “murderer” and someone who “trained terrorist organizations.” Among the documents there was a forged letter, allegedly in Zhang’s handwriting and written by Zhang Hongbao himself to People’s Daily, in which Zhang appealed to the Chinese government for a crackdown on Zhonggong. Furthermore, this batch of evidential materials was not delivered to the U.S. Immigration Court but publicized through a Beijing correspondent of the Singaporean newspaper Lianhe Zaobao and a Beijing correspondent of the British newspaper Financial Times. These materials were posted repeatedly on all accessible inter-net sites and sent to major world news agencies and the U.S. police system. Some Chinese government official even threatened that “Zhang Hongbao will be executed once he is extradited back to China.”

 

The problem is, despite the atrocious nature of its content, this batch of evidential materials has even less chance of withstanding a scrutiny.

 

First of all, in the materials that are supposed to back up the accusation that Zhang Honbao is a “murderer,” it is claimed that Zhang killed Ma Fude who once worked in a Zhonggong organization. This allegation is based upon one single evidence: a mistress of Ma’s “suspected that Zhang Honbao was involved in Ma Fude’s death.” Actually, when Ma Fude was having an affair with this mistress, the latter’s husband was in prison, and Ma Fude’s murder took place soon after his mistress’s husband was released from prison. Blaming Ma’s death on Zhang Hongbao without the support of any witness or a shred of physical evidence constitutes an act of libel.

 

In a more desperate attempt to mislead the innocent, peace-loving people around the world, the Chinese government claimed that Zhang Hongbao “trained terrorist organizations” and supported this claim by releasing a document entitled “Zhang Hongbao Directed Dai XX in Drafting a Terrorists Training Program.” After a perusal of this document, one may get the impression that it is definitely something prepared by professionals. It is very likely some course syllabus of a professional training program of the Chinese police or some national security departments. The few clauses relating to Zhonggong were obviously added at random. What is more, this “training program” does not include any reference to specific training sessions, locations of training, training officers, lists of trainees, or any testimonies or confessions from trainees. Of course, for the Chinese police departments and public security bureaus, these kinds of evidences can be manufactured quite easily, for preparing one such document only requires a slight modification of a training course syllabus.

 

The forgery of Zhang Hongbao’s personal letter to People’s Daily is even cruder in its craftsmanship. At the first sight, it looks like Zhang’s handwriting, but a closer look at the strokes, the incipient and finishing touches, and the wielding of the pen will soon reveal the rigidity of the handwriting. Actually, Zhang Hongbao displays this style of handwriting only in signatures, blackboard writing, or inscriptions. The content of the letter, in particular, is full of nonsense. First of all, as a letter written by Zhang Hongbao to People’s Daily, it does not adhere to the format of a regular letter; instead, it is entitled: “A briefing on the Situation.” In view of the fact that Zhang once worked as a secretary at Heihe Goldmine Bureau of the Metallurgy Ministry and attended college, it is hard to understand how he could be ignorant of the proper letter format. Secondly, according to this “personal letter,” Zhang retired in January 1990 to live at a Taoist temple in Qingchengshan of Sichuan Province. As a matter of fact, the Qingchengshan International Institute of Life Sciences, an institution founded by Zhang Hongbao himself, happened to be located on a hill at the back of Qichengshan. For what reason, then, did Zhang Hongbao choose to live in a Taoist temple and not in his own institution just next to the temple? Thirdly, as stated in the “personal letter,” after Zhang Hongbao retired, Yan Qingxin and some others refused to follow his directions. The fact is, as Zhang Hongbao’s assistant, Yan Qingxin never left his working position and always worked diligently beside Zhang. He even accompanied Zhang on his trip to the United States to seek moral support and has been granted political asylum by the U.S. government. In what sense, then, was Yan a refractory subordinate who refused to obey orders? Fourthly, the clumsiest part of this forged letter is associated with the assertion that Zhang Hongbao appealed to the government for a crackdown on Zhonggong, but the letter was signed on July 23, 1999. It is precisely during that period that Zhang Hongbao was personally directing a nation-wide “Yuandun Dafa” cultivation campaign, as an unprecedented “super-scale grand experiment on life sciences” involving more than 10,000 people, in preparation for the next phase of the movement called “the Ultra-Transmitting Fission Development Project” of a “terrestrial heat model,” as well as the project of training Zhonggong key members. What is more, in August 1999, in a heroic struggle against the government’s persecution and repression, Zhang Hongbao successfully orchestrated the “99.8 National Campaign,” an act that impacted the whole country. Is there any reasonable ground for anyone to assume that Zhang Hongbao, during this period, would have chosen to appeal to the government for a crackdown on Zhonggong?

 

Of course, there is a well-calculated, insidious purpose behind the forgery of this letter. To associate Zhang Hongbao with “sex crimes” and depict him as a “murderer” is to label him as a hideous criminal. It is an attempt to place Zhang on a path of no return. To forge such a letter is to smear Zhang’s reputation in the minds of 38 million Zhonggong members, to destroy and erase Zhang’s image in these people’s hearts, to make them eventually abandon and denounce Zhang Hongbao as a leader. In other words, the purpose is to debilitate Zhang Hongbao even if he stays alive, to make him lose his power as a charismatic central figure to unify the Zhonggong organization and Zhonggong members as a coherent whole. Some statements made by Chinese government official in certain public occasions may serve as elucidating notes to this insidious intention. They have repeatedly claimed that their attempt to get hold of Zhang Hongbao has nothing to do with Zhonggong organizations and Zhonggong members, for Zhang is only a criminal.” However, the evidence provided by the Chinese government to back up their accusation of Zhang Hongbao as a “rapist,” “murderer,” and “trainer of terrorist organizations” is contradictory to those statements.

 

But what on earth motivated Jiang’s regime to disregard China’s national dignity and reputation, to resort to fabrications and forgeries in order to deceive the U.S. judiciary circles and to misguide world opinion, in a desperate attempt to destroy and erase Zhang Hongbao as an individual? The answer to this puzzle can probably be found in some publicized documents relating to Zhonggong and Zhang Hongbao.

Zhang Hongbao is, first of all, a learned and creative scholar. His field of knowledge touches upon numerous subjects and areas, such as politics, public administration, economics, law, philosophy, comparative cultural studies, comparative religious studies, military strategies, modern business administration, and Chinese theories of leadership, as well as the Chinese language, medicine, Qigong, psychology, agriculture, industry (ore dressing). He is particularly interested in traditional Chinese culture and has applied modern science to his far-reaching researches on various facets of traditional Chinese cultures, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, traditional medicine, and martial arts. On this foundation of synthesizing modern science and traditional Chinese culture, he gradually established his own worldview and methodology in regard to the laws of universe and initiated the unique Qilin Culture. He published more than 20 works and was included in 1999 in Who’s Who (China volume).

 

Zhang Hongbao is also a highly accomplished entrepreneur. As a pioneer in the establishment of health preservation enterprises, Zhang provided effective leadership for the Qilin Group Companies, which had more than 10,000 employees and created more than 100,000 adjacent working positions for the surrounding areas. Among the private enterprises of the size of more than 10,000 employees, the Qilin Group Company was the first to reach the benchmark of “moderate economic well-being,” enabling nearly 400,000 employees and their family member to lead moderately comfortable lives. Up till the end of June 1999, in the first half of that year, the corporation paid to the government almost 30 million RMB in taxes, and donated more than 30,505,000 RMB to large-scale nationally organized events and to areas affected by natural disasters. Zhang Hongbao was therefore upheld as “an outstanding public figure from Sichuan.”

 

Zhang Hongbao is also, and not less importantly, a scholar of great attainments in the study of health preservation. Through his own practice as well as scholastic researches, he effectively synthesized the traditional techniques of health preservation from various sources of Chinese culture, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, herbal medicine and martial arts, and successfully transmuted these techniques from something profound and recondite to something common and easily understandable. He managed to extract the truly effective and practical from the useless and obsolete, and made these techniques available for ordinary men and women, old and young, the sick and the healthy. When people choose to practice the Zhonggong techniques Zhang complied, they usually start to benefit from these techniques in a short period of time. This is one of the major reasons why Zhonggong came to be accepted, enjoyed, and became immensely popular among the Chinese people within a very short period of time. As an expert in health preservation, Zhang Hongbao himself is highly proficient in health cultivation techniques. So it is not surprising, after all, that everybody who has met Zhang was amazed to find him look almost 20 years younger than his actual age. In April 1999, he began promoting “Yuandun Dafa,” a revolutionary qigong program that exerted quite an impact upon the qigong circles and the life science field, providing a key to the mysterious door of chronobiology. Zhonggong, a qigong approach that he initiated, was upheld by professionals and peers as an outstanding methodology. Zhang himself was selected to receive the honor as “an outstanding founder of a new qigong technique.” Zhang was also invited to serve as the chief council in qigong or senior advisor to various institutions, such as China’s Supreme Court, public security facilities, Beijing University, Qinghua University, Central Party Academy, China Academy of Science and China Academy Social Science.

 

Moreover, Zhang Hongbao is a sociologist. Within the Zhonggong organization, he has worked hard to promote the social philosophy of “everyone is the same in human dignity; everyone is different in social function.” This important principle in maintaining order and stability should be followed by families, social units, and societies of different types and structures. He has also encouraged Zhonggong members to observe the conduct codes called “eight moralities and eight concepts.” Even Chinese government, party, and military officials conceded that, if people could regulate their social lives in accordance with these conduct codes, China would have a much improved social morale.

 

Finally, Zhang Hongbao is a distinguished philosopher. The Qilin philosophy that he founded is actually a critique of Marxist philosophy. He gave counterevidence to refute the Marxist theory of communism as a utopian and unrealistic project and went on to employ the theory of “inhibition and generation” as a philosophical basis for his depiction of the general historical trend that the unstable structure of totalitarian dictatorship will eventually end in decay and total collapse.

 

Like a beacon on the top of a hill, Zhang Hongbao is able to uphold his lofty ideals when he is actively engaged in social life; like a mountain stream quietly surging underground, Zhang is able to reserve his energy when he has withdrawn himself from the public scene. When he makes advances, he releases his power like thunderbolts; when he goes on defense, he conserves his strength and store up his energy like a deep mountain lake. His knowledge, achievements and moral integrity, his humanitarian cosmic view and profound insight into the mystery of human life, together with his personal charisma derived from his ethical niceties and moral pursuit, constitute the core of his identity as a spiritual leader with great esteem and millions of followers.

 

Viewing Zhang Hongbao as a Hong Xiuquan or Sun Yet-san type of political figure who tends to threatens the status quo, Jiang’s regime is apprehensive that if this heavy-weight pubic figure resumes his leading position and appeals to a domestic public already disgusted with a corrupted government, Jiang’s totalitarian dictatorship will be brought to a dishonorable end. And this is the fundamental reason why Jiang Zemin’s government has tried every means to carry out its calumny campaign against Zhang Hongbao.

 

Back to Index >>

  Print this article