The August 4th Incident  8.4事件

On August 04, 2020, the discord between Dawu Group (大午集团) and Xushui State Farm (徐水国营农场) came to a head.  The "Minutes of the Public Security Bureau [2020] No. 1 Meeting of Xushui District Public Security Bureau of Baoding Municipality"
and other documents suggest coordination, planning and preparation (behind the scenes between various authorities) for the demolition of the mobile structures and fence on the Dawu property which was to take place at 5:00 am.  The whole scheme resembles entrapment.

The value of the light structure and fence was 18,000 yuan or $US 2843. One might consider the act of demolition to be malicious mischief. No perpetrators were arrested. One might guess the recycling of the scrap was about 200 yuan or $US 32.

Ultimately, the August 4th incident lead to the detention of 7 employees who were tortured under RSDL. Nineteen Dawu employees were formally arrested and then sentenced on serious charges ranging from one to 18 years. The founder--SUN Dawu--received the longest and most harsh prison term.

The incident also led to the complete seizure of Xushui District's second largest employer under the guise of protective stewardship. The business had begun 35 years earlier. It is difficult to say how many employees have been laid off, but some reports suggest the number to be at least 3000.

"Annihilate the Sun Family Business" (歼灭太阳家族企业) is part of The Cultural Revolution 2.0. A multimillion dollar business is annihilated for the equivalent of $US 32 in scrap value. It is similar to "Annihilate the Kong Family Business" (消灭孔氏家族企业) during The Cultural Revolution in 1966 when property was destroyed and "capitalist roaders" were persecuted.    


D. Carlton Rossi
February 23, 2022


https://chinachange.org/2021/07/24/briefing-on-the-seventh-day-of-dawu-trial/

L'image poem of D. Carlton Rossi based on Draconis 11 and 10 and the Big and Little Dippers

Of the evidence presented by the public prosecutors, there was one piece of written evidence of special importance. Lawyer Wang Shihua regarded it as “the eye of the case” (“案眼"), evidence of a “case-critical” nature, and believed that this evidence alone could explain why the well-known entrepreneur Sun Dawu is standing trial today. This evidence is the “Minutes of the Public Security Bureau [2020] No. 1 Meeting of Xushui District Public Security Bureau of Baoding Municipality.” The minutes of the meeting show: On August 3, 2020, the state-owned farm, planning to clear the Dawu Farm’s structures on its own initiative, requested Xushui District PSB to provide police presence to maintain order at the scene. Xushui District PSB decided that the police force would arrive at the demolition site before 5 a.m. on August 4. Yet the manner in which the Baoding Farm requested police protection was no more than a written document submitted to the PSB on August 2, and its main content simply stated that the farm planned to demolish the fencing and mobile houses erected by the Dawu Group on August 4.

Several defense lawyers focused their cross-examination on this piece of evidence. Lawyer Wang Shihua pointed out that the written request of the state-owned farm was not a report of criminal conduct. The illegality of requesting police protection in such a manner, as well as the police force’s intervention in a civil dispute, is obvious. “If I believe I face physical danger while defending a client in court in Gaobeidian today, and I ask the PSB to send policemen to protect me, is that acceptable? Of course not. Because I represent private interests, and the police can only be used to protect public affairs and public power.” In addition, given that the minutes of the PSB meeting and the state farm’s written request were both created before the August 4 incident, “it is a trap set up for Dawu. The case we are going through such lengths trying today is no more than a case involving a civil dispute.”​

https://chinachange.org/2021/07/24/briefing-on-the-seventh-day-of-dawu-trial/

   SUN Dawu's Grandchildren who are minors become
                                       "Legal Orphans
 
Liu Huiru is Sun Dawu's wife, and Zhang Yuan and Ma Xiaochen are Sun Dawu's daughter-in-laws. After Sun Dawu and his wife, two sons, and two daughters-in-law were arrested on November 11, 2020, Sun Dawu's five minor grandchildren became "legal orphans" overnight.​ ​

https://yibaochina.com/?p=242083

The Spring Breeze Is Bound to Cause Ripples: A New Year Statement by The China Human Rights Lawyers Group

China Change

January 1, 2022


In 1925, the 26-year-old poet and political dissident Wen Yiduo (闻一多) wrote in his poem titled “Dead Water”:

Here is a ditch of doomed, dead water
No spring breeze can stir up even half a ripple

On August 31, in Hebei Province, a guilty verdict was handed down following the second trial of the Dawu Group executives. The head of this famed agricultural enterprise, Sun Dawu (孙大午), was sentenced to 18 years in prison on trumped up charges along with nearly all of his family members, and his conglomerate seized by the state.


https://chinachange.org/2021/12/31/the-spring-breeze-is-bound-to-cause-ripples-a-new-year-statement-by-the-china-human-rights-lawyers-group/

L’affaire Sun Dawu : codification des droits réels et microfinance en Chine

Thierry Pairault

Dans Mondes en développement 2004/4 (no 128), pages 25 à 40


"La victoire, morale certes, de Sun Dawu est claire. Pour désarmer les revendications paysannes ainsi que celles des petits entrepreneurs dont Sun Dawu se proclamait le héraut, c’est à William Pitt l’Aîné que recourent nombre de commentateurs chinois pour bien illustrer l’avancée constitutionnelle

Les commentateurs chinois citent ce propos (énoncé en 1763 lors… : "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." Si le patrimoine privé ne peut plus être violé, les paysans n’auront plus, nous enseigne-t-on, à craindre que quelque promoteur immobilier, de connivence avec les autorités, vienne leur soustraire, sans réelle compensation, une terre sur laquelle ils ont un droit d’usage. De même, les petits entrepreneurs n’auront plus à craindre que leur investissement leur soit confisqué, aussi oseront-ils investir plutôt que rechercher des havres incertains pour leurs liquidités oisives ? À supposer que les uns et les autres soient effectivement convaincus qu’ils peuvent plus assurément employer leurs liquidités dans des entreprises privées, toutes les formes d’activités microfinancières devraient connaître un développement dont le gouvernement chinois aura du mal à justifier la contention."


https://doi.org/10.3917/med.128.0025

https://www.cairn.info/revue-mondes-en-developpement-2004-4-page-25.htm

https://www.cairn.info/revue-mondes-en-developpement-2004-4.htm


The victory, moral certainly, of Sun Dawu is clear. To disarm the demands of the peasants as well as those of the small entrepreneurs of whom Sun Dawu proclaimed himself the herald, it is to William Pitt the Elder that many Chinese commentators have recourse to illustrate the constitutional advance.

Chinese commentators quote this statement (stated in 1763 when ...: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. Is there any fear that some real estate developer, in collusion with the authorities, will take away from them, without real compensation, a land on which they have a right of use. Similarly, small entrepreneurs will no longer have to fear that their investment is confiscated from them, so will they dare to invest rather than seek uncertain havens for their idle liquidity? All forms of microfinance activity are expected to experience a development that the Chinese government will find difficult to justify restricting.



Comment  (D. Carlton Rossi)

Avec l'arrestation et la condamnation de Sun Dawu, des salariés et la saisie du groupe Dawu en 2020-2021, ces deux questions posées en 2004 par Thierry Pairault ont désormais trouvé réponse concernant les paysans et les entrepreneurs. Les terres des paysans sur lesquelles ils ont un droit d'usage peuvent être confisquées sans réelle compensation et les investissements des entrepreneurs peuvent leur être confisqués sans réelle confiscation. De plus, les propriétaires et les employés peuvent être emprisonnés pour pratiquement n'importe quelle raison.

With the seizure of Dawu Group in 2020-2021 these two questions posted in 2004 by Thierry Pairault have now been answered concerning confiscation of land and investments of peasants and entrepreneurs respectively. The land of peasants on which they have a right to use can be confiscated without real compensation and investments of entrepreneurs can be confiscated from them without real compensation. In addition, owners and employees themselves can be imprisoned for long terms for practically any reason. The Chinese idiom 欲加之罪何患無辭 is applicable. It means, “He who has a mind to beat his dog will easily find a stick.”

January 1, 2022

人身和财产权   Person and Property Rights

Land Dispute 1963


孙大午：你想做个干净的人，你就做不成
原作者：编辑： Yve -
来源：中国数字时代
2020年12月7日 

1.恐怖的大抓捕


南方周末采访的匿名人士称，警方通报中的“破坏生产经营”，源自于孙大午所在的郎五庄村与徐水国营农场的土地纠纷。1963年，郎五庄村曾将740亩土地交由徐水国营农场耕种。实际上，后者占用的土地超过2000亩。为了土地确权，双方数年争执不下。后来，郎五庄村把土地租给了大午种植业公司。今年6月21日和8月4日，大午集团人员与徐水国营农场人员先后发生了两次冲突。第二次冲突中，徐水区公安介入，并与大午集团员工发生肢体冲突，大午集团 20多名员工因此受伤，39名员工被抓。

https://www.ipkmedia.com

Sun Dawu: If you want to be a clean person, you can't do it

​
Author: Edit: Yve -
Source: China Digital Age
December 7, 2020
 
1. The Great Catch of Terror

An anonymous person interviewed by Southern Weekend said that the "disruption of production and operation" in the police report originated from a land dispute between Langwuzhuang Village, where Sun Dawu is located, and Xushui State Farm. In 1963, Langwuzhuang Village once handed over 740 acres of land to Xushui State Farm for cultivation. In fact, the latter occupies more than 2,000 mu of land. In order to confirm the land rights, the two sides have been arguing for several years. Later, Langwuzhuang Village leased the land to Dawu Plantation Company. On June 21 and August 4 this year, Dawu Group personnel and Xushui State Farm personnel clashed twice. In the second conflict, the Xushui District Public Security Bureau intervened and had a physical conflict with Dawu Group employees. More than 20 employees of Dawu Group were injured and 39 employees were arrested.

According to a report by VOA, Sun Dawu said in an interview later that the police clearly favored the Xushui State-owned Farm, "it was deemed that they belonged to the state, but in fact they were a group for personal gain in the name of the state."


* Mou, Chinese unit of land measurement that varies with location but is commonly 806.65 square yards (0.165 acre, or 666.5 square metres). 



Comment

The central issue between Xushui State Farm and Dawu Group is a land dispute. There are thousands of land disputes throughout China every year. In most cases, they result in confiscation of the land at some point. Social unrest is created in the process. 

The fact is that this particular land dispute began in 1963 or 58 years ago. The issue is not so much what happened in two incidents referred to as “6.21事件”and 和“8.4事件” in 2020 at a village in Langwuzhuang leading to eight charges against only one side in the dispute. Two questions should be asked. Why has the government not developed a satisfactory mechanism in 58 years to resolve disputes like these? Why hasn't the law been adequately reformed to avoid disputes? 





China grants some property rights

Newly assertive condo owners win concessions, but rural landholders are still at the mercy of corrupt officials.

Los Angeles Times


March 16, 2007|Mark Magnier | Times Staff Writer



By Chinese standards, the lawmaking process was relatively open. Most laws in China are written by officials or senior Communist Party cadres behind closed doors. But about 14,000 suggestions were considered during the drafting of the property measure, which took almost a decade, including a two-year delay after a prominent critic labeled it unconstitutional.

"With each debate, we saw progress," said Jiang Ping, head of the drafting team and a law professor at Beijing's China University of Political Science and Law. "At times, it's been hard to find common ground with all these viewpoints."

Several of the eight drafts were not made public, and much of the latter-stage maneuvering was done in secret. Furthermore, some critics say, a basic assumption behind the law is that an omniscient government grants privileges to its citizens, not that they have rights. Though the law extends and better defines use rights, land is still owned by the state or local cooperatives acting on its behalf.

Still, Sun Dawu, founder of a poultry and animal feed conglomerate south of Beijing in Hebei province, said passage of the law would be a step forward.

"Having a law that protects everyone's rights, rich and poor, is progress," Sun said at his complex of hatcheries, grain fields, vineyards, a school and a temple to Confucius, his hero.

"At the same time, we still can't put undue trust in any law until we get a healthy judiciary and more rigorous legal tradition," said the entrepreneur, who was jailed for eight months in 2003 for competing against state-owned banks.

Among the reasons it took so long to draft the law are popular concern about the gap between rich and poor and a widespread perception that wealth is closely linked with corruption.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/16/world/fg-property16 


    
    
孙大午：谈谈法人财产权的保护 [该日志已被收录

2016-11-17 18:19 阅读(633)评论(0)


亦忱按：2016年11月14日至15日，位于河北省保定市徐水区的大午集团，邀请了一批国内的经济学家和法学家，在大午集团商务中心会议室，搞了一次《私营企业产权传承与治理研讨会》。在会议期间，大午集团监事长孙大午先生专题就“法人财产权的保护”问题，作了个主题发言，并回应了一些与会的经济学和法学领域学者的质疑和提问。

这个孙大午先生的演讲稿，是会议的记录稿，事后经孙大午先生审定。现全文发布，谨供凯迪网友分享。

（亦忱于2016年11月15日于保定·大午集团）

图为参加研讨会的部分嘉宾与孙大午合影于大午小学门前

（从左至右依次为谢作诗、亦忱、孙大午、赵牧、雪珥）

以下为孙大午主题发言全文：

我觉得要提法人财产的保护，需要从两个方面讲起，一个是政府方面的保护，一个是我们自己的保护。
从民法通则上可以知道，法人是具有民事权利和民事行为能力，依法享有民事权利，承担民事义务的组织。法人在我们国家分为四种，企业法人、机关法人、事业法人和社会团体法人。在定义上，法律说的很清楚，这四种法人是平等的民事主体。

我们在立法上，在司法解释上，法人是平等的民事主体。虽然这么定了，但在操作过程中远不是这么回事。比如说吴英和曾成杰，他们被抓起来以后，他们的法人就被消灭了。

按道理说，曾成杰、和吴英都是企业法人的法定代表人，而法定代表人是可以指定法人代表的。比如说我是大午集团这个企业的法定代表人，如果我被抓了，那我可以指定我的儿子作为法人代表，代替我行使职权。也就是说，法定代表人可以被抓，但法人组织不能被消灭。但在实践中，企业法人，特别是民营企业法人，几乎是不存在的。只要法定代表人一抓，这个法人组织几乎就没有了。政府会把法人财产封了，把银行账号封了，企业被接管，甚至遣散、拍卖。处置这样的问题时，政府或公安机关既不走法定代表人的更换程序，也不走破产程序，而是直接消灭企业法人这个组织。

机关法人、事业法人或社会团体法人也是这样吗？不是。比如说天津，天津市的市长、副市长、公安局长都被抓了，但天津市政府没有解散，新的官员来了以后，这个机关法人照样运作。国有的医院、学校，都是事业法人，这些法人不会因为医院院长或者学校校长出了问题，就把一个医院或学校灭掉。这难道是平等的吗？

民营企业的法人地位得不到保障。特别需要强调的是，法人犯罪不是自然人犯罪，如果是自然人犯罪，我们把他抓了，可以没收他的个人财产；法人是一个团体，是一个组织，而法人的利益，也就是法人财产权的概念很宽泛，所以处理法人犯罪时，要特别注意对法人财产权的保护。

法人财产是个什么财产？法人财产权是个什么权？我的观点是：法人财产的原始部分是股东出资，这在法人财产里占很小的一部分，可能十分之一都不到。为什么？因为企业一旦注册为有限责任公司以后，企业就可以获得贷款，获得工人的投入（工人是先劳动后发工资的），也可以让供应商提供货物，还会有政府的税收，周边社区的利益等等。这些统统都属于法人财产。

法人财产是法定代表人或法人代表可以支配的财产，而不是股东支配的。这个观点非常重要。

为什么要提出这个问题来？刚刚说了，如果企业的法定代表人出了问题以后，政府根本不在乎企业的法人地位，那我们自己在乎不在乎呢？常常是不在乎的。因为我们常常把股东的权力带到了法人财产里。在一个法人里，谁的股份多，谁的发言权大，股东按照股份的多少来确定发言权和法人财产的支配权。这是一个很大的误区。

举个例子。我们和新希望集团合作，投资建设了新希望大午公司。谈判的时候，我们是占49%，新希望占51%，因为新希望是上市公司，所有合资公司都是新希望股份多。我同意了，在组成董事会的时候，我们的人出任董事长，即法定代表人，他们的人出任总经理。在实际运作当中，新希望将新大公司按子公司管理，总经理可以擅自调动资产，拿上百万的钱发奖金。我们是法定代表人，可是没有任何权力，于是发生了争论。他们的高管来和我谈话，说“合资企业，只要我们控股，我们都这样做。不仅是新希望这么做，世界上所有的企业，只要控股，都是大股东说了算。”我说“这个不对，在公司法上中界定很清楚的，股东大会是一股一票，按钱说话；董事会是一人一票，是按能力说话。你们这样做，实际上是不符合公司法的。”股东大会在没有组成董事会以前，可以选出代表人来主持，大股东可以说了算。但一旦产了生董事会，这个权力就移交给了法人，法定代表人就是法人财产的支配者。

公司法规定的原本是很清晰的，但全世界都有大股东支配法人财产的现象，国内的情况更严重。企业家的财产和企业的财产没有切割，个人的财产和法人财产混在了一起，所以我说，我们很多企业家本身，也没有重视自己企业的法人地位，这是很可悲的。

这种股东和法定代表人角色混淆的现象，现实中还有很多。比如银行，大午集团现在没有贷款，可十几年前我们贷款的时候，我是法定代表人，是董事长，但贷款时我签字无效。为什么呢？还要我老婆和儿子签字，因为他们是股东。为什么一个法人要贷款，需要所有的股东签字呢？因为我们在实践中就没有法人财产和法人财产权的概念。我估计全国各个银行都在这么做，用这种形式，把法定代表人对法人财产的代表权，或者说支配权给剥夺了。

再说我们的法院，这种问题更严重。十来年前，我曾经了解过孙寅贵、孙春贵弟兄俩的兄弟恩怨。孙寅贵想开发张家界的天梯项目，聘请了自己的哥哥孙春贵来负责。几年后，项目成功了，很挣钱，成了一部印钞机。这时候，孙寅贵说“我给你三百万，你回家养老去。”孙春贵不同意，认为这个项目是自己的。孙寅贵说“你是我聘来的，你是给我打工的，原始资金是我投入的。”孙春贵说“纳税是我应付的，贷款是我负责任的，人工是我雇的，现在挣钱了，你怎么能让我走呢？”弟兄两个翻了脸，打官司。法院支持了孙寅贵，原始资金是他的，孙春贵虽然付出了很多，但这个项目不是他的。孙春贵认可了法院的判决，弟兄两个签了一个协议，孙寅贵给孙春贵三百万的退休费。可签了这个协议以后，孙春贵心里有怨气，就去举报孙寅贵偷漏税。孙寅贵很生气，纠缠了很长时间，决定这三百万也不给了。孙春贵拿着协议书到法院起诉，法院却仍然支持孙寅贵。为什么？孙寅贵的理由是“我签字了，但我没有开董事会，没有开股东会。”法院就根据这一点，判定孙寅贵胜诉，认为董事长签字无效。我想，董事长是法定代表人，他签字怎么能无效呢？

这样的例子比比皆是。在实践中，我们把法人的地位和法人财产权的地位都置之不理了。所以我说，要维护法人财产权，需要两方面努力，一是从法律上，包括立法和司法，完善这个问题；另一方面就是我们自己，也要重视法人和法人财产权。相对来说，我们自己的努力，更容易把控一些。

如何保护法人财产权？首先，从企业自身来说，我们应该明确概念，完善制度。比如说，把家庭财产和企业财产清晰地分割开，把企业家个人的财产和企业的财产分割开。同样，股东大会的权力和董事会的权力，要清晰地切割开，理顺清楚哪些是私权，哪些是公权。

我们要知道，股东或者你的股份，是私权，是完全可以继承的，也是天经地义的。财产是可以继承的，这是没有问题的。但权力，比如董事长的权力和位置，是不可以继承的，因为这是公权力。哪怕你是100%的持股，也不一定由你的孩子来当董事长。为什么？当董事长需要的是能力，而不是股份的多少。孩子能完全继承上一辈人的能力吗？一个二三十岁的人，能够拥有六七十岁的人的智慧和阅历吗？不可能的。后代既没有这种经验，也没有这种能力，怎么能当董事长？

比如说山西的海鑫集团，很大的企业。创业者李海仓死了，儿子二十二岁就当了董事长。这合法吗？他有什么理由当董事长？只因为他是大股东！可是这个企业员工近万人，这种公权力能私下传承呢？最后企业倒闭，近万工人解散，遗留下上百亿的债务，当地政府怎么解决啊？政府很头疼，一万多工人，还有上百亿的债务，怎么处理？
包括台湾的王永庆，塑料大王，可他死了以后，企业无法传承。所以这是一个普遍性的问题，也是一个世界性的问题。企业应该有德者居之，有能力者居之，这才是董事会的真谛，董事会就应该按能力说话。让有德者、有能者来驾驭企业才对。而不是让大股东来驾驭，何况是大股东的孩子呢。所以，产权和法人财产权是两个不同的概念。产权可以继承，法人财产权不应该继承。法人财产权应该是公权力，这个问题一定要理清楚。

我们大午集团从创业之日起，我和爱人就非常清楚，把个人财产和法人财产切割得很清楚。我们一家都是靠工资生活。企业财产是企业财产，家庭财产是家庭财产。甚至企业刚起步的时候，我花钱，需要妻子审批，她花钱，需要我审批。后来企业大了，搞了私企立宪制度，我们的监事会，行使的是股东的权力，切割出利润的10%来搞善事，用补贴来保证家族成员的生活，其他的住房、医疗等都有相应规定。这种财产清楚地切割，我们是受益的。

2003年的时候，集团二十多个人都被抓了，我们哥仨，加上几个主要干部、财务人员等，可公安查了那么多帐，什么问题也没有。因为我们家庭的财产和企业的财产非常清晰，我们既没有分过红，也没有转移过财产。可以说，我们的钱挣得干干净净，花得明明白白。最后我被弄了一个“非法吸收公众存款罪”，判三缓四，我两个弟弟，原本的罪名是偷漏税，最后也不了了之。

顺便说几句说，判我“非法吸收公众存款”是不成立的。当时是大午集团借款，不是我孙大午借款。大午集团吸收存款，打的是借条，盖的是大午集团的公章，说明是大午集团因为建学校而借钱，打的是借条。所以，既不是我孙大午借的钱，也不是我孙大午花了，而是大午集团借了钱，建了学校。可判决的时候，法院认定大午集团犯“非法吸收公众存款罪”，向六百一十一户借款。如何判定这六百一十一户是非法的呢？法院认为这六百一十一户和我孙大午本人没有亲戚、朋友、同学、战友等特定关系，因此构成了非法吸收公众存款罪。这个逻辑是混乱的啊。大午集团的借款，怎么能因为与我本人没关系，就判定我犯罪呢？这六百一十一户与我没有特定关系，但都是大午集团的养殖户、种植户，或者是大午学校学生的家长，与大午集团存在特定关系啊。法院以法定代表人来衡定大午集团的借款事实，符合逻辑吗？

我认为法人财产权是一种公权力，而股东大会是一种私权力。财产不能姓公，公权力不能姓私。财产是可以继承的，但管理者的位置不能继承。董事长的位置是个公权力，因为董事长不是股东大会的权力，而是法人财产权的权力。

为什么大午集团要施行私企立宪制度？2003年的时候，我判三缓四，按照法律规定，不能再当企业的法定代表人，当时我的儿子孙萌代理企业的董事长，他觉得很困难，干不了，自己也不想干，那么谁来干？企业也没有股份，搞股份制又搞不下去，最后在各方的博弈下，我们最终形成了这样的一套制度。


私企立宪制度。产权不变，私有；公权力是大家的，大家公共治理，以民主选举的方式，产生董事长；然后劳动成果大家共享，分配权交给董事会。我们的监事会原则上不干涉董事会的分配方案，但我们有个制度，比如说中层干部的待遇，不超过员工平均工资的5倍，高层干部不超过10倍到15倍。也就是说，如果的工人年薪是5万，那么中层干部最多能拿到25万。这种分配方案基本是固定的，大家都知道，自己今年能拿多少奖金，退休了以后能拿多少钱等等。工人要共享劳动成果，比如说确定假期、医疗保障、产假、上学和住房补贴等，都有制度规定。我认为这就是有差别的共同富裕。

这个制度出台以后，从04年11月份开始实行，到现在已经12年了，效益是非常好的，每年的递增速度在30%，速度非常快。到现在为止，大午集团基本没有贷款，发展非常好，企业的贪污腐败行为很少。尤其是干部们，为什么？因为如果贪污的话，损失太大。比如你当了六届董事，那你退休后就可以享受平均工人工资两倍的退休金，如果当时工人的平均月工资是五千，那你每月就可以拿到一万的退休费，七届董事是三倍，八届是四倍，最高到六倍。所以我们的干部一是流失率很低，二是不会被腐蚀，因为他有长期工作的思想。所以现在大午集团运作的非常平稳，贪污腐败的很少。工人呢？因为权力交给了子公司一把手，所以工人也不在意我这个老板，没有恐官症。他直接对的是他选举出的干部，由干部给他长工资、发奖励。现在集团发福利的工作由监事会负责，全集团统一搞，我得让员工知道，他享受的各种福利，比如社保、医保、集团内医保（每年最多报20 万）、干部早逝，他最小的孩子由集团养到18岁、4个月产假、住房和上学的补贴等等，是企业老板的钱拿出来给工人搞的。

总的来说，我们的私企立宪把产权和法人财产权清晰地界定了。产权归私有，归我和我们这个家族所有，世代继承；而法人财产权是动态的，归公有，归董事会所有。董事会是民主选举产生的，董事会掌控法人财产权，支配法人财产权；理事会是执行机构，决策和执行分开。简单地说，一个子公司，一把手有决策权，二把手有执行权，这样好处是什么？一把手可以对二把手实行监督。比如说，一把手决定，买一百个杯子，但他自己不能去买，要由二把手去买。那么一把手可以对杯子的质量、价格等进行监督，监督二把手。二把手有执行权，可以成立采购小组。这样的运作机制，我觉得挺受益。

通过实践，我有几点思考：

一、企业应该鼓励投资，鼓励发展而限制分红，或者少分红。我为什么不搞股份制，要是搞股份制，弟兄们早就分裂了，我两个儿子也未必能合得来。分股份的话，钱就要分走、流失。至于个人的收益，能满足个人的基本生活，或者能够体面的生活，就足够了。其它的钱应该鼓励企业发展、投资，而不是分光吃净。

我发现很多企业的分红力度非常大，最后企业成了个空壳，甚至靠贷款和负债来维持。我觉得企业应该积累，企业是法人，积累财产的好处很多，比如可以科研投入，可以投资发展，可以以收补欠等等，所以企业应该加大积累，鼓励发展。

二、现实情况不是这个样子。企业赚了钱，政府要征税，征企业所得税，原来所得税是33%，08年降到了25%，这不仅是企业很沉重的负担，更是企业积累、发展的难点。企业好不容易盈利了，结果国家拿走一部分，股东拿走一部分，企业管理团队分一部分奖励，企业就没什么积累了。我想，国家总说减税，为什么不把这个企业所得税减了呢？如果是股东分红，我觉得个人所得税是一定要拿的，甚至可以多拿。但对于法人财产，要鼓励积累，比如股东分红较少，国家就可以少征税或不征税。我听说在国外有这样的例子，股东分红，拿回了投资之后，以后的分红额度要严格限制，这样可以让企业加大积累。

我们对股东分红要进行限制，对国家征税也应进行限制。为什么企业所得税征得不合理呢？因为法人财产属于组织，征收企业所得税，实际上是让一个集体的收入都减少了，而不是减少了股东或企业主的个人财产。再者，如果企业加大积累，加大投资，加快发展，对谁有利？对工人有利，对股东有利，对国家有利，对大家都有利，是全赢的事情。为什么非要征这个企业的所得税呢？

20年以前，我们徐水有五大企业集团，包括大午集团、中兴集团等。中兴集团的老板是我的好朋友，现在他已经去世了。中兴集团的规模比大午集团大，老板也是保定市的人大代表。有次保定开会的时候，我问他今年纳了多少所得税，他说纳了200万所得税。纳了200万所得税，企业应该是挣了大钱了，其实他赔了600万。赔了600万，为什么还要纳200万的企业所得税呢？他的账目不建全，税务局的人查账，查不出他赚了多少钱，只查到了销售额。销售额是7000万，税务局说7000万的销售额，按10%的利润计算，你就赚700万，700万的33%，就是二百几十万，征他200万，还是给了面子呢。实际呢？他销售额7000万，但有几百万的应收款要不回来，连本金都收不回来，但他惹不起税务的人，没办法，人家就这么征。

中兴集团最后垮了，这个老板死的时候，欠下了6000万的银行贷款，他的两个孩子没钱上学，还是我接过来，在大午中学上的学。

为什么要征企业所得税？现在企业的风险不仅仅是当年的风险，还有担心未来的风险。我想，这个企业所得税要是不征了，人们的恐惧心理也会少一些。这对社会是非常有好处的，也是保护法人财产权的一个重要方面。

我们要维护法人财产权，希望自己的企业越来越好，国家也希望企业能够做大做强，这样的目标其实是一致的。取消企业所得税，对国家、对社会，对企业，对工人，对股东都有好处。如果股东想多分红，分三分之一；政府想多收税，征走三分之一；企业管理者拿奖励，又拿走三分之一，最后让企业成为一个空壳，甚至负债累累，银行坏账暴增。那这个企业死了以后，所以的问题都是社会买单，或者是国家买单，银行买单，我们为什么不想办法消除这种悲剧呢？

作者：亦忱

原创发表在猫眼看人
（2016年11月15日于河北·大午集团）

http://sundawu1.blog.sohu.com/323276682.html


Sun Dawu: Talk about the protection of legal persons’ property rights

2016-11-17 18:19 Reading(633)Comment(0)


Press also: From November 14th to 15th, 2016, Dawu Group, located in Xushui District, Baoding City, Hebei Province, invited a group of domestic economists and jurists to participate in the meeting room of Dawu Group Business Center. A "Seminar on Inheritance and Governance of Private Enterprise Property Rights." During the meeting, Mr. Sun Dawu, Chairman of the Supervisory Committee of Dawu Group, gave a keynote speech on the issue of "Protection of Legal Person Property Rights", and responded to the questions and questions of some scholars in the field of economics and law who attended the meeting.

This speech by Mr. Sun Dawu is a transcript of the meeting, which was later reviewed and approved by Mr. Sun Dawu. The full text is now released for sharing by Kaidi netizens.

(Yichen at Baoding Dawu Group on November 15, 2016)


The following is the full text of Sun Dawu's keynote speech:

I think that when we talk about the protection of corporate property, we need to start from two aspects, one is government protection, and the other is our own protection.

It can be known from the general principles of civil law that a legal person is an organization that has civil rights and capacity for civil conduct, enjoys civil rights in accordance with the law, and undertakes civil obligations. Legal persons are divided into four types in our country, enterprise legal persons, agency legal persons, business legal persons and social organization legal persons. In terms of definition, the law says very clearly that these four types of legal persons are equal civil subjects.

In our legislation and judicial interpretation, legal persons are equal civil subjects. Although this is set, it is far from the case during the operation. For example, Wu Ying and Zeng Chengjie, after they were arrested, their legal persons were wiped out.

It stands to reason that both Zeng Chengjie and Wu Ying are legal representatives of corporate legal persons, and legal representatives can appoint legal representatives. For example, I am the legal representative of the Dawu Group enterprise. If I am arrested, then I can appoint my son as the legal representative to exercise authority on my behalf. In other words, the legal representative can be arrested, but the legal person organization cannot be eliminated. But in practice, corporate legal persons, especially private enterprise legal persons, hardly exist. As long as the legal representative catches it, this legal person organization is almost gone. The government will seal up the legal person’s property and bank account numbers, and the enterprise will be taken over, even demobilized and auctioned off. When dealing with such problems, the government or public security organs neither follow the procedures for the replacement of the legal representative nor the bankruptcy procedures, but directly eliminate the organization as a corporate legal person.

Is this also true for institutional legal persons, business legal persons, or social organization legal persons? It's not. For example, in Tianjin, the mayor, deputy mayor, and police chief of Tianjin were all arrested, but the Tianjin municipal government was not disbanded. After new officials arrived, the agency still operates as a legal person. State-owned hospitals and schools are all corporate legal persons. These legal persons will not destroy a hospital or school just because of problems with the hospital dean or school principal. Is this equal?

The legal person status of private enterprises cannot be guaranteed. It needs to be emphasized that a legal person crime is not a natural person crime. If it is a natural person crime, we can confiscate his personal property if he is caught; a legal person is a group and an organization, and the interests of a legal person are the concept of legal person property rights. It is very broad, so when dealing with legal person crimes, we must pay special attention to the protection of legal person’s property rights.

What kind of property is legal person property? What is the property right of a legal person? My point of view is: the original part of the legal person’s property is the capital contribution of the shareholders, which occupies a very small part of the legal person’s property, and may not reach one tenth. why? Because once an enterprise is registered as a limited liability company, the enterprise can obtain loans, obtain input from workers (workers are paid first), suppliers can also provide goods, and there will be government taxes and the interests of surrounding communities. and many more. All of these belong to the property of legal persons.

Legal person property is the property that is at the disposal of the legal representative or the legal representative, not the shareholder. This view is very important.

Why do you want to ask this question? As I just said, if the legal representative of an enterprise has a problem, the government doesn't care about the legal person status of the enterprise at all, so do we care about it? Often do not care. Because we often bring the power of shareholders to corporate property. In a legal person, whoever has more shares has a greater right to speak, and shareholders determine the right to speak and the right to control the legal person’s property according to the number of shares. This is a big misunderstanding.

for example. We cooperated with New Hope Group and invested in the construction of New Hope Dawu Company. When negotiating, we accounted for 49% and New Hope accounted for 51%, because New Hope is a listed company, and all joint venture companies have more shares in New Hope. I agreed. When the board of directors was formed, our people served as the chairman of the board, that is, the legal representative, and their people served as the general manager. In actual operation, New Hope will manage the new large company as a subsidiary, and the general manager can arbitrarily mobilize assets and receive millions of dollars in bonuses. We are the legal representatives, but we don't have any power, so there is a dispute. Their executives came to talk to me and said, "In joint ventures, as long as we hold a controlling stake, we will do it. Not only is the new hope doing this, but all companies in the world, as long as controlling stakes, have the final say." I said. "This is not right. It is clearly defined in the company law. The general meeting of shareholders is one share, one vote, and you speak according to money; the board of directors is one person, one vote, and you speak according to ability. What you do is actually inconsistent with the company law. "Before the general meeting of shareholders has formed a board of directors, representatives can be elected to preside, and the major shareholders can have the final say. But once the board of directors is produced, this power is transferred to the legal person, and the legal representative is the ruler of the legal person's property.

The provisions of the company law were originally very clear, but there are large shareholders all over the world where the property of a legal person is dominated, and the domestic situation is even more serious. There is no separation between the property of entrepreneurs and the property of enterprises. Personal property and legal person property are mixed together. Therefore, I said that many of our entrepreneurs themselves did not attach importance to the legal person status of their enterprises. This is very sad.

In reality, there are many situations in which the roles of shareholders and legal representatives are confused. For example, in banks, Dawu Group does not have loans now, but when we loaned out more than ten years ago, I was the legal representative and chairman of the board, but my signature was invalid when the loan was made. why? My wife and son are also required to sign because they are shareholders. Why does a legal person want to make a loan and need all shareholders to sign? Because we don't have the concept of legal person property and legal person property rights in practice. I estimate that all banks across the country are doing this, using this form to deprive the legal representative of the legal representative’s right to represent or control the legal person’s property.

Let's talk about our courts, this kind of problem is even more serious. Ten years ago, I once learned about the grievances between brothers Sun Yingui and Sun Chungui. Sun Yingui wanted to develop the ladder project in Zhangjiajie and hired his brother Sun Chungui to take charge. A few years later, the project was successful, very profitable, and became a money printing machine. At this time, Sun Yingui said, "I will give you three million, and you will go home for the elderly." Sun Chungui disagreed, thinking that this project was his own. Sun Yingui said, "You were hired by me, you worked for me, and I invested the original capital." Sun Chungui said, "I pay the tax, I am responsible for the loan, I hire the labor, and now I earn money. Now, how can you let me go?" The two brothers turned their faces and filed a lawsuit. The court supported Sun Yingui. The original funds belonged to him. Although Sun Chungui paid a lot, the project was not his. Sun Chungui approved the court's decision, and the two brothers signed an agreement. Sun Yingui gave Sun Chungui a retirement fee of 3 million. But after signing this agreement, Sun Chungui felt resentful and went to report Sun Yingui's tax evasion. Sun Yingui was very angry, entangled for a long time, and decided not to give the three million. Sun Chungui took the agreement to the court to sue, but the court still supported Sun Yingui. why? Sun Yingui’s reasoning was “I signed, but I did not hold a board of directors or a shareholder meeting.” Based on this, the court ruled that Sun Yingui won the lawsuit and held that the chairman’s signature was invalid. I think, the chairman is the legal representative, how can his signature be invalid?

Such examples abound. In practice, we ignore the status of legal persons and the status of legal persons' property rights. So I said that to protect the property rights of legal persons, two efforts are required. One is to improve this issue from the law, including legislation and justice; on the other hand, we ourselves should also pay attention to the property rights of legal persons and legal persons. Relatively speaking, our own efforts are easier to control.

How to protect the property rights of legal persons? First of all, from the perspective of the enterprise itself, we should clarify the concept and improve the system. For example, the family property and business property are clearly separated, and the property of the entrepreneur is separated from the property of the enterprise. Similarly, the power of the general meeting of shareholders and the power of the board of directors must be clearly separated, and it is necessary to straighten out which are private power and which are public power.

We need to know that shareholders or your shares are private rights, which are completely inheritable, and it is justified. Property can be inherited, there is no problem. But power, such as the power and position of the chairman, cannot be inherited because it is public power. Even if you are a 100% shareholder, your child may not be the chairman of the board. why? What you need to be a chairman is ability, not the number of shares. Can children fully inherit the abilities of the previous generation? Can a person in his 20s and 30s possess the wisdom and experience of a person in his 60s and 70s? impossible. The future generations have neither this kind of experience nor this kind of ability, how can they be chairman?

For example, Haixin Group in Shanxi, a very large enterprise. The entrepreneur Li Haicang died, and his son became chairman at the age of 22. Is this legal? What reason does he have to be chairman? Just because he is a major shareholder! But this company has nearly 10,000 employees. Can this kind of public power be passed on privately? In the end, the enterprise closed down and nearly 10,000 workers were dissolved, leaving behind tens of billions of debts. How can the local government solve it? The government has a headache. How to deal with more than 10,000 workers and tens of billions of debts?
Including Wang Yongqing of Taiwan, the king of plastics, but after his death, the company cannot pass on. So this is a universal problem, and it is also a worldwide problem. An enterprise should live by those with virtue and those with ability. This is the true meaning of the board of directors, and the board of directors should speak according to their ability. Let the virtuous and capable people control the enterprise. Rather than let the major shareholders take control, let alone the children of major shareholders. Therefore, property rights and legal person property rights are two different concepts. Property rights can be inherited, but legal person property rights should not be inherited. The property rights of legal persons should be public rights, and this issue must be cleared out.

Since the day our Dawu Group started our business, my wife and I have been very clear about the separation of personal property and corporate property. Our family lives on wages. Corporate property is corporate property, and family property is family property. Even when the business was just starting, I needed my wife's approval for spending money, and my approval for her spending money. Later, the company got bigger and established a private enterprise constitutional system. Our board of supervisors exercised the power of shareholders, cutting out 10% of profits to do good deeds, using subsidies to ensure the lives of family members, and other housing and medical services. Regulations. This kind of property is clearly cut, and we are benefiting.

In 2003, more than 20 people in the group were arrested. Our three brothers, plus a few key cadres, financial personnel, etc., but the public security checked so many accounts and there were no problems. Because the property of our family and business is very clear, we have neither paid dividends nor transferred property. It can be said that we earn cleanly and spend our money clearly. In the end, I was convicted of "illegal absorbing public deposits" and sentenced to three and four probationary sentences. My two brothers were originally charged with tax evasion, but in the end they got rid of it.

By the way, it is untenable to sentence me to "illegal absorption of public deposits". At that time, Dawu Group borrowed money, not my Sun Dawu borrowed money. The Dawu Group took deposits, and the IOU was stamped with the official seal of the Dawu Group, indicating that the Dawu Group borrowed money for the construction of the school, and the IOU was stamped. Therefore, neither my Sun Dawu borrowed the money nor my Sun Dawu spent it, but the Dawu Group borrowed the money and built the school. At the time of the verdict, the court found Dawu Group guilty of "illegal absorbing public deposits" and borrowed from 611 households. How to determine that these 611 households are illegal? The court held that these 611 households had no specific relationship with Sun Dawu himself, such as relatives, friends, classmates, or comrades-in-arms, and therefore constituted the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. This logic is confusing. How can Dawu Group’s loan be convicted of a crime because it has nothing to do with me? These 611 households have no specific relationship with me, but they are all farmers, growers, or parents of Dawu school students, and they have a specific relationship with Dawu Group. Is it logical that the court uses the legal representative to assess Dawu Group’s borrowing facts?

I believe that the property rights of legal persons are a kind of public power, while the general meeting of shareholders is a kind of private power. Property cannot be named public, and public power cannot be named private. Property can be inherited, but the position of the manager cannot be inherited. The position of the chairman is a public power, because the chairman is not the power of the general meeting of shareholders, but the power of the legal person's property rights.

Why does Dawu Group implement a private enterprise constitutional system? In 2003, I was sentenced to three delays and four. According to the law, I could no longer be the legal representative of the company. At that time, my son Sun Meng was acting as the chairman of the company. He found it very difficult and couldn’t do it. He didn’t want to do it. Then Who will do it? The enterprise has no shares, and the shareholding system cannot continue. In the end, under the game of all parties, we finally formed such a system.

Private enterprise constitutional system. Property rights remain unchanged and private; public power belongs to everyone, and everyone is governed by the public. The chairman of the board is elected through democratic election; then the fruits of labor are shared by everyone, and the distribution power is given to the board of directors. In principle, our board of supervisors does not interfere with the distribution plan of the board of directors, but we have a system. For example, the salary of middle-level cadres is not more than 5 times the average salary of employees, and the salary of high-level cadres is not more than 10 to 15 times. In other words, if the annual salary of workers is 50,000, then middle-level cadres can get up to 250,000. This kind of distribution plan is basically fixed. Everyone knows how much bonus they can get this year, how much money they can get after retirement, and so on. Workers have to share the fruits of their labor, such as determining holidays, medical security, maternity leave, school and housing subsidies, etc., there are system regulations. I think this is differentiated common prosperity.

After the introduction of this system, it has been implemented in November 2004, and it has been 12 years now. The benefits are very good. The annual growth rate is 30%, which is very fast. Up to now, Dawu Group has basically no loans, and its development is very good. There is very little corporate corruption. Especially cadres, why? Because if it is embezzled, the loss will be too great. For example, if you have been a director for six terms, you can enjoy a pension that is twice the average worker’s salary after retirement. If the average monthly salary of a worker at that time was 5,000, then you could get a monthly retirement fee of 10,000. The number of directors is three times, eight times is four times, and the highest is six times. Therefore, our cadres have a low rate of attrition, and they will not be corrupted because they have long-term working ideas. So now the Dawu Group is operating very smoothly, and there is very little corruption. What about the workers? Because power is given to the head of the subsidiary, the workers



民企法人犯罪是个伪问题！

分类：大午行思录

2018-07-29 09:28 阅读(35)评论(0)


唯一犯罪的就是企业法人，尤其是民企法人犯罪，这是悬在民企头上的达摩克利斯之剑。我们的法人主体地位是平等的，这个原则必须维护。

关于企业的刑事涉罪，上次法学家江平先生过来，还邀请中国人民政法大学起草《民法通则》的赵旭东教授，我们三人之间有个对话。从立法来说，我认为就是有问题的。

民企法人犯罪是个伪问题。我们在民法上规定，法人的主体地位是平等的。法人主体有4种，一是机关法人，一是事业法人，一是社会团体法人，还有企业法人。机关法人指政府，政府有犯罪的吗？就算领导班子都腐败了，重新换一拨人，政府照样运转，机关法人没有犯罪的问题。事业法人，我们的工青妇及大学，这些有犯罪的吗？社会团体法人也没有。唯一犯罪的就是企业法人，尤其是民企法人犯罪，这是悬在民企头上的达摩克利斯之剑。我们的法人主体地位是平等的，这个原则必须维护。

法人代表犯罪并不意味着是法人犯罪。为什么民企的董事长犯罪就等同于法人犯罪，一定要把法人灭掉，没收拍卖你的财产。民企的问题首先是立法的问题，没有法人地位也就没有法人财产权。我们把法人地位和法人财产权统统等同于老板的个人财产，在这个问题上没有理顺。当然，从实践操作层面来说，民企也常常不注意切割自己的家庭财产和企业财产。只要是注册的，哪怕是独资公司，那个财产就是法人财产，不是家庭财产也不是个人财产。一旦注册，是有限责任公司，那个资产已经不属于个人了，实事求是地说，就是公财产，应该受到社会的监督和法律的制约，不等同于个人资产，想花就花想用就用，那是不行的。

法人代表和法人权利也是边界模糊、不清楚的。比如有个案例，某幼儿园校车出事了，不抓园长，而是去抓投资人，这是一个误区。谁选为一把手，谁就是法定代表人，一定要去工商局更改法定代表人，因为你当选你有权利，人财物产供销都在你手里。我从监狱出来以后就发现这个问题了。现在职业经理人都可以当法定代表人，我们在这方面一是不清楚，二是不放心。对职业经理人应当是保底限高的，限制行政权力，从公司章程上体现；公司章程对企业来说就是有法可依，不能卖企业，但有决策权，有经营权。美国福特的AB股制度，A股大家可以买，但是没有决策权，B股是福特家族的成员，选董事长，只要是家族的人，都有投票权。这也是一种解决方法。



Private enterprise legal person crime is a false problem!

Category: Thoughts on the Great Noon Trip

2018-07-29 09:28 Reading(35)Comment(0)


The only crime is corporate legal person, especially private enterprise legal person crime, this is the sword of Damocles hanging on the head of private enterprise. Our legal person subject status is equal, and this principle must be upheld.

Regarding the criminal involvement of enterprises, the jurist Mr. Jiang Ping came over last time and invited Professor Zhao Xudong, who drafted the "General Principles of Civil Law" at the Renmin University of Political Science and Law. There was a dialogue between the three of us. In terms of legislation, I think there is a problem.

The crime of private enterprise legal person is a false problem. We stipulate in the civil law that the subject status of legal persons is equal. There are four types of legal persons, one is an agency legal person, the other is an enterprise legal person, the other is a social organization legal person, and there is also an enterprise legal person. The agency legal person refers to the government. Does the government commit crimes? Even if the leadership team is corrupt, and a new group of people is replaced, the government will still operate, and there will be no crimes as a legal person. Business corporations, our industrial and young women and universities, are these criminals? There is no social organization legal person either. The only crime is corporate legal person, especially private enterprise legal person crime, this is the sword of Damocles hanging on the head of private enterprise. Our legal person subject status is equal, and this principle must be upheld.

The crime of legal representative does not mean that it is a crime of a legal person. Why is the crime of the chairman of a private enterprise equivalent to the crime of a legal person? The legal person must be destroyed and your property confiscated and auctioned off. The problem of private enterprises is first of all a question of legislation. Without the status of a legal person, there is no legal person's property rights. We equate the status of a legal person and the property rights of a legal person to the personal property of the boss, and we have not rationalized this issue. Of course, from the perspective of practical operation, private enterprises often do not pay attention to cutting their own family property and corporate property. As long as it is registered, even if it is a sole proprietorship, the property is legal person property, not family property or personal property. Once registered as a limited liability company, that asset no longer belongs to an individual. To put it honestly, it is public property and should be subject to social supervision and legal restrictions. It is not equivalent to personal assets. It won't work.

The boundary between legal representative and legal rights is also vague and unclear. For example, there is a case, a kindergarten school bus accident, not to arrest the principal, but to arrest investors, this is a misunderstanding. Whoever is elected as the top leader is the legal representative. You must go to the Industrial and Commercial Bureau to change the legal representative, because you have the right to be elected, and the supply and marketing of human, property, and property are in your hands. I discovered this problem after I got out of prison. Now professional managers can be legal representatives. We are not sure about this aspect, and we are not at ease. Professional managers should have a high minimum guarantee limit, restrict administrative powers, and be reflected in the company's articles of association; the company's articles of association are for enterprises to follow the law and cannot sell the enterprise, but they have decision-making power and management power. Ford's AB share system in the United States, A shares can be bought by everyone, but there is no decision-making power. B shares are members of the Ford family and elect the chairman. As long as the family members have the right to vote. This is also a solution.

* In short, the survival of enterprises cannot be separated from historical or political forms, and the most important ones are conceptual issues.

http://sundawu1.blog.sohu.com/326145227.html

​孙大午,Sun Dawu, 孙大午,被捕11112020,刘会茹,Dawu Group,大午集团 ,私营企业主立宪制度,徐水国营农场,大午农牧集团有限公司,河北省,徐水县郎,五庄,2020年11月11日,November 11,2020,1911,辛亥革命,孫德明, 三民主义,Unirule,天则经济研究所,茅于轼,土地扣押,农民,农业集体 伦理资,本主义,D.Carlton Rossi,拆迁,寻衅滋事,709案,709大抓捕,警察,皇帝,保护伞,儒,武汉华南海鲜批发市场,中国科学院武汉病毒研究所

Sun Dawu,孙大午,Liu Huiru, Dawu Group,DAWU GROUP, Private Entrepreneur Constitutional System, Dawu Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Group Co., Ltd.,Langwuzhuang, Xushui County, Hebei Province, November 11, 2020, November 11,2020,1911,Xinhai Revolution,Sun Deming,Three Principles of the People,Unirule, Tianze Economic Research Institute,Mao Yushi,land seizure,farmers,agricultural collective,ethical capitalism,D. Carlton Rossi,demolition and relocation,picking quarrels and provoking troubles,709 case,709 crackdown,police,protective umbrella,Confucianism,Yellow Emperor Huangdi,The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market,National Institute of Virology,Winnipeg,National Institute of Virology,Wuhan,Dr.Qiu