Not Unnecessary Words
My Closing Statement in the Court

Yang Jianli

The Honorable Judge,

In accordance with appropriate articles and sections of the current laws of our country, Mr. Mo Shaoping, my lawyer, has put forward a strong and well-stated defense on my behalf with all details pertaining to relevant testimonies, witness materials and other evidences. I have nothing more to say in that regard.

Not too long ago when interrogating me for the first time representing the party of the public prosecution, prosecutor Xi proclaimed, "the prosecution and the defendant are equal." In other words, the two opposite parties in my case should be proceeding with a legal case under equal based game rules. I have no doubt on Mr. Xi's sincerity when he had the above words with me. In his later interrogations, prosecutor Xi, as most other law enforcement personnel handling my case since my arrest, appeared to possess a rather high quality of humanitarianism and professionalism. I highly appreciate that and would sincerely like to become a personal friend of him. However, the pitiful fact is that the needs of the current Chinese laws and government policies, in addition to some despicable traditions and practices in law enforcement, have led the two parties of us into an extremely unfair game.

Even by Chinese laws, I, up to this very moment, can only be a defendant; meaning not to be treated as a criminal until the court finds me guilty. However, I have up to date been put in jail for one year three months and nine days (four hundred sixty-four days). Out of these days, there was an absolute solitary period of one year two months and ten days, a no-outdoor activity period of seven months and six-days, and a no-reading period of one year two months and sixteen days. Further, the police and the prosecution had four hundred sixty-four days to gather and prepare testimonies, witnesses and other evidences to prove my guilt, while I had only three interviews, totaling about four hours, with my lawyer to prepare my not-guilty defense under the supervision of police officers. How can this possibly be a fair game?

Every of you here today actually knows better than I do that many more similar or even further unfair games are being played in China's judicial system. Theoretically, under the current Chinese laws, government policies and consequent legal practices, it's more likely that the confessions and testimonies in any publicly prosecuted case are obtained when the defendant is under the following conditions. That is when he or she is totally isolated from the outside world, and/or is under extraordinary psychological and mental states resulting from fear, desperation, loneness, anxiety, longing for freedom and reunion with family, in addition to threats and traps. Under such circumstances, the outcome of the legal proceedings can hardly be free from distorting the human nature. How can such a law system be "defending social justice and the people" as it always brags about up front? I've always believed that to acknowledge evil laws is equivalent to appreciating the evils.

In our China, unfair plays are being conducted not only in the judicial arena, but common in all other fields as well. It is so, as we all know in fact, mainly because the power of the government and government officials is not being limited and effectively supervised as should be. On the one hand, the government repeatedly claims to be willing to subject its rule to people's supervision and criticism; on the other hand, it keeps putting the citizens taking up the responsibilities of supervision and criticism behind bars, or banning them from returning to their own country. This is no difference from appealing to the people to "speak out if you have complaints" while zipping up their mouths. As a citizen of China, I have been flatly banned from coming back to my motherland for thirteen years. I am eventually back this time to my country. Actually, I have up to date been on this land for four hundred seventy-four days. However, the sad fact is I had freedom for only ten days out of the four hundred seventy-four. Today, after four hundred sixty four days of jail life, I finally have the opportunity to ask, in this courtroom of China, by which law is the government entitled to deprive a citizen of his right to come back to his own country?

Because of the unjust, arbitrary, and anti rule of law nature of many of the current Chinese laws, policies, regulations and practices, I do not care much about what crimes the government will charge me for. All these charges can only be made to help the government sentence an innocent person. They bear no meaning elsewhere!

Recently, Mr. Yao Fuxin, a leader of the laid-off workers of his factory in their rallies fighting for their own welfare and legal rights, was sentenced to seven years in prison. I was painfully saddened and shocked hearing this news. The reason I mention his case is because one of my motives coming back to my country this time is to first handedly learn about these laid-off workers and their activities striving for their own interests. I am entirely grieved to come to know the ordeals of Mr. Yao, his family and those powerless fellow workers Mr. Yao represents. It is especially deplorable to see that, in our China, there is often no benign cycle of solutions when conflicts arise between different interest groups, especially between the under privileged individuals or groups and the government.

The aforementioned unjust sentence shut down, once again, the legal channel for the powerless working class to have its voice heard and rights protected. What it is doing is seeding hatreds, which will be some day sprouting vicious social clashes. Again and again, we witness, with pain and anger, that the government, when facing ideological or interest conflicts with lower class individuals and groups, can't get itself out of vicious cycles of thinking and conducts.

What would have been the outcome had the higher government acted as a fair mediator between the workers of Liaoyang City and the local government? And what if the judicial institution there had made all its effort to come up with a persuasive and reasonable judgment on the conflicts back then? Obviously, the judicial system can play a very important role either way, leading social conflicts to two totally opposite directions and results. Isn't it the time now for our judicial community to think about this issue: should the Chinese legal system continue to be a government apparatus of suppressing people's voice, taking away their rights, violating their interests and constantly manufacturing hatreds? Or should it become a cornerstone of social justice, shoring up balanced tracks for benign cycles of developments for all individuals and organizations, including the government, to deal with all types of relations - political, economic, social, ethnic and religious?

National characteristics should never become excuses for keeping the old and defected system and rejecting the new and justified because some of the so-called national characteristics just happened to be backward, uncivilized, unjustified and inhumane. They are nothing but cover-up cloth over the ugly. We cannot and should not normalize the ugly.

All of you in this courtroom today are outstanding and influential individuals in Chinese judicial community. Therefore, I believe my words today are not unnecessary. They will be proven having significance, or in popular language, being useful.

--------------------------
Source: "yangjianli.com".