In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Vol. 42 No. 2 · 23 January 2020
Diary

What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Theclassroom filled up with a mixture of recent graduates and postgraduates, together with people who wanted to change careers or who had spent the years since graduating preparing for the exam. We sat on small hard chairs and squeezed our legs under the small desks. The people in the high-school classroom were not just my competitors; they might also be my future colleagues. No one knew which of us might be the future director of a large bureau in the ministry, or become a city mayor, and who would remain sitting at a desk in a standard-sized office year after year, or not even get that far. We all had a single goal: to become a civil servant. The proctors passed out the test and started the clock.

A job in the Chinese civil service brings a number of enviable benefits. Civil servants are highly respected. They are allocated apartments at a low price and approached by all manner of people and companies eager to please them. And, as long as they follow the rules, they can’t be dismissed from their posts. Despite the comparatively low salaries, the security and importance of the job attracts about a million applicants a year to the civil service examination.

I was applying for a junior position in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, which is ranked low among the 26 ministries and commissions of the State Council, a reflection of the government’s attitude to environmental issues. Unlike the ministries in charge of mineral assets, listed companies or banking, the Ministry of Environmental Protection has few resources and none of the powers wielded by the Ministries of Public Security or Party Discipline Inspection. Even so there were still more than two hundred applications for six junior positions.

Everyone applying for a job in the civil service sits the same written test. It has two sections: a two-hour ‘administrative occupational ability test’ followed by a three-hour writing and exposition exam. Each accounts for half the total score. The occupational ability test consists of such questions as: ‘There is a well ten metres deep. A frog sits at the bottom of the well and can leap upwards five metres. The walls are slippery and the frog falls back three metres at each leap. How many leaps does it take for the frog to jump out of the well?’

Candidates can improve their scores by practising for some questions, but others resist all preparation. ‘Please replace the question mark with the most suitable image from the four options so as to make them display a certain pattern’:

Chinese civil service exam question

The correct answers to the ‘common sense’ section cannot be achieved just by using your common sense. It is impossible to guess the correct response. For example:

The essence of life is:

A. An organic combination of proteins, nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, water and inorganic salts
B. A form of material movement
C. Cells
D. A form of neural strength

You might be tempted by A, C or D, particularly if you think this is a question about biology. But the correct answer is B, because the question tests an understanding of the world according to Marxist philosophy. One Marxist doctrine states that the world is material and materials are moving. Life is material and it is moving, therefore life is a form of material movement.

The normative role of the law includes:

A. Guidance, evaluation, punishment, coercion, education
B. Instruction, evaluation, education, prediction, punishment
C. Guidance, education, coercion, encouragement, prediction
D. Guidance, evaluation, prediction, education, coercion

The four options look almost the same. The only way to know the correct answer, D, is to know Chinese Communist Party dogma perfectly. In fact a large portion of ‘common sense’ comes down to party dogma. Confucianism defined common sense for more than a thousand years but the party has determined it since 1949. To succeed in the civil service entrance examination, you have to memorise the answers printed in party documents, school textbooks and training materials.

In China, what is the fundamental way to solve the main social contradictions?

A. Practically strengthen the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership
B. Ensure the dominant role of the public sector in the economy
C. Take the path to reach common richness
D. Vigorously develop social productivity

Many candidates may be tempted to choose A. After all, ‘strengthen the CCP’s leadership’ is the correct answer to most questions. Some candidates may choose C, because Deng Xiaoping said ‘to be a socialist doesn’t mean you have to be poor’. Prosperity for all was the goal of the economic reforms he initiated in the 1980s. But the correct answer is D. After the party successfully completed the socialist transformation in China, the main contradiction in Chinese society was no longer class struggle, but instead the contradiction between the development of social production and the needs of the people. According to Marxist theory, social productivity is the ultimate determinant of social development, so in order to reconcile the contradiction, it is necessary to improve social productivity, and hence the material circumstances of society to meet people’s needs.

The three-hour shen lun exam was in the afternoon. ‘Shen lun’ literally means to expound, discuss and verify. Its origins can be traced back to the imperial examination of the Sui Dynasty (581-619 ad). Confucius’s opinion that ‘a good scholar who studies with relative ease can become an official’ is deeply rooted in the Chinese educated classes. In ancient imperial examinations, candidates were invited to write on political topics and to offer policy suggestions to the court. The best essays were examined by the emperor himself. This procedure is still the basis for selecting administrative officials in Chinese society. The language has changed from Classical Chinese to Mandarin, and the emperor and ministers are now party and personnel officials, but the skills required to get a high score remain the same. A candidate needs to write essays in a particular way in order to show that she can think and write like a normative civil servant.

How do you ensure you score more than your competitors in essay writing? Not by being the most elegant writer, nor the most eloquent, but by demonstrating a command of official style. Outstanding candidates write their essays in neat handwriting. They choose the most appropriate words, they quote from the classics and they express complete loyalty to the party’s Central Committee. The content of what they write is, of course, shaped from the top. It is no exaggeration to say that Xi Jinping’s reports to the Party Congress are the civil servant’s bible. Candidates must be sufficiently familiar with the congressional reports and Xi’s lectures. Key paragraphs must be memorised.

With a high score of 45 in the written exam, I defeated the majority of other applicants and went through to the second round: the interview. The shen lun exam tests whether one can write the official language; the interview tests whether one can also speak it correctly. My interview took place in a large conference room. Nine panellists sat facing me on the other side of a long crimson table. In front of each was a pile of CV folders and an identical white teacup. On my side, all the chairs had been removed except one. I had a piece of A4 paper and a bottle of water.

I was the first candidate that day. A senior official, seated in the centre, read out the rules: ‘There are five questions on the piece of paper in front of you. You have one minute to read a question before you start to answer. You have five minutes to give your answer.’ I read the first question:

In Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, at 2 a.m. on the eighth day of the lunar new year, a rumour emerged that chlorine had leaked from a chemical plant in a nearby industrial park and that the plant would soon explode. As a consequence, more than ten thousand people tried to flee, with severe disruption to local traffic. Four people died in a traffic accident. The local government responded quickly. They refuted the rumour on television and over the internet, and released statements saying that there had been no accident, no explosion nor any leakage of chlorine. At the same time the relevant departments ordered additional inspections of the safety and environmental conditions in industrial parks. They also tracked down the rumour-mongers. Residents returned to their homes the next morning and order was restored to the city. Please comment on this incident.

I remembered reading in the newspaper that something had happened at Yancheng four months ago, but there was no time for reflection. I picked out the key points of the story: ‘chemical plant’, ‘rumours’, ‘local government’s quick response’ and ‘order was restored.’ The way in which the incident was narrated made clear the way the authorities viewed it: there was no accident in the chemical industrial park; instead a malicious rumour caused the exodus. The examiners wanted to test our views on public crisis management. An essential part of the civil service exam syllabus is Mao’s three steps of materialist dialectics: find the problem, analyse the problem, solve the problem. The first step is to point out the nature of the problem and the contradiction it reveals. The second step is to analyse the contradiction and find out who, or what, is responsible. The third step involves proposing policy recommendations.

I began my answer this way: ‘This incident concerns panic in a community brought about by rumours of a leak and possible explosion at a chemical plant. The panic caused deaths, affected social stability, and must be taken seriously by the relevant departments.’ I looked at the faces opposite me. Their expressions were steady, showing no signs of surprise. I continued:

First, the spread of the rumour shows that the official information channel in Yancheng was not effective. This was partly why a rumour could spread rapidly and get out of control within a couple of hours. Second, people were so frightened that they fled the area, even though there was no evidence of a leak. This reveals people’s mistrust and fear of the chemical plant. Third, the local government’s response was fairly rapid and effective after the incident. Although ten thousand residents fled, government officials persuaded them to return home the next day. The situation was quickly brought under control, avoiding a worsening of social instability.

My analysis leads me to propose that the local government adopt the following policy. First, improve communication with the local community by holding press conferences and releasing regular reports about the state of the major industrial parks. Second, strengthen the environmental supervision of chemical industrial parks, reinforce the management and inspection of pollutants and chemical production, and punish the plants that are not in compliance with regulations. Third, establish a rapid response mechanism for emergencies in the city to ensure that there is no delay in reporting and reacting to a crisis. All departments must co-operate to prevent such incidents from happening again.

The civil service admission list was revealed the next day. I was on it.

Butwhat really happened in Yancheng? The question has lingered in my mind in the eight years since my interview. From the perspective of the civil service, the policies I proposed were correct, otherwise I wouldn’t have been offered the job. But I don’t fully believe the official news, or the local government’s statement, just as I don’t fully believe my own answer. Was the rumour that made families flee at 2 a.m. really just a rumour? Did the government really inspect the factories and industrial parks as they claimed? Nothing about that had appeared in the media. All the reporting was identical.

I looked into the background of the Yancheng industrial park. It had a bad record: two months before the incident there had been a chlorine leak, which poisoned more than thirty people. Three years earlier an explosion had killed eight people and injured many more. A village of four hundred people stood next to the site, separated by a road. The nearest chemical plant was only 250 metres away from the houses. According to government statements after the incident, local police had detained two suspects accused of ‘fabricating and deliberately spreading false news’. The family of the people who died in the traffic accident was compensated.

Then, on 21 March last year, an explosion shook Yancheng’s industrial park. Images of giant spiralling flames and a dark grey mushroom cloud quickly spread on local news and social media. Only a few casualties were reported at first, but the number gradually increased throughout the day. Four days later, the official figure gave 78 dead and 566 wounded. A large proportion of the wounded were people who lived in the vicinity of the factory. The explosion damaged doors and windows at ten schools. At a nursery a kilometre from the explosion site and at a primary school almost three kilometres away, children were injured by broken glass as their classroom windows imploded.

The number of casualties meant the accident received national attention. Even the Central Committee and the State Council got involved. Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang gave speeches. Two days after the explosion, the State Council established the Serious Explosion Accident Investigation Team, led by the minister of the newly established Department of Emergency Management, whose mission is to guide ‘ministries in all regions responding to emergencies’. Relevant parties rushed to the scene. The official response was completely in line with the views that I had expressed during my interview. The government’s priority was to show how active and responsive it was. They spoke the official language. But what was the real number of casualties? Why were those industrial parks still running after years of poor safety?

News about the explosion soon died down. It was said that the public security bureau took measures against those who ran the industrial park. Later on, the park was closed. Whether the closure is temporary or permanent isn’t clear. In my mind I can see the hundreds of civil servants in related departments who worked hard to manage the crisis. They did it skilfully and to the appropriate standards. I think those on the front line must have sympathised with the people affected by the disaster, and considered themselves lucky not to live near hazardous industrial parks. I believe they must have done as well as I did in the civil service examination. It is unfortunate that the accident they dealt with wasn’t just a ‘rumour’.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.