"I should note here that every time you see a major incident in China, whether it’s a truck driving into a train or wildfires or terroristic attacks like these, there’s a good chance there is precisely 35 people dead. This is because by China’s laws, if a public safety incident causes 36 death or more, than the mayor will get fired."
This was something I had no idea about, thanks for sharing.
I would like to see the source for that assertion. People have been saying that in China for years (here's an article from the official media from 2013 that denies it: http://society.people.com.cn/n/2013/0714/c229589-22189675.html). China does have all kinds of informal, internal bureaucratic rules like this, so it's not impossible, but I don't think it can be confidently asserted as true unless the asserter can show their source and it's reliable.
You’re right. Seeing as it’s unspoken and I don’t have any sources except general gossip, I should edit the post to make that clear. It’s the responsible thing to do.
Same. From my experience those kinds of informal rules wouldn't have such specific numbers associated with them (the fact that a given mayor can't be sure what gets them fired is a big part of the insidiousness nature of that system), and it definitely wouldn't be the same number across the bureaucracy of the whole nation.
It’s absolutely not true. It’s a long-standing internet rumor that confuses the death # that triggers a “major industrial accident” designation & other industrial death quotas that did lead to underreporting. (See @Jeremy Wallace’s excellent book Seeking Truths to understand more.
I mean, it definitely sounds *plausible* that "arbitrary threshold for extra-negative consequences" leads to "fudge the numbers so they don't hit that arbitrary threshold". See, e.g., regulations for "companies with 50+ employees" leading to a lot of companies capping out at 49 people (I think France is the example country there). Doesn't require outright lying, the way accident coverups would, but the incentive is similar.
The problem with covering anything in China is that a lot of how things are done isn't written down in law. It's true that at above roughly 30 deaths, an event become designated as a "major industrial accident", which necessitates that it be reported all the way up to the Federal government (where as if you can control the deaths to be under 30 or even under 10, then you don't need to report any higher than the state or city level). And when an embarrassment gets so big that it gets reported to the federal government, even state governors can be fired.
Historically, there were a lot of major incidents that result in precisely 35 deaths despite there obviously being more. Here's a youtube video that covers two high speed trains colliding into each other in 2011, for example, that also got reported as 35 deaths, with some pretty common sense indications that more people died. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZa2k5Ug_k
It is written in stone that the mayor has to be fired? Probably not. If Xi Jinping's own son (if he has one) was in charge of a city when an event like this happened, probably nothing would happen to him. But in general, someone has to be the scapegoat when a "major industrial accident" happens, so someone around the mayor/city commissar secretary level tends to get fired to make people feel like something was done.
I know well the problems of covering China. (I'm an editor at China Digital Times 中国数字时代.)
As I noted above, there are many actual examples of Chinese authorities covering up death tolls — and it could be the case in Zhuhai too. I have no interest in defending how China treats mass death incidents.
I'm saying that your specific claim that Chinese law mandates the mayor be fired after 35 deaths is wrong, as is the implication that there is a cover-up to protect the mayor — that's harmful to the entire project of building knowledge about China, which you contribute to. Over one million people viewed this false statement on Twitter. That's why you should correct it and make sure people have accurate information.
Saying something along the lines of, "authorities have zero respect for the public's right to know about these incidents, total information blackouts, threats towards victims families to make them silent etc. make it impossible to confirm the death toll — and thus it could be higher" is reasonable and I would have no problem with it.
The issue is your specific claim simply isn't true but now hundreds of thousands believe it is. Chinese state and Party opacity and repression is so egregious and newsworthy that there is no reason to make false claims because they sound good. Just stick to the facts and readers will follow.
It's more of an unspoken rule, so I don't really have a source for it. Here is a youtuber noting this number comes up a lot back in 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZa2k5Ug_k
In the video is a clip from the government spokesperson, where he says, word for word, "As far as I know, right now, there are 35 people dead. Do you guys believe this number? Well, whatever, at least I believe it."
Moly, I've been reading your substack for two years now. I find your takes overall to be fair and accurate.
However I strongly disagree with you about the 36 death rule. It just doesn't make any sense at all. The threshold is too high for it to apply frequently enough to be a rule.
On this list, 35 occurs only once, the current Zhuhai incident.
Basically there is no evidence at all that 35 comes up frequently as the number of victims because 36 would be too high.
Furthermore, I find it doubtful in a case such as this with national attention that the local government has the capability to hide the total deaths from the central government.
I'm writing this comment because this post has been screenshotted and shared on twitter as evidence of Chinese malice and depravity. In a time where Sinophobia is especially high in the Western world, this is not helpful to us.
It's not just rampages, but all kinds of incidents from forest fires to landslides. I also don't think that anyone in the government expected this incident to be getting the kind of attention it is. After all, nobody cared about the Guizhou wildfires. They're still shadowbanning discussion about this incident on Weibo and chasing off foreign media reporters.
I think that at most, this is only evidence of CCP malice and depravity. The Chinese people are the ones whose deaths aren't even allowed to be commemorated by flowers. Whose family and friends cannot mourn publicly, or have a platform to tell their stories. Who are all the women who were just minding their own business when state media suddenly declares this only happened because women are greedy. Who have to put up with their coworkers complaining, "Why did he have to drive into a crowd? Why can't he just murder his ex-wife like everyone else and be done with it?"
I hope any reasonable person who sees this post would sympathise with Chinese people, not discriminate against them.
"I should note here that every time you see a major incident in China, whether it’s a truck driving into a train or wildfires or terroristic attacks like these, there’s a good chance there is precisely 35 people dead. This is because by China’s laws, if a public safety incident causes 36 death or more, than the mayor will get fired."
This was something I had no idea about, thanks for sharing.
I would like to see the source for that assertion. People have been saying that in China for years (here's an article from the official media from 2013 that denies it: http://society.people.com.cn/n/2013/0714/c229589-22189675.html). China does have all kinds of informal, internal bureaucratic rules like this, so it's not impossible, but I don't think it can be confidently asserted as true unless the asserter can show their source and it's reliable.
You’re right. Seeing as it’s unspoken and I don’t have any sources except general gossip, I should edit the post to make that clear. It’s the responsible thing to do.
Same. From my experience those kinds of informal rules wouldn't have such specific numbers associated with them (the fact that a given mayor can't be sure what gets them fired is a big part of the insidiousness nature of that system), and it definitely wouldn't be the same number across the bureaucracy of the whole nation.
It’s absolutely not true. It’s a long-standing internet rumor that confuses the death # that triggers a “major industrial accident” designation & other industrial death quotas that did lead to underreporting. (See @Jeremy Wallace’s excellent book Seeking Truths to understand more.
I mean, it definitely sounds *plausible* that "arbitrary threshold for extra-negative consequences" leads to "fudge the numbers so they don't hit that arbitrary threshold". See, e.g., regulations for "companies with 50+ employees" leading to a lot of companies capping out at 49 people (I think France is the example country there). Doesn't require outright lying, the way accident coverups would, but the incentive is similar.
1) there are well-grounded claims about Chinese death cover-ups related to quotas (mine accidents) + political sensitivity (COVID)
2) this specific claim, that Chinese law mandates the mayor be fired after 35 deaths, is complete bullshit. (point to a law!)
The problem with covering anything in China is that a lot of how things are done isn't written down in law. It's true that at above roughly 30 deaths, an event become designated as a "major industrial accident", which necessitates that it be reported all the way up to the Federal government (where as if you can control the deaths to be under 30 or even under 10, then you don't need to report any higher than the state or city level). And when an embarrassment gets so big that it gets reported to the federal government, even state governors can be fired.
Historically, there were a lot of major incidents that result in precisely 35 deaths despite there obviously being more. Here's a youtube video that covers two high speed trains colliding into each other in 2011, for example, that also got reported as 35 deaths, with some pretty common sense indications that more people died. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZa2k5Ug_k
It is written in stone that the mayor has to be fired? Probably not. If Xi Jinping's own son (if he has one) was in charge of a city when an event like this happened, probably nothing would happen to him. But in general, someone has to be the scapegoat when a "major industrial accident" happens, so someone around the mayor/city commissar secretary level tends to get fired to make people feel like something was done.
I know well the problems of covering China. (I'm an editor at China Digital Times 中国数字时代.)
As I noted above, there are many actual examples of Chinese authorities covering up death tolls — and it could be the case in Zhuhai too. I have no interest in defending how China treats mass death incidents.
I'm saying that your specific claim that Chinese law mandates the mayor be fired after 35 deaths is wrong, as is the implication that there is a cover-up to protect the mayor — that's harmful to the entire project of building knowledge about China, which you contribute to. Over one million people viewed this false statement on Twitter. That's why you should correct it and make sure people have accurate information.
Saying something along the lines of, "authorities have zero respect for the public's right to know about these incidents, total information blackouts, threats towards victims families to make them silent etc. make it impossible to confirm the death toll — and thus it could be higher" is reasonable and I would have no problem with it.
The issue is your specific claim simply isn't true but now hundreds of thousands believe it is. Chinese state and Party opacity and repression is so egregious and newsworthy that there is no reason to make false claims because they sound good. Just stick to the facts and readers will follow.
Here's a good analysis on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/christiangoebel.bsky.social/post/3latxucxe622g
"This is because by China’s laws, if a public safety incident causes 36 death or more, than the mayor will get fired."
This is a false internet rumor. You should issue a correction as it's getting spread widely.
Hello, do you have any sourcing on the 35 number? Anything that comes up is related to this incident.
It's more of an unspoken rule, so I don't really have a source for it. Here is a youtuber noting this number comes up a lot back in 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZa2k5Ug_k
In the video is a clip from the government spokesperson, where he says, word for word, "As far as I know, right now, there are 35 people dead. Do you guys believe this number? Well, whatever, at least I believe it."
Moly, I've been reading your substack for two years now. I find your takes overall to be fair and accurate.
However I strongly disagree with you about the 36 death rule. It just doesn't make any sense at all. The threshold is too high for it to apply frequently enough to be a rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_China#2000%E2%80%93present
You can see here 35 appears twice but that's only including the dead attackers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_in_China
On this list, 35 occurs only once, the current Zhuhai incident.
Basically there is no evidence at all that 35 comes up frequently as the number of victims because 36 would be too high.
Furthermore, I find it doubtful in a case such as this with national attention that the local government has the capability to hide the total deaths from the central government.
I'm writing this comment because this post has been screenshotted and shared on twitter as evidence of Chinese malice and depravity. In a time where Sinophobia is especially high in the Western world, this is not helpful to us.
https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1856585791872335874
It's not just rampages, but all kinds of incidents from forest fires to landslides. I also don't think that anyone in the government expected this incident to be getting the kind of attention it is. After all, nobody cared about the Guizhou wildfires. They're still shadowbanning discussion about this incident on Weibo and chasing off foreign media reporters.
I think that at most, this is only evidence of CCP malice and depravity. The Chinese people are the ones whose deaths aren't even allowed to be commemorated by flowers. Whose family and friends cannot mourn publicly, or have a platform to tell their stories. Who are all the women who were just minding their own business when state media suddenly declares this only happened because women are greedy. Who have to put up with their coworkers complaining, "Why did he have to drive into a crowd? Why can't he just murder his ex-wife like everyone else and be done with it?"
I hope any reasonable person who sees this post would sympathise with Chinese people, not discriminate against them.
I’m new to this newsletter so sorry if this is a silly question, but is this post a verbatim translation of a post made by someone on Weibo?
No. It's Moly's take.
I see! Thank you
incredible how 1 random account gets taken as gospel