From Observer, page 45, issue no. 358, Mar 10, 2008
Translated by Zuo Maohong
Original article: [Chinese]

The Chinese business community has indulged in the use of boorish speech, of which Ren Zhiqiang is an icon.

Last month, I interviewed Ren in the snow-covered town of Yabuli in northeast China, where the annual meeting of China Entrepreneur Forum was held. No matter how hard I tried to conjure out a softer side of him during the interview, he remained solemn.

He told me he had just finished reading Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population, and found the author's argument quite logical. He asked if I had read Friedrich Engels' Anti Dühring? Then I asked why he had likened one of his counterparts in the trade to a "fly", and why he had said that "macro-economic controls are meant to promote the steady rise in real estate prices." Criss-crossing between one irrelevant subject to another, our conversation stumbled along.

Ren is regarded as a "freak" of the Chinese business community. Having first set up his own company in the early 1980s, he's just as experienced as the Chinese real estate magnate Wang Shi. While the latter was still selling office appliances in Shenzhen years ago, Ren was in the same business. Ren is one of the most well-known businessmen in his industry in China, and yet his company, Beijing-based Yuanyuan Property, can't be found on the top 50 property developers list.

His fame stems from his bold remarks in recent years, every one of which has aroused fierce public debate, including, "residential property is only meant for the rich, not the poor"; "real estate businessmen are socially disadvantaged"; "real estate ought to be a highly profitable industry"; "property developers should also be protected by law, and there's no need or no reason for them to publicize their costs"; "property trading is legal, property speculation is guiltless, and to ban it is against the Constitution"; "developers have the right not to build houses if small-sized apartment prices fall"; "there should be separate regions for the rich and the poor in China".

These remarks have obviously provoked the public. Not only was he once labeled as "the public enemy" by a financial magazine, he was also selected as "one of the three men in China who deserve bashing the most" by internet users.

As one commentator has said, "Against the backdrop of rising property prices, Ren has become the target of public criticism... he is widely regarded as a typical "greedy developer without a conscience"... and has earned nicknames like Cannon Ren and Big Mouth Ren." His most recent controversial assertion is "macro-economic controls are meant to promote the steady rise in real estate prices". For obvious reason, the statement has drawn criticism.

When his old pal Wang Shi predicted in February that the Chinese real-estate industry was at a turning point after all these boom years, Ren was the first to disagree. He argued with harsh words in his blog, "there might be many secrets unknown to most people behind this prediction, or we may say the whole prediction is just a show... market rules won't change just because there are some flies buzzing around them, neither will "the turning point" materialize because of the flies." Later, at the forum in Yabuli, although Wang and Ren were sitting next to each other, no interaction transpired between them.

To prepare for the interview, I read almost all of Ren's remarks. I am surprised to find that he might be the most avid reader among all Chinese businessmen, and that his remarks have been mostly misinterpreted.

His strongly-attacked remarks can be classified into three types. The first type features "novelty but lack of logical deduction". Take his "macro controls" statement for example, what he meant was that if the current macro controls were misused, the rising real estate prices couldn't be restrained, as "income is rising while land resources aren't, thus the pressure on property prices".

However, once he was quoted as saying "meant to promote the steady rise in real estate prices", his view suddenly sparked off various mis-interpretations and unnecessary arguments.

The second type features "logical reasoning, but too much talk". For example, despite the truth behind them, words like "developers have the right not to build houses" and "to ban property speculation is against the Constitution" were issued emotionally and untimely when everyone was complaining about skyrocketing property prices.

The third type is sheer slips of tongue, such as "real estate should be a highly profitable industry", which is obviously thinly-supported—in Europe and America, few property companies are highly lucrative; in the past 100 years, the percentage of Americans who made a fortune in real estate has always been low.

It's also debatable to say "now that I'm a businessman, I shouldn't consider the poor. If I do, then I'm a bad company manager, because investors give me the money to make more money, not to aid the poor." However, considering the poor certainly cannot be equated as aiding them.

The real-estate industry has been turned into a form of entertainment, and Ren is not alone in attracting the spotlight through his boorish speech. Other real estate moguls like Pan Shiyi, Feng Lun and Wang Shi too have faced similar scrutiny.

Early this year, at a press conference celebrating the release of his new book, Savage Growth, Feng Lun took a question from CCTV's famed anchor Wang Xiaoya. The latter asked earnestly, "Here are some phrases: management, money, greatness, women, and relationship between politics and business. Which would you pick to elaborate on, Mr. Feng?" Feng replied without hesitation, "I'll pick women." The nonsensical exchange was found on various websites the very next day.

Shortly after that, I interviewed Feng in Beijing. I started like this, "There's a comrade who was born in 1957, joined the Communist Youth League at 15 and the Chinese Communist Party at 20, received his master's degree in the Central Party School at 27 and doctor's degree in Chinese Academy of Social Sciences at 46, and wrote a book titled The Economic Functions Of Socialist Countries in his early years. Who is he?" Feng laughed, he surely knew it was him that I was describing. When I asked him "how such a person could sound so barbaric when talking", he gave quite a straight answer, "will people listen to me if I talk like one who holds a doctorate?"

What makes Chinese entrepreneurs express themselves in such a manner? I am interested in finding out. According to Pan Shiyi, "Ren Zhiqiang has made all these enemies due to his personality." While Ren's own explanation is "I prefer to tell the truth, as I have been cheated too many times. I dislike being cheated, so I naturally dislike cheating others. I talk a lot because if you don't get a hold of [the public] by your words of truth, others will get it by lies. " He sounded quite satisfied with this reasoning during the interview.

The puzzling thing is when a public figure keeps being misunderstood by the public, something must be amiss. While Ren might be one who reads the most, thinks the most, and remains the most sober in the real estate circle, he is also most severely criticized, most demonized, even. 

This contradiction is worth exploring. In fact, many of the elites of contemporary China share Ren's dilemma in the choice of speech. Even some reputedly meticulous economists have begun selling their ideas through shocking speech, such as "high fees benefit poor children in getting education", "public servants are the disadvantaged groups in reform", and "work for the rich, speak for the poor". All the above have triggered controversy and bitter argument.

When these remarks were first issued, the public was jolted into thinking the speakers had lost their sensibility and logical thinking. As time goes by, however, the statements sink in, and upon further scrutiny, one would find the views expressed quite common or even mediocre in nature. 

This boorish and somehow grassroots-oriented way of expression has two results—first, when a logical opinion is expressed in a wrong way, it will encounter fierce criticism; second, when the speakers respond to criticisms, they spark off a new round of controversy.

Moreover, the heated exchanges are amplified through the internet. The public's "logic attack" verses the "boorish speech" of certain elites have created a tense public discourse space. 

To criticize the public or the online discussion model is meaningless. In my opinion, the public figures who made the statements are to be blamed. They failed to communicate with the public in a rational, gentle and constructive manner. Instead, they prefer to flirt with the public and attract their attention by lurid words,as a way to show off their personality and social conscience. Yet by doing so, they unleash the venom.

In his blog, Ren once quoted from French playwright Moliere that most people died from medical treatment instead of illnesses. And now, he himself is suffering the same scenario—most of his views are attacked due to the choice of speech rather than the viewpoint.