China’s Garbage Problem Prompts Soul Searching Among NGOs

China Development Brief, no.49 (Spring 2011)

中文 English

This provocative, in-depth report addresses head-on the sensitive issue of advocacy using the issue of garbage as a case study. Environmental NGOs have long been on the forefront of NGO advocacy in China, but this report takes ENGOs to task for not taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by citizen protests against the construction of waste incinerators in urban areas. The report lays out recommendations on what ENGOs might do to transform these local grievances into a broader issue-based movement.

When environmental NGOs re-engaged with the subject of waste disposal, they appeared to be embarrassed and reactive .

At the All-China Environment Federation’s (中华环保联合会) annual municipal waste management forum, held in Hangzhou in November 2010, Huang Xiaoshan, a member of the Beijing Asuwei waste defense group (阿苏卫垃圾保卫战)whose online screen name is “Donkey Stan” (驴屎蛋), accused the NGO representatives present of standing idly by during the Asuwei waste incineration protest. Huang said, “When we most needed you, you did not show any sensitivity to our needs. You gave us no professional guidance, direction or moral support, and did not make any efforts to appeal to the public sense of responsibility on the issue.” In response to Huang’s criticism, several NGO directors commented later that it was not a good time for NGOs to get involved with Huang’s campaign which was held during the Beijing Olympics in 2008. However, the collective silence of NGOs on some major environmental issues has been rather commonplace.  The year 2007 was called “the year of public participation,” yet NGOs were notably absent from milestone events such as the campaign by Liulitun (Beijing) residents against the construction of a waste incinerator, the Xiamen PX chemical plant demonstrations, and the protests over the Shanghai-Hangzhou maglev train project. NGOs, who took a neutral stance during the Xiamen PX incident, saw their reputation severely tested when their words and actions fell short of the public’s expectations.

Similarly, in 2009, NGOs were for the most part absent from waste disposal protests that occurred throughout China. Feng Yongfeng, founder of the Green Beagle Environmental Institute (达尔问自然求知社)and a reporter for the Guangming Daily , commented that, “It is very frustrating when NGOs do nothing for people in their time of need. The ability of citizens to advocate for their rights exceeds that of NGOs. ” However, the questions and demands from the public have made NGOs realize that they have their own role to play in the waste management issue. Since 2010, NGOs have started to actively work on their campaigning strategies and promote the capacity building of activists. Still, it will be a long time before NGOs are able to make significant contributions.

Protests from Urban Property Owners

Due to objections from local residents, the Beijing Liulitun waste incineration power generation project was halted in June 2007. Two years later, however, the project once again made it back on the government’s agenda. This time, protests by local residents and their efforts to engage the government in dialogue persuaded the government to relocate the proposed waste incineration plant to another site. In 2008, the Beijing Gao’antun waste incineration plant encountered similar resistance from local residents. Waste incinerator plant protests also happened in Jiangsu province and larger cities such as Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou in 2009. More and more people started to see their daily lives affected by the environmental degradation caused by waste. Similar protests are now occurring all throughout China, not only in large cities, and second and third tier cities, but also in counties and villages.

At the peak of the garbage crisis in 2009, a growing number of citizens became involved in various protests and campaigns, the most noticeable of which were protests by urban property owners. Urban property owners advocating for their rights is a fairly recent phenomenon in China that has only appeared in the last ten years.  This group of urban property owners has adopted strategies that differ from farmers and workers.

The higher educational level and social status of these property owners, and access to financial resources, has enabled them to successfully defend their interests through collective action. The mostly middle class participants in the Guangzhou Panyu waste incineration protest, for example, attracted national attention. In contrast, the rural participants in the Guangzhou Yongxing Likeng protest, which started in 1990, has yet to be resolved despite the continual efforts of villagers. After visiting Yongxing village, professor Guo Weiqing of Sun Yat-sen University pointed out that white collar workers in Panyu were able to spark great interest in the Panyu waste incineration plant via postings on blogs and online forums. But most villagers in Yongxing lacked access to the internet, as well as the ability to use the internet to disseminate information.

People who lived in the same neighborhood often shared similar interests in conserving the local environment. Urban property owners’ savviness with modern information technology, especially social media, has made it more convenient and less costly for people to get connected to each other and form action networks. All kinds of communication platforms, from discussion boards for real estate owners to qq groups, were employed in their online campaign. During these protests, people would remember “Donkey Stan” from Beijing and “Basso Storm Rider” (巴索风云) from Panyu rather than their real identities. As such, the internet and social media are developing into effective platforms used by activists to get their voices heard even when the mainstream media ignores them. They add balance to the messages delivered by newspapers and TV and radio stations.

From 2006 to 2008, a debate on waste incinerators developed in Beijing. Urban property owners in Liulitun started to post online about the negative impacts of incinerators. This method was later adopted by other activists as an effective campaigning tactic.

While the internet and social media offer new communications platforms, the mainstream media still plays a significant role. As professor Zhao Dingxin (2006) noted, the media is where different groups “compete for the power of defining and constructing social realities.” When the 29th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) was held in Beijing in 2009, the mainstream media, including China Central Television’s prime-time programs “Economic Half-hour” and “News Probe”, started to devote air time to discuss the pros and cons of waste incineration, one byproduct of which is the release of dioxin.

At this time, some people pointed out that the Beijing Liulitun demonstrations and Guangzhou Panyu protests had not achieved the same impact although the two groups had employed similar strategies and tactics. Those who followed both events closely speculated that their diverging outcomes were related to the role of local media. Newspapers and TV stations in Guangzhou are more active and developed than media in other regions of China. Coverage of the Likeng (李坑) event in Guangzhou and the Panyu anti-waste incineration protests tended to be mutually reinforcing, giving the media more space to operate and more news to cover. Media reports at the time ran the headline,“Panyu Unwilling to be the Second Likeng.” The local media in the Guangzhou case thus made the Panyu event a hot topic for public debate, which in turn led to greater social pressure.

The root motivation behind the actions of the activists in these campaigns is to protect their own health and property.  Guo Weiqing, who has followed the issue in Guangzhou from the very beginning, commented that, “This is not merely about economic interests, it is also related to the management, policy and technology of waste disposal.” In contrast to more extreme forms of activism, urban property owners have adhered to a more rational, comprehensive campaign. They have sent open letters to the government, developed alternative plans for waste management, and actively engaged government officials through meetings and dialogue. Multiple formal and informal channels of communication between these activists and the government have allowed their voices to be heard. Their actions have paved the way for policy participation to occur on a larger scale and influence policy-making.

Opportunities for NGOs to Get Involved

Of the areas on which environmental NGOs are working, waste management is one of the few where a bottom-up approach to social changes is feasible. When dealing with most environmental issues, including large hydro-power projects, water pollution, corporate social responsibility and transportation, environmental NGOs often take a top-down strategy. They disclose the problems, send governmental agencies information, and then wait for the government to issue regulations and policies. Such top-down tactics have already become routine for NGOs in China. However, when it comes to the issue of waste, especially municipal waste, real changes can only come from bottom-up action. It was this aspect that attracted some NGOs to re-engage with the issue. These organizations are willing to relinquish their old top-down mindset, and accept new challenges.

The current environment and stakeholders for environmental NGOs has changed substantially since the mid- to late 1990s. What opportunities does the waste problem  present NGOs? What role should NGOs assume in this campaign? What difficulties and limits do NGOs face? We address these questions below.

NGOs can bring in resources using coordination and communication.

For example, residents in Liulitun, Beijing had sought the assistance of NGOs in the initial stage of their campaign, because they still lacked access to channels to disseminate information especially on sensitive topics. They hoped that NGOs could help them get connected to the media, through which their voices could get heard.

NGOs can make the protests more rational and more constructive.

By sending representatives out to listen to the demands of local communities, NGOs could help them develop or improve action plans, so as to make anti-waste incineration actions more effective. According to environmental NGOs working on the issue, the subject of waste sorting is an appropriate issue for engaging local communities and engaging the sharp confrontation between property owners and the government. For now, sorting is the issue that captures the widest base of support. The biggest justification for promoting waste incineration is that there is no more space for landfills in and around cities. As such, although NGOs criticize interest groups in the pro-waste incineration camp, most of their efforts are devoted to promoting sorting which could reduce significantly the amount of garbage.

NGOs can provide professional expertise to transform individual interests into public interests.

So far the movement against waste incineration in China has been driven by property owners’ concerns for their own wealth and health. Their actions as a result have been persistent and results-oriented. However, as long as their requests get answered, say the incineration plants are halted or relocated, these groups will have no reason to keep fighting. How can urban property owners be convinced to go further and address the underlying issues of the waste problem?1.

After the Panyu waste incineration project was halted, activists from the local community started a new green-family campaign, turning the protest into on-going campaign. The activists explained to local residents that the waste incineration protests alone were not enough. As long as the reason for building the plant remains, the government might restart the project at any time. In response, people started to sort their garbage as a follow-up to the protests. Another reason for carrying out waste sorting is that local residents have realized they should not only protest the construction of an incineration plant in their own neighborhood, but should also speak on behalf of other people’s health and property rights. According to Guo Weiqing, property owners in Panyu have learned that it is necessary to consider the well-being of victims from the Likeng event to win support for the Panyu protests. Zhang Boju, director of Friends of Nature’s (自然之友) Municipal Waste Group, commented that movements stemming from rational requests rather than moral pressure are more sustainable and more replicable. In this sense, waste sorting is a breakthrough issue for transforming individual interests into a public interest, which is “really quite extraordinary.”

Carrying out community environmental activities can also help strengthen community cohesion. However, community leaders’ efforts alone are insufficient to engage and educate the whole community, especially free riders. A robust movement needs the support of professional organizations. If NGOs are willing, their long-term involvement with the waste management issue, as well as consistent information collection and analysis could provide professional support to local communities.

However, there is always a big gap between the inferences drawn and the reality. What urban property owners oppose are governmental projects, which is sensitive and to some extent dangerous. These activists, especially the leaders, have their reasons for not being worried. They have their own resources such as information channels, assess the risk before taking actions, and stay within the legal area of play. But if NGOs participate in these events, they become “organized and premeditated” activities, which could present greater security concerns for these movements.

Security concerns however do not entirely explain the silence of NGOs because NGOs are also absent in other less sensitive areas. Some communities in Panyu, Guangzhou have already started waste sorting. The problem is that they have neither the space nor the technology to do composting. Meanwhile, waste sorting relies on volunteers, which is challenging in terms of both will and sustainability. According to Basso Storm Rider, their sorting work has lasted more than one year, and they need professional support from NGOs. However, no organization in Guangzhou has ever contacted them. Currently, the professional expertise of NGOs on waste management issues might be limited, but they can build the platforms to bring experts, companies and communities together.

NGOs can speak out for those who cannot.

Urban property owners have cultural and resource advantages that have allowed them to attract attention to the waste management issue. Their social elite status, however, often blinds them to those in the waste management industry chain who are silent. For example, NGOs think waste collectors play an important role in waste reduction. Urban property owners, on the other hand, who often fail to recognize the contributions of waste collectors, only wish for them to disappear from cities. In a society with rigid social structures, the walls that separate different classes are evident. NGOs should speak for those without a voice, call attention to their living status and ask that their work be respected.

Opportunities and Expectations

Currently the work of NGOs on the waste management issue focuses on waste sorting and waste reduction. Friend’s of Nature’s Zhang Boju once asked professor Guo Weiqing, “At a time when construction of incineration plants around the country is creating so many problems, where should NGOs stand?” Professor Guo’s answer is that given the development and results of the waste incineration protest movement, the door for government-civil society dialogue has been opened — the government has established a public open house day, and organized smaller scale citizen symposiums. The questions for now are: How can public opinion be expressed? How should the government listen to public opinion? Do people need organizations to represent them?

There is a role for NGOs to play, but can NGOs represent public opinion? Is it possible to create pressure for change through collaboration between communities, NGOs and media?

Most NGOs in China are now focused on charity or public service work. NGOs that are advocacy-oriented often live on the periphery with inadequate resources. Although NGOs in China have a history of 30 years, they still have no power to shape discourse, nor the ability to bring together social resources and different actors to solve social problems. Faced with the daunting task of moving the waste protests down a formal and legal path, do NGOs have the capacity to meet the public’s expectations, and to take on the challenges they have raised?

  1. Editor’s Note: Waste incineration protests are typical of NIMBY (not in my backyard) protests that tend to be local and not easily expanded. The challenge posed here is how to transform these local protests into a national issue and movement. 


2010 年11月,在杭州召开的中华环保联合会年会城市垃圾论坛上,北京阿苏卫垃圾保卫战的代表人物黄小山(网名驴屎蛋)对在座的环保NGO人说:“当我们在反焚 行动中最需要NGO的时候,NGO既没有敏感性,也没有给予我们专业上、理论上的指导和道义上的支持,更没有唤起公众的责任。”随后有环保组织负责人对此 做了回应,承认在举国办奥运期间,NGO不便参与。 事实上,在一些重大公众议题上,NGO集体失语近乎常态。 2007年被称为“公众参与元年”,但北京六里屯居民反对建焚烧厂、上海民众游行抗议沪杭磁悬浮列车工程、厦门PX事件等几个标志性的公众参与事件,都与环保NGO无关。 尤其是厦门PX事件中,当地组织的中立态度使其声誉受到前未有的考验,环境NGO发声和行动与公众的期望一直存有距离。
同样,在2009年全国各地的垃圾抗争中,NGO总体上缺席。 《光明日报》记者,环保NGO达尔问自然求知社的创办人冯永锋说:“ NGO见死不救的状态,是很讨厌的,公民维权的能力远远超过了NGO。”但公众的诘问和需求让环保组织意识到,在得到社会各方更加积极回应的垃圾问题上,NGO在其中要有自己的角色。 从2010年起,NGO在垃圾领域的工作策略、专业提升等方面开始发挥作用,但要发挥实质作用还需假以时日。
2007年6月,因为当地居民反对,北京六里屯垃圾焚烧发电项目缓建。 2009年,缓建的项目又被提上了日程。 六里屯居民抗议、与政府对话的结果是,政府决定将厂址迁往他处。 2008年,北京高安屯的垃圾焚烧厂遭周边居民抵制,2009北京阿苏卫垃圾焚烧厂的兴建同样饱受争议。 这一年,上海、江苏、深圳、广州等大城市前后发生多起垃圾抗焚烧事件。 垃圾处理连带的环境健康问题已经与越来越多的公众生活发生联系,从特大城市到二、三线城市,甚至在县、乡一级,抗议事件时有发生。
2009年是中国社会的垃圾危机爆发之年,关注并且付诸行动的市民数量也日益增加。 但在全国影响比较大的是几场以城市业主为参与主体的抗议活动。 城市业主维权是中国最近10多年才出现的新现象,这些城市有产者的维权行动和以往的农民和工人的抗争相比,有了不同的内容和方法。
城市业主的受教育水平和所持资源为他们争取自身利益而采取集体行动准备了条件。 参与垃圾维权的业主多有一定财富积累,文化水平较高,属于有社会声望和职业地位的阶层。 在全国引起较大影响的几起垃圾维权活动,无不与这些城市业主的自身特点有关。 以中产阶级为参与主体的广州番禺垃圾焚烧抗议在全国影响很大,但同在广州的李坑垃圾问题已经存在多年,仍然无法解决。 1990年,李坑垃圾填埋场开始运行,多年来村民多次抗议。 广州中山大学郭巍青教授在调研李坑后曾经写道:“番禺的白领们上网,论坛和博客上的讨论火爆激昂。但是(焚烧厂所在的)永兴村的村民不会这一手,也就没有对外传播的主动权”。
城市业主对现代通信技术,尤其是新媒体的娴熟运用,让这些在空间上本来同居一处、有共同利益诉求的群体,建立起行动网络来更加便捷和有效,成本更小。 业主论坛、QQ群等方式无所不用。 在这些抗争中,人们记住的是北京的“驴屎蛋”,番禺的“巴索风云”,而不是他们的真名字。 现代通信技术搭建的交流和传播平台,缓解了抗争群体较难在主流媒体发声的困境,新媒体的内容也对主流传播内容进行了纠正和平衡。 在北京,关于垃圾焚烧的争议从2006~2008年就开始酝酿,六里屯业主是抗议行动的先驱,通过网络传播垃圾焚烧带来危害的信息,其经验对其他地区的后续行动有所帮助。 北京阿苏卫的特殊性在于它的业主和六里屯的业主又不一样,这里是老别墅区,这些业主发声、影响政策的能力更强。 “驴屎蛋”在阿苏卫垃圾厂抗争中脱颖而出,不但是名噪一时的网络红人,还被树立成政府与民间良好互动的“典型”。
虽有新媒体可资利用,但主流媒体仍然是最重要的力量之一。 媒体本是各方力量“争夺社会现实定义和建构权的领地”(赵鼎新,2006)。 2009年,第29届国际持久性有机污染物(POPs)研讨会(2009国际二英大会)在北京召开。 二英是焚烧垃圾后释放的重要污染物之一。 斯时主流媒体,甚至包括中央电视台《经济半小时》、《新闻调查》这样的黄金栏目都对垃圾焚烧话题给予关注和报道,对垃圾焚烧的利弊讨论比较开放。 那一段时间,媒体报道倾向焚烧风险比较大的立场,这曾让某省居民从无视到密切关注身边的垃圾焚烧厂,甚至采取相应行动。
关注这些活动的人士指出,北京六里屯和广州番禺业主在垃圾维权中所用策略和方式相近,但两地不同的活动效果与两地媒体的不同表现有关。 广州媒体比较发达,加上广州番禺与李坑的事情互相呼应,给媒体更大的操作空间和更丰富的素材,当时媒体报道就有“番禺不愿做'李坑第二'”这样的标题。 这些因素有利于广州番禺事件在社会上成为讨论的议题,也形成更大的社会压力。
这些垃圾维权者参与抗争的核心动力来自维护自身的财产权和健康权,这也是城市中产阶级谋求、争取权利的抗争理由。 一 直关注广州垃圾抗争的郭巍青说:“垃圾问题不单单是经济利益是诉求,还涉及到与垃圾有关的技术、政策、管理措施问题。和一些极端的抗争相比,城市业主的垃圾抗争则充满了行动策略和理性。”他们通过公开信、议案,提出要求、建议,邀请政府部门与之对话,通过各种正规和非正规渠道连接到正式体制通道,让政府听 到他们的声音。 这些行动都形成了有规模的政策参与的渠道和压力,显示了不可小觑的议政能力。
尽数环保NGO所涉足的领域,垃圾议题是难得的可以自下而上进行社会建设的平台。 和环保领域以往的很多工作相比,如水电问题、水污染,企业社会责任监管、交通等等问题,NGO一般以自上而下的角度去推动改变,比如递条子,等政府部门发通知。 而NGO也愿意通过这个方式来做一些工作,逐步地依附、习惯于这种自上而下的工作方式。 而垃圾问题,尤其是生活垃圾问题,可以,而且必须自下而上才能带来真正的改变。 也正是因为看到了在垃圾领域里工作特点,对以往的工作手法有很大的挑战意义,才吸引一些组织重新介入这个话题。
当今,NGO运作无论从外部环境,还是利益相关者的构成,与20世纪90年代中后期相比,都发生了很大的变化,NGO重新介入垃圾话题,又是一个什么样的契机? NGO充当什么角色? 面临的困境和局限在什么地方?
通过接应与交流输入资源。 北京六里屯居民自2007年抗争一开始,就寻求过NGO的帮助。 六里屯居民联系环保组织的目的,是希望找到媒体,将他们的声音发出去。 虽然他们也算中产阶级,但在这件事情上诉求和表达的渠道有限,在问题愈发敏感的时刻,声音依然发不出来。
让抗议更加理性和富有建设性。 环保组织在抗议中谨慎介入社区,通过与代表沟通交流,设计出一些活动,让抗议活动更理性,平和的行动本身可以增加合法性。 在一些关注垃圾问题的环保NGO看来,从垃圾分类开始介入社区,就是打破政府与业主对立的一个合理的切入点。 目前,垃圾分类是得到各方认同最多的一个地带。 推动垃圾焚烧的理由就是,垃圾已经无处可放,惟有焚烧方为解决之道。 尽管NGO也在批判“主焚派”形成的利益集团,但从操作上,更多精力放在垃圾链条的前端,推行社区垃圾分类。
从自利到公益的提升需要专业支持。 全国各地的垃圾维权皆因攸关自身利益,这虽然使得抗争目标明确,动力十足,但这些行动也就仅仅停留在经济和健康层面上,具有地域性和阶段性特点。 当目标得到一定程度的实现,一些焚烧厂改建或者推迟,居民就失去了反对的目标。 怎么才可以将市民对垃圾问题引发的认识持续下去,并进入良性建设的轨道?
广州番禺的焚烧厂停建后,社区的积极分子们从单纯的反建焚烧厂到在社区建立绿色家庭,进入了持续行动的轨道。 他们自觉地向居民倡导,只反对焚烧是不够的,因为焚烧的理由还在,也许哪一天政府会再建焚烧炉。 大家开始进行垃圾分类,将垃圾分类看作反对焚烧的持续性工作。 垃圾分类的第二个理由是,本地居民不能只是反对将焚烧厂建立在自己家门口,垃圾减量也是避免建在别人的家门口的行动。 郭巍青说,番禺的业主已经意识到,关注李坑的事件和受害者,才有利于番禺的反建。 自然之友调研部主管、城市垃圾工作团队负责人张伯驹认为,这种从理性而非道德压力角度思考来做公益会更持久,更有可复制性。 在这个意义上讲,垃圾分类成为从自益、互益转向公益的突破口。 “从为私利而战,到私利与公益相结合的转变,这个转变,是很了不起的。”
在社区开展环保活动也是凝聚社区力量的一种方式。 对于大部分从众或者搭便车心理的社区居民,怎么让社区精英带动和培养成为有公共意识的公民? 这些后续的活动单靠社区积极分子是不行的,还需要专门的组织来给予支持。 NGO如果有意愿,可以对这个问题进行专业的持久关注,积累资料,为社区提供支持。
但是,逻辑推论和现实总是有很大差距。 参与维权活动的业主反建行动,直接对抗的是某个政府工程,这本身是敏感、有风险的。 但参与者尤其是积极分子各有自己不害怕的理由,他们会评估风险,也会在合法地带参与抗争。 这些人有各自的信息渠道和拥有的资源,最大可能地保障自己的安全。 相反,如果NGO这类组织介入,成为“有组织、有策划”的活动,将给抗争和维权活动带来更大的安全压力。
如果说这是社区囿于安全问题回避NGO,那么在其他被需要的安全地带,NGO也是缺位的。 广州市番禺区有一些小区的居民们已经开始进行垃圾分类,但是他们没有地可以用来堆肥,缺少技术来处理厨余垃圾,光靠志愿者进行小区的垃圾分类,在意愿和可持续性方面都面临挑战。 巴索风云说, 推行垃圾分类的一年多来,一直没有广州的环保组织与他们接洽,但他们需要NGO专业支持。 目前,在垃圾问题上,NGO的专业知识是远远不够的,但可以为专家、企业和社区搭建平台。
为失声者代言。 城市业主有文化和资源优势,在垃圾问题上已经处于激发状态。 但是,精英阶层的位势也常常让他们忽视垃圾产业链条上的沉默者。 在NGO的价值观和视野中,拾荒者是垃圾减量中很重要的组成部分。 但是囿于阶层的隔阂,即使反建焚烧厂的中坚力量,也常常无视拾荒者的作用,对他们是排斥的,希望他们一走了之,在城市中消失。 这使已经固化的社会结构中,阶层的藩篱在垃圾议题上得以体现。 NGO需要为沉默者代言,呼吁社会关注这个群体的生存状态,尊重他们的工作。
前文所述,目前NGO和垃圾有关的工作主要是在垃圾分类、减量上。 除了垃圾分类外,“在全国各地上焚烧厂引起很多问题的情况下,NGO的角色怎么定位?”张伯驹曾经问郭巍青教授。 郭教授分析,从各地的抗争过程和结果看,政府部门的公众接待日、小型的居民代表座谈会等形式,对话的口子和空间已经撑开了。 那么,接下来怎么表达民意? 政府怎么听取民意? 是否需要有代表性的组织? 这就给NGO提供了一个空间。 那NGO能否代表民意? 通过社区、NGO和媒体的配合能否形成倡导压力呢?
中国NGO目前仍然以慈善、服务型为主。 一些有清晰和自觉意识的NGO,往往自身还在夹缝中生存,处在社会的边缘地位,它们所能动员的资源有限。 虽然发展近30年,仍然不具备建构话语的能力,更无整合各种社会资源和力量应对社会矛盾的能力。 在推动各地的垃圾抗争进入正规化、合法化的道路方面,NGO的自身能力和能量能否够得上社会的期待和可能的工作空间吗?

CDB Senior Staff Writer

Translated by Rong Xu

Reviewed by Katie Xiao

No related content found.