How the Official Discourse of “Social Management Innovation” Has Expanded the Space for NGOs

China Development Brief, No. 52 (Winter 2011)

中文 English

In 2011, “Social Management Innovation” Became a Buzzword.

On February 19, President Hu Jintao spoke at the “Provincial and Ministerial Level Leader Social Management Innovation Seminar” at the Central Party School. His speech stressed the need to “firmly increase the scientific level of social management, and to construct a system to manage socialism with Chinese characteristics. ”

On May 30, the Communist Party of China (CPC) Politburo held a meeting to strengthen both the research in and construction of social management1.

July saw the introduction of “Central Committee and State Council Opinions on Enhancing Social Management Innovation” (hereafter referred to as “Opinions”), which is the first official document produced by the Chinese government on social management innovation2. According to newspaper reports, since this document was not released to the public, it may hold some confidential content. Following the publication of selected parts of this document in the media, CPC leaders, government officials and those in the social development field, all participated in discussing the report’s ideas.

During this period, there have been seminars, the publication of numerous papers and books, research conducted, and several professional research organizations established, all focusing on this new field of social management innovation. A publication edited by the National School of Administration, Selected Cases of Social Management Innovation, highlights cases that have received attention in the public interest sector. One case is about Shenzhen reforming the registration and management system for community groups. Another is about the initiative of Federation of Trade Unions in Jieyang City, Guangdong Province to encourage staff in local NGOs to establish their own trade unions.. In still another case, Qingyuan Street Committee in Beijing’s Daxing District been participating in community service projects. Another case profiles Shanghai developing a public interest organization incubator. Still another profiles government financial budgetary reform in the town of Xinhe in Zhejiang’s Wenling Prefecture3.

This (high-level endorsement of social management innovation) constitutes one of the most significant changes in the external environment of CSOs this year. It provides an important opportunity for marginalized, non-mainstream CSOs to gain legitimacy.

Searching for a Breakthrough in “Stability Maintenance”

In the 1990s, scholars heatedly debated the CPC’s transformation from a revolutionary party to a governing party. Since 1978, the basis of the CPC’s legitimacy has undergone a major shift. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the Chinese government was committed to building its political legitimacy. Entering the 1990s, these efforts at strengthening political legitimacy gradually encountered more problems, so the Chinese government began looking for new sources of legitimacy.

From urban to rural areas, food safety to housing demolition (to name just a few areas), the obsession with GDP growth over the past 20 years has led to the development of many social conflicts  Funding for “stability maintenance” has increased every year, and in 2009, “stability maintenance” expenses exceeded military spending4.  Mobilizing the government’s entire control apparatus to solving this problem can only lead to more spending, and will not get at the root of the problem.

In fact, starting from around 2003, China had already initiated a major strategic adjustment. In a speech on February 19, President Hu Jintao pointed out that China is now in a strategically important developmental phase where social contradictions are magnified and many problems still exist in the field of social management. Overall, the problems in the field of social management are a reflection of China’s socio economic development level and stage of development.

In the opinion of Zhao Dingxin, a scholar of social movements, an effective way to resolve social conflicts is to encourage the growth of for intermediary organizations. to grow is through the analysis of social conflicts5. Zhao Dingxin is a professor at the University of Chicago, and recently taught several classes in Chinese universities. Last year, his view on domestic problems was voluntary-type organizations were developing poorly, and public events, in general, were spontaneous rather than organized. In addition, the credibility of local governments and media are both declining, allowing rumors to play a key role in shaping public events. The keys to the development of public events in China are emotional rather than rational factors.

In November, Caixin Media organized their 2011 Summit Forum with the theme of “looking for real growth.” People often believe stability maintenance requires wisdom, but Zhao Dingxin said it only requires common sense. This common sense knowledge will help in the development of CSOs. He has always advocated that social contradictions should be solved by working through the system. He said that the United States in the 20th century, and in pre-World War II Europe, there were also sharp social contradictions. But the social problems of Europe and the United States were resolved by working within the existing system. Governments in Europe and the United States have withdrawn from many areas, and it is through the establishment of civil society that citizens and interest groups can be allowed to solve various problems (rather than having the government at the forefront of solving social conflicts).

At this forum, Song Xiaowu, Secretary General of the China Economic Restructuring Research Group, in line with Zhao’s remarks, proposed that social organizations be given free rein to coordinate among themselves. He believes that within a specific framework, through self-organizing and self-coordinating, different people and communities evolve into groups that promote a stable society, while representing different interest groups. Song said that if social organizations can learn self-discipline, and protect their legal rights, the government will not be depended upon to solve so many social conflicts.

It is rare and commendable when consensus between officials and scholars on “stability maintenance” is reached, regardless of whether it is the result of common sense or wisdom. As a result of this change in mindset, government’s  investment in CSOs has actually increased due to these changes (in the government’s attitude). Yu Keping, Vice Director of the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, has analyzed recent trends regarding government policy, specifically the 17th Party Congress report which proposed allowing self-organized social organizations to do three things: expand public participation, promote the positive functions of things with popular appeal, and strengthen society’s ability to govern itself6.  After that report, the CPC and Chinese government, which had previously emphasized control, began to put more emphasis on nurturing and support. Government funding, service contracts, and social donations have all been increasing, but on the whole, the supply of resources is still inadequate7.

Social Innovation Discourse and CSO Registration

In regards to CSOs, legal status is one of their most important resources. Even if the government increases the supply of money for civil society projects, the vast majority of unregistered or commercially registered organizations will not be able to acquire or use the money. Additionally, in recent years, private funding, and funding from overseas have also been focused on registered organizations8.

In 2011, the local governments in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong took the lead in developing new legislation for managing CSOs, and gradually lowering the barriers for CSO registration.

At the start of 2011, Beijing launched an important innovative system. This system loosens the registration process for four categories of CSOs: business and economic; public interest, charitable; social welfare; and social services.  These CSOs can directly register with the Civil Affairs office, and not be required to “find a professional supervising unit”9. The Beijing government used the “Zhongguancun National Innovation Demonstration Zone Ordinance” as a starting point for promoting this program citywide10.

In June 2011, Beijing issued “Views on Strengthening Social Management and Innovation in Social Development,” which restated the importance of CSOs in social development. It also proposed forming a public service provision mechanism that would be government-led but with wide ranging participation by CSOs and public service units.

However, Beijing government’s policy proposal has not fully resolved the “dual management” issue for CSO registration. The four different types of organizations (mentioned earlier) still need the Civil Affairs office to find them a professional supervising unit in addition to registering with the Civil Affairs bureau. However, government officials believe that the difficulty of the Civil Affairs office finding a willing supervising unit is less than if the CSO had to find one itself. Moreover, for some charity organizations, the Civil Affairs office itself can serve as the supervising agency.

In 2009, Beijing promoted the “hub model” in order to solve the registration problems of civil organizations. The “hub model” lets CSOs use designated social organizations as their professional supervising unit. The government goes through these “hub” organizations to buy the services of CSOs, thereby making it easier for “hub” organizations to manage and service CSOs.

This “very imaginative” policy, however, has been a disappointment. In 2011, when the policy was implemented, some organizations jumped on the opportunity, and some chose to wait. Those organizations wanting to register found that success was largely based on chance or personal relationships. To give one example, the board of directors for an organization founded in 2004 thought that 2011 would be a good time to formally register. Towards the end of 2011, the legally responsible person of the organization undertook various consultations, reviewed the relevant policies, and sought out the appropriate responsible government unit. However, the relevant bureau then notified the representative that: “This year’s registration quota is full, please wait until next year to register.”

In contrast, the high profile case of the China Dolls Care and Support Association illustrates how one organization benefited from this policy11. On the afternoon of March 29, the Minister of Civil Affairs Li Liguo arrived at China Dolls’ office in Beijing. Minister Li not only issued it a certificate of registration as a civil, non-enterprise unit, but also presented a $1.7 million RMB donation from the China Social Welfare Association, the China Social Welfare Foundation, and the China Charity Aids Foundation for Children. Many other active organizations working on disability issues, however, have been less fortunate. For example, one of the oldest and best-known disability NGOs in China, Beijing Huiling, has been unable to register despite repeated attempts. As a result, it remains the only one of Huiling’s 11 branches across the country that is still registered as a business.

It is still not known how many organizations are registered in Beijing every year. In the two years since Beijing adopted this new policy, how many new organizations have there been? Data from 2009 shows there were 6733 registered organizations (at the municipal and district level). By the end of 2010, there were 7100 legally registered organizations. Between January and July of 2011, there were only 140 new registered social organizations. So in two year’s time, there have only been an increase of several hundred organizations12.

Similar to Beijing, Guangdong is another province where the media has repeatedly reported on the new policies, particularly in the cities of Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Early last year, Jet Li’s One Foundation successfully registered in Shenzhen. If this case is indicative of the climate for CSOs there, other organizations will flock to Guangzhou.

The Blue Collar Workers’ Cooperative finally registered this year in Dongguan city. One of the founders of this cooperative, He Zhongzhou, said it only took four days from submission to approval, and the approval itself only took one day. Moreover, they were not required to have a professional supervisory unit in order to register. In the Guangdong Development Plan, there is a clear expectation for the number of social organizations. According to newspaper reports, there are 28,509 social organizations in Guangdong, and the projection for 2015 is that there will be 50,000.  By the end of this year, there will still be room for more CSOs to be registered. After Guangdong Party Secretary Wang Yang criticized the difficulty Kun Ge faced in registering, steps were taken to make the process more convenient. More importantly, on November 22, Guangdong Department of Civil Affairs Director Liu Hong, at the provincial system reform work meeting, described the “Program for Further Development and Standardized Management of Social Organizations in Guangdong Province” (hereinafter referred to as the Program). The Program states that from July 1, 2012 on, except in special cases and in special areas, the professional supervising units for CSOs will be changed into professional guiding units. The Program also establishes a process by which social organizations can register directly with local Civil Affairs offices. At the same time, Guangdong will introduce a competitive mechanism changing the “one organization per sector” monopolistic policy to a “multiple organizations per sector” policy13.

On October 8, 2011, the Chengdu party committee and government issued the “Program for Accelerating the Development of Social Organizations.” This allows the local registration and management organ to directly register the following categories of social organizations: business and economic, charitable, social welfare, culture and sports. The exception is organizations that are explicitly required by law or administrative regulations to get a license first.  The Chengdu government also invested 500 million RMB to set up the Social Organization and Development Foundation. On December 1, the Changsha City government began to implement the “(Trial) Measures for Registration, Supervision and Management of Social Organizations in Changsha City.” In the future, the four categories of social welfare, charitable and other social organizations will be able to directly apply for registration at the Civil Affairs office.

In Shanghai, government purchasing of social service organizations, has attracted both old and new organizations to open branches there. Compared to the two cases described above, Shanghai’s “Social Innovation Incubator Park,” which opened in July, is considered the most important result of Shanghai’s effort to strengthen social development. The Shanghai Civil Affairs Bureau was proactive in establishing the Park, seeing it as a new development model. Local government departments believed: “developing public service projects with Chinese characteristics, and creating a model for the survival and development of social welfare organizations, are the most fundamental, strategic  issues for us.”

This year, the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region introduced the Yellow River Charitable Valley Program (hereafter, the Yellow River Program). This is a local government plan that aims to: “create a major strategic policy conforming to the current trends in charity, focusing on livelihood issues, and moving in the direction of charity development, poverty reduction, and prosperity with Ningxia characteristics.” In June, the first company entered the Program, and within six months, the Ningxia Yellow River Program Hongsipu Hongde Industrial Park has attracted more than 10 companies to invest almost 10 billion RMB in the charitable industry. This is the first place in China to change from the “blood transfusion model” to the “blood creation model” of charity. We hope this new plan does not simply use the name of charity to attract investments, but leads to actual innovations in the field of charity.

“Policy’s spring has arrived.” This has already been said for years. To NGO veterans who have spent many years working in the sector, whenever new policies are introduced, everyone sees it as a sign of spring after a harsh winter. However, the end result has always been disappointment. While the new policies in 2011 have varied by region, we seem to be witnessing a general thaw, and hope for the spring.


  1. Editor’s Note: The Politburo, which is currently has 24 members, is the highest decision-making organ in the CPC. 

  2. Editor’s Note: The Central Committee and State Council are the respective party and state organs responsible for issuing major policy decisions. 

  3. Editor’s Note: The National School of Administration is where government officials of provincial and ministerial rank are trained.  Shenzhen, Guangdong, Beijing and Shanghai are all areas where local governments are carrying out social management innovations by reforming regulations for registering and managing CSOs, and creating mechanisms for improving government transparency and public participation. 

  4. Editor’s Note: “Stability maintenance” (weiwen) refers to not only to the police or public security force, but also to a wide range of other agencies and individuals responsible for monitoring and supervising Chinese society. 

  5. Editor’s Note: Intermediary organizations is another term for CSOs. 

  6. Editor’s Note: The 17th Party Congress was held in October of 2007. 

  7. Editor’s Note: The author is referring to the growth in government procurement of social services, social donations, and private foundations over the past few years, all of which have increased the channels of funding for CSOs. 

  8. Editor’s Note: Government and foundation funds tend to go to “qualified” CSOs, which generally means those that are registered with the Civil Affairs office.  Yet many grassroots CSOs, particularly those working in more sensitive areas, are unable to register because they cannot find a government-approved professional supervising unit to sponsor them.  As a result, they tend to register as businesses or remain unregistered. 

  9. Editor’s Note: Under the current system, the government uses a “dual management” system to manage CSOs.  CSOs that want to register must be supervised by two government-approved units. Chinese affectionately use the colloquialism “two mother-in-laws” (liangge popo) to describe this arrangement.  One of these mother-in-laws should be a supervising unit in their professional area.  For example, if the CSO is an environmental organization, then its professional supervising unit would most likely be the Environmental Protection bureau.  The second supervising unit is the Civil Affairs office where the CSO will register. 

  10. Editor’s Note: Zhongguancun is an area within the Haidian district in the northwest of Beijing where many of the universities are concentrated. 

  11. Editor’s Note: For a profile of China Dolls, see “Gingko Partner Interviews: Wang Yi’ou” 

  12. Editor’s Note: The author’s point is that this increase since 2009 has been relatively small, especially when compared with other provinces such as Guangdong where the number of registered CSOs has grown faster. 

  13. Editor’s Note: This policy change applies specifically to trade associations (hangye xiehui) which previously had been limited in theory to one per sector. 

社会管理创新话语下的新空间
刘海英
中国发展简报NO.52
社会管理创新话语下的新空间
2011年,“社会管理创新”成为热词。
2月19日,胡锦涛总书记在中央党校举行的“省部级主要领导干部社会管理及其创新专题研讨班”发表的讲话中强调,要“扎扎实实提高社会管理科学化水平,建设中国特色社会主义社会管理体系”。
5月30日,中共中央政治局召开会议,研究加强和创新社会管理问题。
7月份出台《中共中央国务院关于加强社会创新管理的意见》(以下简称《意见》),这是我国第一份关于创新社会管理的正式文件。据报载,因为没有对外公布,这份文件带上了一些神秘色彩,经过媒体披露的这份文件的关键词为党委领导、政府负责、社会协同、公众参与。
贯穿其间的是,以社会管理创新为主题的研讨会和论文、书籍纷纷出炉,更有学者的研究方向多了社会管理创新这个新领域,一些以社会创新为专业的研究机构也相继成立。在国家行政学院主编的《社会管理创新案例选编》中,我们看到了公益领域一直关注的,如广东省深圳市改革社会组织登记管理体制、广东省揭阳市总工会 “民间社团建工会”、北京市大兴区清源街道参与式社区服务项目、上海市发展公益组织孵化器、浙江省温岭市新河镇参与式财政预算改革等等民间组织的实践创新。
这是今年民间组织所处的外部大环境的一个最明显的变化,在这样一个强大的主流语境下,一向边缘、非主流的民间组织多了一个重要的合法性和主流化的契机。
从政绩合法性转变,寻求维稳模式的突破
在20世纪90年代,学界热谈中国共产党从革命党到执政党转变的问题。1978年以来,中国政府的合法性基础发生了重大转变。整个80年代和90年代前期,中国政府致力于建设自己的政绩合法性基础。进入90年代后期,政绩合法性困境逐渐显露,于是中国政府又开始寻找新的合法性基础。
GDP拜物教盛行20多年,从农村到城市,从食品安全到地产拆迁等等诸多领域成为社会冲突多发地带。为了控制社会问题,维稳经费逐年增加,到2009年,已经超过军费。 运用全面的政府管制来解决问题,只能带来高额的维稳经费,却不是治本之道。
事实上,从2003年左右开始,中国已经开始重大的战略调整。胡锦涛总书记在2月19日的讲话中指出:当前中国既处于发展的重要战略机遇期,又处于社会矛盾凸显期,社会管理领域存在的问题还不少。从总体上看,中国社会管理领域存在的问题,是中国经济社会发展水平和阶段性特征的集中反映。
在 研究社会运动的学者赵鼎新看来,中间组织的发育是破解冲突和革命的有效方法。赵鼎新是美国芝加哥大学教授,近来在国内大学授课。在去年他针对国内公共事件的看法是,国内的志愿性社会组织发育不良,公共事件大体都是自发产生的,而不是有组织的,再加上一些地方政府和媒体公信力的下降,就使得谣言在公共事件的 发展中起着关键作用。决定中国公共事件发展的关键是感性而不是理性因素。
11月,财新网以“寻找真实的成长”为主题举办“2011峰会高级论坛”。当大家议论维稳定需要大智慧的时候,赵鼎新说,只需要常识。这个常识就是发育民间组织。他一向主张,把社会矛盾纳入制度化的解决轨道。他说,20世纪早期的美国和“二战”前欧洲的社会矛盾也很激化。但是欧美国家的社会问题能够在制度范围内得到化解。欧美国家的政府在许多领域都退出了,通过建设公民社会,让老百姓通过和利益集团的博弈来解决各种问题(而不是政府永远处在冲突的最前面)。
在 这次会上,与赵鼎新相应的发言是中国体改研究会的秘书长宋晓梧的发言。他提出,应发挥社会组织的自协调功能。他认为,不同的人、不同的群体在一个特定的框架内,通过自组织、自协调组成稳定的社会组织,让他们代表不同的利益群体。宋晓梧说,如果各个社会组织能够很好地发挥自律、维权作用,很多矛盾就不用完全 依靠政府来解决。。
难得的是官员和学者在“维稳”这个问题上的这个共识,不管这一药方是常识也好,大智慧也好,这个转变事实上增加了政府对民间组织的资源供给。中央编译局副局长俞可平分析,近年来,特别是在党的十七大报告提出“发挥社会组织在扩大群众参与、反映群众诉求方面的积极作用,增强社会自治功能”之后,党和政府对社会 组织逐步从原来的以管制为主,开始转向以培育和鼓励为主。政府资助、服务转包和社会资助开始增加,不过从总体上说资源供给还相当不足。
社会创新话语下的民间组织“注册门”
对于民间组织而言,法律上的合法身份是组织最重要的资源之一。即使政府增加了资源的供给,但是对于很多没有注册或者工商注册的组织而言,也大多不能获得。最近几年,民间的资源,甚至海外资源的提供方也开始只向有民政注册的组织提供资助。
2011年,以北京、上海和广东三个地方政府为领头羊,先后出台民间组织管理新政,逐步放开民间组织登记,或者降低注册的门槛。
2011年 一开年,北京就推出了一项重大创新制度,即对全部放开工商经济类、公益慈善类、社会福利类、社会服务类等四大类社会组织登记审批,这些社会组织可以到民政部门直接登记,解决“找业务主管单位难”的问题。北京还依据《中关村国家自主创新示范区条例》试点“社会组织到民政部门直接登记”,并在此基础上将这一制 度辐射到全市。
2011年6月,北京市下发《关于加强和创新社会管理全面推进社会建设的意见》,再次明确民间组织在社会建设中的重要作用,并提出要形成政府主导、社会组织和企事业单位广泛参与的公共服务提供机制。
然而,北京政策对“双重管理”的民间组织登记困局并未真正解决,有幸成为4类组织的,同样也要找“婆家”。但政府部门认为“由民政部门为社会组织‘寻找婆婆’的难度肯定小于社会组织自行寻找;另外,对于一些慈善公益类型的社会组织,民政部门也可作为业务主管单位。”
2009年为了解决民间组织注册难题,北京推出“枢纽型”社会组织作为民间组织的主管单位,政府通过出钱买服务的方式为其注资,以方便“枢纽型”组织对社团组织的管理和服务。
但这个“很有想象力”的政策似乎带来的还是失望。当2011年放开登记的政策出台,有的组织跃跃欲试,有的组织观望等待。要注册的找成功注册的组织取经,得到的答案是偶然因素和个人关系很重要。一家2004年就开展活动的草根组织,今年理事会讨论的一个重要工作就是去正式注册。组织的负责人多方咨询、研读政策,寻找主管部门,临近年底的时候,相关部门告知:“今年的名额满了,等明年吧。”
瓷娃娃高调注册,让这个组织和这一政策相得益彰。3月29日下午,民政部部长李立国来到北京的瓷娃娃项目办公地点,不但颁发了民办非企业单位登记证书,还收到了来自中国社会福利协会、中国社会福利基金会、中华少年儿童慈善救助基金会共170万元的捐赠。而更多的在业内活跃的残障组织却没有这么幸运,在全国11家机构中,唯独北京慧灵依然是工商注册(详见本期“美丽的行走”观摩手记》)。
尚不得知北京每年的新登记名额有多少。北京2年来不断出台的“新政”下,新增组织数量有多少?北京2009年数据为6 733家(市级和区级),截至2010年底,北京市共有依法登记的市区两级社会组织7 100余家  。2011年1月至7月,新登记的社会组织有近140家。2年时间增加了几百家组织。
广东和北京一样,放开政策也被媒体多方报道,尤其是广州、深圳两地时有突破。去年初,李连杰壹基金公募基金会成功在深圳注册,如果它仅是个案的话,外地组织东南飞迁广州、深圳,也说明这里气候更宜人。
今年才创办的蓝衣工人合作社最近在东莞民政注册。这个合作社的发起人何忠洲说,从提交到批准下来只有4天,而仔细剔除其他过程,审批只用了一个工作日,而且实现了无主管单位的登记。广东发展规划中,针对社会组织的数量有明确的要求。据报载,广东现有社会组织28 509个,2015年将达到5万个。所以年底还有名额给民间组织来注册。尤其是广东省委书记汪洋批评坤哥注册难后,民间组织跨入登记的门槛更方便了。更给力的是,11月22日,广东省民政厅厅长刘洪在全省深化体制改革工作会议上就《关于广东省进一步培育发展和规范管理社会组织的方案》(以下简称《方案》)作起草说明。《方案》明确,从2012年7月1日起,除特别规定、特殊领域外,将社会组织的业务主管单位改为业务指导单位,社会组织直接向民政部门申请成立。与此同时,广东将引入竞争机制积极推行“一业多会”,改变“一业一会”的垄断格局。
2011年10月8日,成都市委、市政府出台《关于加快培育发展社会组织的实施方案》,对工商经济、公益慈善、社会福利、文体活动、生活服务类等社会组织,除法律、行政法规规定必须先取得许可证外,可直接向登记管理机关申请办理登记手续。政府出资5亿成立社会组织发展基金会。长沙市的《长沙市社会组织登记和监督管理办法(试行)》于12月1日开始施行,以后社会福利、公益慈善等四类社会组织可直接向民政部门申请登记。
上海针对社会服务类组织的政府购买,吸引一些老组织和新组织都去上海再开分店,相比上述两地,上海的“社会创新孵化园”7月开张,被认为是上海加强社会建设的重要成果。上海市民政局积极探索和创立了园区这种新载体、新形式。当地政府部门认为:“开发出有中国特色的公益项目,形成社会公益组织生存发展的路径与模式,这是我们最关心的战略性问题、全局性的问题、根本性的问题”。
宁夏回族自治区也在今年推出黄河善谷计划。这是当地政府“顺应现代慈善潮流,着眼解决民生问题,走具有宁夏特色的慈善兴业、扶贫、富民之路,做出的一项重大战略决策”。从6月第一家公司入谷,在半年内,宁夏“黄河善谷”红寺堡弘德工业园区已吸引10多家企业投资近100亿元从事慈善产业,在全国率先开启了从“输血型”慈善走向“造血型”慈善之门   。我们希望这不是以慈善为名进行的新一轮招商引资,而是实实在在的慈善产业创新。
“政策的春天来了”,这句话已经说了几年。对于苦守、乐守这个行业多年的NGO人来说,每次新的政策出台,都是寒冬里对春天期盼,结果是一次次的失望。但2011年的政策,虽然各地冷暖各异,但总算看到了破冰、回暖、迎春的希望。

Liu Haiying was CDB Editor.

Translated by Glen Meyerowitz

Reviewed by Andrew MacDonald

No related content found.

Share: