The business activities of Wen’s family were brought under the spotlight last week after the New York Times published an article claiming that relatives including Wen’s mother, wife and children control hidden wealth in excess of US$2.7 billion. China’s foreign ministry condemned the article as a smear campaign, while Wen’s son Wen Yunsong, otherwise known as Winston Wen, retained two lawyers to study the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.

It now appears that Wen had known for quite some time that the scale and provenance of his family’s wealth might come back to haunt him. In a confidential telegram dated Sept. 20, 2007, the deputy principal officer of the US consulate in Shanghai, Simon Schuchat, referenced a source who claimed that the business operations of Wen’s family is “a major political headache” for the premier.

In a section titled “Wen Jiabao: Chain of Fools,” Wen’s wife Zhang Peili was described as a heavyweight in China’s jewelry industry, having once worked as a high-level official of top diamond trading firm Daimengde. Though Zhang resigned from her position after Wen was named premier in 2003, it was “in name only” and she remains “very influential in the industry,” the telegram said.

The document also mentioned that Wen’s daughter, Wen Ruchun, worked for the Beijing branch of global financial services firm Credit Suisse for a year, while his son Winston ran an investment fund.

“Wen’s wife and children all have the reputation as people who can ‘get things done’ for the right price,” said the report, which was published by WikiLeaks in 2009.

The source stopped short of accusing Wen’s family of taking bribes but said they are “amenable to accepting exorbitant ‘consulting fees’ or selling inferior diamonds at a significant mark-up.”

The section concluded by saying that Wen is “disgusted with his family’s activities but is either unable or unwilling to curtail them,” adding that he would like to divorce his wife but is “constrained” by the prominence of his political position.

The name of the source was redacted in the leaked document, although according to Duowei News, an outlet run by overseas Chinese, the source was a China-born high-level executive of an American corporation in Shanghai.

The revelations formed part of a confidential US report looking into Chinese leaders in the lead up to China’s 17th National Congress, held in October 2007. The 18th National Congress, where Wen and his cohort are expected to step aside to make way for the next generation of Communist Party leaders, is scheduled to commence in Beijing next week.”

But let’s not shout at Francesco Sisci. He’s from Nothing-Happens-Without-a-Reason Country.

Btw, nothing against a bit of speculation, but criticizing the NYT for portraying Wen almost like a big moneymaker within the state and not going into any details himself re his own scenario is weak.

I do love a nice conspiracy theory

As I said, t_co, my impression is that you are in damage control mode, and the damage in question are the NYT revelations about Wen Jiabao’s family, and the questions they raise about the political “culture” more in general. Your comment #6 on the previous thread on this topic: “You seem to be implying that the only way they got into business was because of their familial connections” – in reply to Raj’s “Maybe they shouldn’t have gone into business and got an ordinary salaried job”. It’s flat denial to suggest that there was no link between Wen Jiabao’s son’s achievements and Wen’s political role as chief state councillor. Then try a google search on sewage treatment in Chinese and Wen Jiabao speeches. Now, tell me that Wen’s younger brother and his company had no advantage when it came to the related projects – and make me laugh. Then the Ping An issue as addressed by Peter Lee (see Foarp’s #66 reply to that), and the ad hominem accusation against slim as he calls Lee a thinking man’s fenqing. Granted – I’d rather refer to Lee as the thinking fenqing’s favorite journalist, but that difference is rather subtle.

If there’s something slippery, it’s how Lee congratulates the NYT on the one hand, and then points out how the whole thing wasn’t that big after all. It’s big in that it runs counter to the idea that this or that quarter of the CCP was “clean”, especially Wen himself – a supposedly indefatigable fighter against corruption. Lee’s let’s-look-into-the-likelihood-of-the-allegations-one-by-one approach simply does what the NYT had done before.

“[T]he Times was unfortunately unable to come up with a clear determination as to whether they were simply front companies for Wen family skullduggery or, well, partnerships that provided privileged access for wealth creation for PRC and foreign elites, some of whom were members of the Wen family” (Lee)? Tell you what: those “leading communists” are unable to come up with a clear picture of their share in China’s economic growth. The NYT deserves credit for every issue it has shed light on, and they have accounted for what is for sure, and what are their own conclusions. If the CCP leaders were about as accountable, they wouldn’t have to fear reports like these to the degree they do.

Combine that with Lee’s interpretation of China’s “mass protests” after the Senkaku purchases (as quoted by you under #49 under the “How does Japan look at the Chinese protests” post (Sept 23), and combine that with your comments on Richard’s “Great-Leap-Forward” thread. It’s one thing to say that ´o Grada’s criticism of Dikotters “Great Famine” is a recommendable read. It’s another to suggest that some approaches it all too easy for the Global Times and other nationalist Chinese media to tar and paint all Western academics with the same brush (#72 there).
As if the “Global Time’s” verdict was a standard to go by.

Then your comment #221 on the same thread, as Richard re-opened the thread:
“Somchai is posting flamebait and he knows it. Not sure why you’d reopen a comment thread to let someone post what is essentially an extended ad hominem.”.

That, plus your idea that news about Xi Jinping’s financial situation shouldn’t have been reported, as it would lead to “a lot of their mainland sources .. no longer talk(ing) to them”. As if that should stop news people from doing their job.

These repeating patterns lead to my impression that your main interest is to see reports like these – be it Bloomberg, be it the NYT – or their impact limited.