China Labour Bulletin believes that in the 1970s and 1980s, when there was a shortage of teachers and the establishment of private schools was not encouraged, minban teachers made a huge contribution to the development of the education system in the rural areas where they were employed as well as to the spread of compulsory education for everyone in the country and this contribution should be recognized by society. When they reach retirement age, they should receive reasonable financial compensation and appropriate living arrangements. Therefore, we call on the government of Hubei Province and Suizhou City to take prompt action and address the reasonable requests in the petition of these min ban teachers and help them with their present difficulties, so that the guiding principle so often repeated by the central government of "putting people first" will be seen in action.

In the 1980s, the government set up the quota system wherein a given number of minban teachers would have their status transferred to gongban teacher, Other minban teachers who were older or who had not been able to pass the examinations set by the Department of Education were to be laid-off.

Most of these teachers are scattered across China's poor border areas. According to a survey reported in the 28 July 2005 issue of the Gansu Daily, there were more than 600 minban teachers in Weiyuan County in Gansu Province. Their monthly salary was only 40 yuan to 80 yuan (about US$5-10) and about 70 percent of them only received 40 yuan at the lowest end of this range.

Min ban teachers were teachers hired on a temporary basis by rural schools in China. These teachers were not on the school's payroll and therefore could not be considered gongban or official teachers. They were not paid on the same scale as the gongban teachers and did not receive other benefits designated for official teachers such as pension payments and medical insurance.

They sent their representatives to talk to the head of the Zengdu District and the head of the Department of Education. In those discussions, the government agreed to three things: it would provide assistance to the families of the poorest minban teachers; it would release wages that had been in arrears for years; and it would release severance pay that had been in arrears for years. But the government officials who participated in the talks said they had no authority to assist the petitioners in their demands for old age pensions and medical insurance.

The petitioners have said that they felt they were at their wit's end. After putting up with unbearable financial hardships, they organized the large scale demonstration on July 31. This two-day demonstration was carried out in a peaceful manner and with no public order problems.

For the second half of 2006, the petitioners have decided against taking action that would be seen as "opposing the government." They have submitted fewer petitions and reduced the number of people taking part in the demonstrations. They have tried to use "appointed" representatives to talk to the various government departments involved to solve their problems, but they have seen few results from taking this route. The petitioners have also tried using the courts to get a decision on their status, but their legal representative dropped the case after receiving threats.

The petitioners' representatives made more than 10 trips to Beijing, seeking to secure their basic rights and livelihood. They petitioned the Hubei provincial government 15 times and the Suizhou city government and the Zengdu District government numerous times. But the authorities have surprisingly viewed their activities as detrimental to society. In 2004, one of the group's representatives, a man surnamed Zhang, was arrested by the Public Security Bureau, and later sentenced to "reeducation through labour"

A large group of these min ban teachers between the ages of 50 and 60, were laid off and face an employment future that included only those jobs that no one else wants. They have no capital of their own to invest in new projects. From every angle, their future looks bleak.

In their letter to the government, the petitioners said: In the three years from 1996 to 1998, the government of Suizhou City had an annual, budgeted quota to transfer the status of 500 min ban teachers to gong ban status, thus giving those teachers normal remuneration and benefits. However, the Suizhou government, saying that it had encountered financial difficulties during that period due to "a natural disaster," did not in fact change the status of even one minban teacher during the three-year period.

The protesters were teachers who had been employed in schools in rural communities, and usually referred to as minban teachers. They had been hired by the community itself, not by the Department of Education of the provincial and municipal governments. While their teaching qualifications were usually not equal to gongban teachers who were employed by the Department of Education, minban teachers were paid very low wages, if they received anything at all.

14 August 2006