Central Forwarding of the Central Committee’s Instructions on the Correct Implementation of the Two Documents Concerning the Ji Kaifu [1] Incident (March 6, 1952) To the Central Bureau of Central-South China and All Other Central Bureaus: (1) The Central Committee approves the report [2] submitted by the Hubei Provincial Party Committee to the Central Bureau of Central-South China on February 27 and the latter’s reply to the Hubei Provincial Party Committee dated March 3, deeming both documents correct; (2) These two documents should be published in the Party press. Printed by the Central Committee on March 6 based on Mao Zedong’s manuscript. Notes [1] On April 12, 1951, a theft of funds occurred at the Second Municipal Hospital of Wuhan City. Ji Kaifu, who at the time served as a medical section clerk and secretary to the hospital director’s office, was falsely accused of the theft and arrested twice by the Public Security Bureau. In November of the same year, a joint inspection team organized by the higher-level Party committee and the People’s Government investigated the case, clarified the truth, and refuted the false accusations against Ji Kaifu. Based on the facts thus established, the Central-South Military and Political Committee took stern disciplinary action against several cadres who had suppressed democracy, violated human rights, and used the incident as an excuse for retaliation and conspiracy to frame Ji Kaifu. [ ] In its report of February 27, 1952, the Hubei Provincial Committee of the CPC informed the Central Bureau of Central-South China that, following the publication in the newspapers of the decision to handle the Ji Kaifu case, public morale was greatly boosted, both within and outside the Party.

The atmosphere of democracy was significantly enhanced, and upright conduct was upheld. However, in the campaigns against corruption and counter-revolutionaries, it was discovered that certain corrupt elements and suspected spies were taking advantage of the situation to counterattack, while some leading cadres, out of fear of making mistakes, acted hesitantly and lacked the courage to carry out their work boldly. In order to further correctly implement the spirit of the Central Bureau of Central-South China’s handling of the Ji Kaifu case, it is essential to educate the broad ranks of cadres, clearly distinguishing between the errors of factional bias and deliberate framing and the deviations that may arise in mass movements; between willful violations of laws and discipline, bureaucratic irresponsibility, and conscientious, diligent work undertaken despite limitations in level and experience; and between those who resist organizational guidance, persist in their mistakes, and repeatedly fail to reform, and those who are willing to engage in self-criticism and correct their errors. Strict disciplinary sanctions should be imposed on the former, whereas the latter should primarily receive educational guidance and improvement. All levels of leading organs must earnestly attach importance to the feedback and complaints of the masses, conduct thorough investigations, and handle matters carefully in accordance with the principles outlined above, based on the actual circumstances. Subjectiveism, bureaucratic attitudes, and factional prejudices must be categorically avoided; violators shall be punished commensurate with the severity of their offenses. As for those who genuinely harbor ulterior motives, seize the opportunity to counterattack, and seek to undermine the resistance movement, their true nature must be exposed through open criticism and education of the masses, so as to facilitate the smooth progress of the campaign. Only in this way can we ensure that the vast majority of cadres perform their duties diligently and conscientiously, maintain close ties with the people, refrain from violating laws and discipline, yet dare to assume responsibility courageously, uphold principles, and avoid being overly cautious and hesitant. [3] In its reply dated March 3, 1952, the Central Bureau of Central-South China of the CPC Central Committee concurred with the Hubei Provincial Committee’s report and the proposed principles for handling such cases, pointing out that the phenomenon described in the report—namely, certain cadres’ reluctance to act boldly—is a manifestation of an incorrect understanding of how the Ji Kaifu case was handled. Should similar situations arise in other provinces as described by the Hubei Provincial Committee, they are urged to address them promptly in accordance with the principles set forth in that report. Particularly in the current “tiger-hunting” campaign, it is imperative to resolutely overcome the practice of using this case as a pretext to extort the tiger-hunting teams and to firmly repel attempts by right-leaning elements to confuse right and wrong. Of course, extracting confessions through coercion must also be resolutely eliminated.