Fang Lian Says: Corporate Scum - Huawei! Listing Huawei's Misdeeds! The Originator of 996, Sending Employees to Prison, Accomplice of the Internet Great Firewall, Builder of the CCP Monitoring Network! How a Company That Takes Patriotic Propaganda to the Extreme Is Forged?

Toronto Fang Lian posted a video: Fang Lian says: "Corporate Scum - Huawei! Listing the misdeeds of Huawei! The originator of 996, sending employees to prison, an accomplice of the internet firewall, the builder of the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance network! How is a company that eats patriotic propaganda to the extreme forged?

Video link:

Full text:

Recently, if you post content related to the theme on Douyin in China, you are very likely to receive an account ban notice. The reason for such a ban is that Huawei launched a massive reporting campaign. This video disappeared because of those reports.

Why could a bamboo‑material video be reported? It is mainly because earlier, Yu Chengdong, at a product launch, positioned the Wenjie M9 at 500,000–600,000 yuan and said that in Q4 2023 it would live up to expectations, that the M9’s launch would redefine the best SUV under 10 million yuan, the most luxurious SUV, and that cars under 5 million yuan are not our target.

Later, netizens mocked Yu Chengdong, especially his unclear speech, and posted a bamboo‑material video with the caption “the best toy under 10 million” to ridicule him. Huawei’s legal department, full of G‑points, quickly noticed the sarcastic tricks and launched a crackdown on the bamboo‑material video.

Of course, although Huawei is foolish, it is a company that Chinese people cannot avoid. Hello, I am Toronto Fang Lian. Today we will talk about the most foolish and evil company in the universe over the past 1,000 years: Huawei.

If you now think that Huawei’s constant post deletions, avatar removals, and selling Wenjie cars by treating Chinese people like chives represent the limit of Huawei’s evil, you are overthinking it. These product quality issues and speech suppression are minor compared to Huawei’s real malice.

First, Huawei’s primary evil can be said to be the evil it does to its own employees. If the exploitation of capitalists worldwide were measured in stones, Jack Ma would have one dou, other capitalists together one dou, while Ren Zhengfei alone would have eight dou. Huawei can be called the originator of China’s 996 culture.

When Jack Ma claimed in 2019 that 996 was a blessing, little did he know that Huawei had introduced a system far beyond 996 decades earlier: the mattress culture. As early as 1988, when Huawei was founded, Ren Zhengfei required all staff to place a mattress under their desks. If a task was urgent, employees could lie on the mattress and work overnight.

This mattress culture was excessive and soon produced serious consequences. In 2005, 24‑year‑old master’s graduate Hu Xinyu joined Huawei after graduation. Not long after, he participated in a key project. Starting in March, he practiced the mattress culture. To keep up with the project, Hu started work at 9 am and worked until 3 am. At 3 am he didn’t go home; he simply pulled out the mattress and slept on the spot at the office.

During the first 30 days of the project, Hu returned home only four times, each time just to grab some daily necessities. Working from 9 am to 3 am, seven days a week, a 9‑3‑7 schedule that would make Jack Ma exclaim that his own 996 was too merciful.

On May 28, 2006, at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat‑sen University, a 25‑year‑old psychiatric patient suffered a brain hemorrhage and was diagnosed as dead. After days of unsuccessful rescue, the young life could not be saved. His organs had been donated to university hospitals in the first half of 2002. He graduated in 2005 from Sichuan University with a degree in radio, then worked in research and development at Huawei in Shenzhen. In late April he was hospitalized. He was involved in a lockdown project and worked overtime on the floor. On April 28, 2006, Hu collapsed in Huawei’s office, was rushed to the hospital, diagnosed with acute meningitis, and died ten days later.

Hu’s death brought Huawei’s mattress culture into public view for the first time. When such a massive oversight caused a death, how did Ren Zhengfei respond? Just like Huawei’s current PR, with stubborn denial and soft‑content suppression. Huawei immediately hired a large number of the water‑army to post articles praising Huawei’s “struggle culture” and “spirit of perseverance”.

At the same time, Huawei shamelessly published an article titled “On Huawei’s Party Committee for the Company’s Human Resources Committee”, a grand piece about Huawei’s growth and significance. Netizens suggested it should be included in university Chinese textbooks as a negative example, at least as a cautionary case. Huawei’s core values, etc.

Amid this high‑intensity water‑army spin, Hu’s incident was quickly buried. However, suppressing the incident did not stop other disasters inside Huawei. Under intense pressure, a suicide culture began to spread within the company.

On July 18, 2007, Huawei employee Zhang Rui hanged himself in Shenzhen. On August 11, 2008, a Huawei employee in the Changsha office, Li XX, fell from a building. On March 6, 2008, an employee at Huawei’s Shenzhen headquarters cafeteria jumped from the third floor; the employee’s name was unknown. Four jumps in half a year.

Older friends may know that Foxconn, as a top “cow‑horse” enterprise, also experienced a series of jump‑off incidents in China in 2010. What many do not know is that the chain of employee jumps actually began with Huawei, not Foxconn.

Beyond these misdeeds, many malicious corporate terms and cultures on the Chinese internet were created by Huawei. For example, the so‑called “the truth about a 34‑year‑old Huawei employee”. This article appeared on March 23, 2017, in the 7th and 6th editions of China Newsweek. The title was “The Truth About Huawei’s 34‑Year‑Old Employees”. It discussed the reality of 34‑year‑old staff, stemming from Huawei’s mass layoff of employees over 34 in 2017.

In addition, Huawei introduced a “volunteer struggle agreement”, euphemistically called a “striver’s application”. The form required employees to voluntarily give up holidays, paid annual leave, and other paid leave.

Full text:

Recently, if you post bamboo‑related toys on Douyin in China, you are very likely to receive a Xuanwu avatar. The reason for this avatar is that Huawei launched a massive reporting campaign, and the avatar disappeared because of the reports.

This is mainly because earlier Yu Chengdong, at a launch, called Wenjie “the best SUV under 10 million yuan” and said “cars under 5 million yuan are not our target”. Afterwards, netizens mocked Yu Chengdong, especially his unclear speech, and posted a bamboo‑related video with the caption “the best toy under 10 million” to ridicule him.

Huawei’s legal department quickly noticed the sarcastic tricks and launched a crackdown on bamboo. Of course, although Huawei is foolish, it is a company that Chinese people cannot avoid. Hello, I am Toronto Fang Lian, and today we will talk about the most foolish and evil company in the universe over the past 1,000 years: Huawei.

If you now think that Huawei’s constant online post deletions, avatar removals, and treating Chinese people like chives when selling Wenjie cars already represent the extreme of Huawei’s evil, you are overthinking it. These product quality issues and speech suppression are minor compared to Huawei’s true malice.

First, Huawei’s primary evil can be said to be the evil it does to its own employees. If the exploitation of capitalists worldwide were measured in stones, Jack Ma would have one dou, other capitalists together one dou, while Ren Zhengfei alone would have eight dou.

Occupying eight dou. Huawei can be said to be the originator of China’s 996 culture.

As early as the last century, Huawei introduced a system far surpassing 996 into the company, which was the mattress culture. As early as 1988, when Huawei was just founded, Ren Zhengfei required all staff to place a mattress under their desks, so that if tasks were urgent, employees could simply pull out the mattress and sleep at the company overnight, working through the night.

In 2005, 24‑year‑old master’s graduate Hu Xinyu joined Huawei after graduating. Not long after joining, in the following year, Hu caught up with a key Huawei project and began practicing the mattress culture at the company from March. To keep up with project progress, Hu worked from 9 a.m. until 3 a.m., then directly pulled out the mattress and slept on site at the company.

During the first 30 days of the project, Hu returned home only four times. He started work at 9 a.m., slept at 3 a.m., following a 7‑day‑a‑week 937 schedule. Under this high intensity, on April 28 2006, Hu fell ill in Huawei’s office, was rushed to the hospital, diagnosed with acute meningitis, and died ten days after being taken to the hospital.

Hu’s death also brought Huawei’s mattress culture into the public eye for the first time. How did Ren Zhengfei respond? Huawei immediately hired a large number of internet trolls to post articles promoting Huawei’s “struggle culture,” and Huawei itself published a series of articles such as “Heaven Rewards Diligence” and “Huawei’s Core Values” to promote its fighting spirit. After this high‑intensity troll campaign, Hu’s incident was quickly suppressed.

However, suppressing Hu’s case did not stop other disasters inside Huawei. Under extreme pressure, a suicide culture began to spread within Huawei. On July 18 2007, a newly hired Huawei employee Zhang Rui hanged himself in Shenzhen. On August 11 2007, an employee at Huawei’s Changchun office fell from a building. On February 26 2008, an employee at Huawei’s Chengdu office, Li Dongbing, jumped to his death. On March 6 2008, an employee at Huawei’s Shenzhen headquarters cafeteria also jumped from the third floor; the name was unknown.

Four jumps in half a year—this chain of employee suicides did not start with Foxconn, but with Huawei. In addition to these atrocities, many malicious corporate terms and cultures on the Chinese internet were created by Huawei. For example, the current “35‑year‑old programmer anxiety” originated from Huawei’s 2017 mass layoff of employees over 34.

Moreover, Huawei introduced a “voluntary struggler agreement,” euphemistically called a “struggler application,” which required employees to voluntarily give up basic labor rights such as holidays and overtime pay. This method of asking employees to relinquish various rights was later copied by many other companies.

Of course, such harsh treatment of employees and disregard for labor law is just a starter. If you think about betraying Ren or even fantasize about getting compensation after leaving Huawei, Ren might give you a big punishment—literally a physical one.

This brings us to the classic Li Hongyuan case. Li Hongyuan joined Huawei in 2005 and worked there for 12 years. By 2018, at age 42, he reached the “optimization” stage, and encountered many problems when renewing his labor contract. Ultimately, Li was dismissed and entered negotiations with Huawei’s HR. During negotiations, Li insisted on his rights, and the two sides agreed on a 2N compensation totaling 330,000 CNY before tax. A few days later, the department secretary transferred the compensation to Li.

However, just days after the money arrived in Li’s account, he was criminally detained by Shenzhen police. The initial arrest charge was embezzlement, which later changed to leaking commercial secrets, and finally to extortion at trial. The 2N compensation was actually a trap set by Huawei. The reason the payment was made by the department secretary rather than directly by Huawei was to create evidence that Li was extorting Huawei by demanding legal compensation.

Huawei never intended to pay Li and planned to send him to prison from the start. Fortunately, Li habitually recorded conversations, and he recorded the entire negotiation with HR. After Li’s arrest, the case caused a huge uproar; with his evidence, public pressure forced Huawei to release Li after 251 days of detention without conviction.

“985 graduate, 996 work, 251 days after leaving, rights defense 404” became a meme mocking Huawei. After serving 251 days, Li received 107,522 CNY in compensation, which equals 428 CNY per day. This compensation was not paid by Huawei but by the state, meaning we all paid for Huawei’s false accusations.

According to Caixin, in the month Li was detained, five employees were arrested for demanding severance from Huawei, one of whom was arrested in Thailand while traveling and then “extradited” to Huawei. This shows Huawei’s ruthless treatment of departing employees is not rare.

Back in July 2001, three former Huawei employees were detained across 2,000 km for starting a business after leaving, and later sentenced to two to three years in prison. In China, conscientious companies compensate departing employees according to labor law, and foreign firms often pay above the legal minimum. Average companies may withhold part of the compensation; poorer companies may ignore labor law entirely. Huawei, however, is beyond humanity; asking Huawei for compensation is lucky if they don’t demand you pay them, and lucky if they don’t send you to prison.

So what gives Huawei the confidence to disregard labor law and command the police? That confidence is written into Huawei’s rise. Ren Zhengfei repeatedly emphasizes the importance of hard work in his biography and speeches, claiming Huawei’s success is solely due to effort.

But if you peel back Huawei’s skin, effort is not the real reason for its success. Huawei’s rise relied on “eating patriotic meals,” being the earliest to do so. While other companies relied on the market, Ren Zhengfei anchored the enterprise to the state.

Ren’s first business was patriotic. Huawei started in telecommunications, and from the beginning it was extraordinary. When he met Jiang Zemin, he promoted Huawei’s only product at the time—a switch. Ren told Jiang that although the switch is small, the technology of such equipment concerns national security; a country without its own switching equipment is like a country without its own army. This elevated Huawei’s switch to a matter of national security.

To better implement this idea and show loyalty to the Communist Party, Huawei even created a uniquely Chinese corporate system, voluntarily offering itself to the Party.

From a shareholding perspective, Huawei is a very strange enterprise. Huawei’s slogan is “all‑staff shareholding.” According to Huawei, all employees are shareholders. In reality, Ren Zhengfei, who holds eight dou, designed the system not to benefit employees but as a disguise.

Huawei’s legal entity is Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., which has only one shareholder: Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. This holding company has two shareholders: Ren Zhengfei and Huawei’s union. Ren holds only 0.5% of the equity, but both he and the union have veto rights, effectively sharing control equally.

Although the union bears the title of a union, Chinese unions do not represent workers’ interests, and Huawei’s workers have no voting rights. This pseudo‑union is actually overseen by the All‑China Federation of Trade Unions, a minister‑level state organ, meaning Huawei is half‑controlled by the CCP and, in a strange way, handed over to the state.

The CCP, while not receiving dividends or holding actual shares in Huawei, still controls half of Huawei. The Party later sent a representative to Huawei: Sun Yafang. In 1999 Sun became chairman of Huawei and served until 2018. She claimed to be an ordinary university teacher before joining Huawei, but U.S. government reports state Sun was a senior official in the state security department responsible for cyber security, with a solid government background.

Other companies were still reluctantly being infiltrated by the CCP, but when Huawei held 1% of golden shares, Ren Zhengfei had already, as early as 1997, completed a rapid kneeling to the Communist Party, demonstrating absolute loyalty and earning the qualification to become a comprador enterprise.

With this foundation, subsequent CCP-related stability maintenance, surveillance, and digital repression businesses naturally included a share for Huawei. For example, in the early days of the Internet, the most notorious internet firewall system had two hardware contractors: one was Sugon, the other was Huawei.

It can be said that without Huawei, the surveillance system could not be built. As technology further advanced, Huawei gradually transformed from a hardware contractor into the biggest accomplice helping the CCP monitor Chinese citizens, from hardware to software.

According to disclosures by the Wall Street Journal, Huawei has long helped the CCP build the "Sky Net" system, and in 2018 Huawei also developed a feature called "Uyghur Alert." When a police camera detects a Uyghur, it automatically triggers an alarm.

As the CCP's overseas offensive intensified, Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative, and Huawei exported its surveillance system to several Belt and Road countries, notably the famous "Safe City" function. According to a New York Times report, in 2019 Huawei's Safe City system in Ecuador helped the local dictator monitor dissidents and journalists.

In August 2019, the Wall Street Journal published an investigation showing that in Uganda and Zambia, dictators not only used Huawei's camera base stations to monitor dissidents and opposition figures, but Huawei technicians also personally went to those countries to help crack the opposition's encrypted communications app WhatsApp, locate their movements, and assist the dictators in making arrests.

In the Meng Wanzhou case, Iran was under worldwide sanctions in 2013 for pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet Huawei opened a shell company in Iran called "Xintong Company," which helped Iran smuggle affordable equipment. Employees of Xintong used Huawei email accounts and Huawei ID badges, essentially making it a Huawei branch in Iran. Meng later admitted this, securing an agreement that she would not be prosecuted.

It can be said that Huawei is the biggest accomplice in the CCP's digital repression of Chinese people. It can also be said that Huawei is the biggest accomplice for many dictators worldwide who use digital technology to suppress their populations.

Huawei has received substantial returns. As early as 2004, China's China Development Bank provided Huawei with interest‑free loans exceeding 80 billion RMB. By 2009, this rose to 240 billion RMB. According to later Wall Street Journal reports, by 2019 the CCP had given Huawei about 550 billion RMB (approximately $75 billion) in subsidies.

Considering that the bulk of subsidies likely came in the past two years, after the launch of the electric‑vehicle and chip wars, Huawei's actual received subsidies should be even higher. Based on collected data, Huawei has publicly received over 800 billion RMB in subsidies to date. Spread across the population, that equals about 615 RMB per person.

There are also indirect subsidies that cannot be calculated, such as forced purchases of Huawei equipment abroad. In 2019, Denmark's Copenhagen Post reported that the Chinese embassy forced the Danish government to deploy Huawei 5G systems in the Helsinki‑tourist area of the Roq Islands. If deployed, the China‑Denmark free‑trade agreement would be terminated.

Such forced purchases of Huawei products, and the use of Belt and Road funds to buy Huawei equipment, are common across ten countries in Africa and Latin America. How much profit this generates for Huawei is unknown.

People know that they will be completely blocked by Huawei online. The CCP is also willing to help block them. Huawei is not simply a market‑oriented company; its clientele has never been ordinary citizens but high‑ranking CCP officials, arguably even Xi himself. Therefore, it does not care about public opinion.

Culturally, Huawei can be seen as part of the state security apparatus. Its corporate culture and functions are geared toward iron‑fisted repression of dissent. So when netizens mock it online, it is unsurprising that it reports and arrests those individuals.

Huawei can be described as a thoroughly corrupt enterprise. It combines the worst traits of two types of companies. State‑owned enterprises typically act as CCP allies, helping suppress ordinary Chinese people, but they receive state funding and have limited profit motives, often treating employees relatively well and lacking the exploitative habits of private firms.

Huawei, however, does both: it performs state‑owned‑enterprise duties by assisting the CCP in repressing dissent, and it also adopts the private‑sector model of unrestricted exploitation of employees, treating them like cattle.

Huawei's rise can be seen as a product of our era and a stark testament to its tragedy. Its patriotic branding and reliance on state funding allowed it to thrive during the Jiang‑Hu period, an era dominated by market economics.

Under Xi Jinping, Huawei truly emerged. Xi's era is characterized by state leadership, state surveillance, and state security. In this context, Huawei, the CCP's watchdog, finally flourished. Its ascent reflects Xi's departure from reform and opening.

For such a company, I believe that anyone who still hopes for a better future and a better China should stop using any Huawei products. Boycotting Huawei is a responsibility for everyone.

Huawei's rise is not only a disaster for the Chinese people but for humanity as a whole. If companies like Huawei become mainstream, humanity faces endless 996 work culture, the risk of imprisonment for resignations or compensation claims, and a regression of labor relations by a century. Huawei's rise would also bring endless surveillance. With Huawei's assistance, CCP dictators can further consolidate power.

Purchasing Huawei products essentially funds the production of weapons that could kill us. Huawei is indeed a product of our time and a tragic testament to it. Rejecting Huawei is everyone's responsibility.