The Unpublished Lang Xianping Interview

The following essay appeared at ChineseNewsNet with the explanation: This essay by Chen Min was originally scheduled to be published in the September 28, 2006 issue of Southern Weekend but was withdrawn for an unstated reason.  There is no explanation about how the essay then ended up on an overseas Chinese website.  This may be related to the general edict to all media to use only the Xinhua reports and nothing of their own.  You can read the original Chinese article below this English-language translation.


(in translation)

Under the dim lighting, Lang Xianping smiled mildly and listened.  He appeared to be surprisingly low-keyed.  But as soon as he spoke up, he became excited in less than three minutes and his eyes were sparkling.

At that moment, Lang Xianping was like an owl soaring from the peak, sharp and fierce.

The talk began with the Shanghai social pension fund.  "The first time that I learned about the problem with the Shanghai social pension fund, it was at the end of last year," said Lang Xianping.

At the time, Lang Xianping was hosting a television program titled "Lang chats about finance" in Shanghai.  One day, the program team received an email that alleged the Shanghai pension fund was being diverted.  The tip mentioned a newly rich Shanghai man named Zhang Rongkun, who happened to be a target of attention of Lang Xianping.  "I thought that it was very peculiar that an unknown small businessman could become so wealthy all of a sudden.  He was able to spend several billions to purchase two expressways and he became one of the top 40 richest man in China."

Lang Xianping said that this was not his only clue, as he had other sources.  All the accusations from different directions point to the same thing: the diversion of the Shanghai pension fund.  The research team of Lang Xianping was able to investigate and verify this.

For Lang Xianping, this was an intolerable misdeed.  Around 2005, he had repeatedly emphasized on various occasions that the social security pension fund is the life savings of the people and cannot be diverted into the market at the risk of destroying the future wealth of the people.

So Lang Xianping designated Zhang Yongkun as the principal character in the third episode of "Lang chats about finance."  The principal character of the first episode was a man named Zhan who headed a private healthcare group which controls practically all of the private hospitals in Shanghai.  "They specialized in extortion.  They will tell you that you are sick even if you are not.  They will tell that you are seriously sick even if you only have a minor ailment."  Lang Xianping wondered why the group has not collapsed yet.  

In the second episode, the principal character was Shanghai celebrity Zhou Zhengyi.  Lang Xianping thought that this mainland businessman ripped off a bundle in Hong Kong, and then he returned to hide in the mainland under the protection of corruption government officials and evaded the punishment of Hong Kong law.  This type of precedent cannot be made under "one country, two systems."  Therefore, he called for the extradition of Zhou Zhengyi to Hong Kong to stand trial.

To dissect three big shots in a Shanghai television program was obviously sensationalistic.  But the associated huge risks can also be imagined by anyone who knows China.

"I knew that there were risks, but I cannot be a member of a decadent society.  Lang Xianping's program will reflect the style of Lang Xianping.  I will speak about subjects that others dare not mention.  I will condemn social ills and move society along."  That was how Lang Xianping responded to the reporter's question.

Even though Lang Xianping expected some danger, the scope of the danger far exceeded his expectations.  Lang Xianping lost his battle in Shanghai.

This interview with Lang Xianping went on until 12:30am.  In bidding farewell, Lang Xianping told the reporter that he has booked tickets to fly to Shanghai tomorrow.  It seemed that he just cannot wait.


Q: They must give a reason to stop your program?
A: They found a reason.  They said that my putonghua was non-standard.  This is unreasonable, because only professional hosts are required to speak standard putonghua.  I am a guest, and so there should not be any such requirement.  It should be alright as long as the audience can understand me.  Using this non-existent reason to stop my program showed that this was more than a technical problem.

Q: How did you feel at the time?
A: At the time, I felt that it was too hard to for one person to fight the entire corrupt power structure.  From February this year, I kept silent for seven months.  About half a month ago, I began to stand up and speak again.  Many foreign reporters asked me, "Did you get any instructions from anyone?"  I said that I have not received any instructions.  I am speaking out now purely out of the conscience of a scholar and my independent judgment.  I am a person without any powers.  In order to punish those corrupt authorities, the power of even high authorities is required.  I am very happy to see the central government hammering the corrupt powers right now.  I want to stand up and echo my support.

Q: All your three cases in Shanghai were fatal.  Did you consider the risks at the time?
A: I will not compromise with interest groups.  Since I started in 2001, I have always held this attitude.  Why do I want to maintain a half-dead-half-alive program through a compromise?

Q: In the matter of Gu Chujun, you did not have 100% confidence in a victory.  Yet you persisted.  But Gu Chujun was just a businessman.  In Shanghai, you were confronting entire interest groups, with completely different quantity and quality.
A: At the time, I was not aware of this problem.  I thought that I was facing businessmen again and I was just analyzing these business cases.  At the time, I used the same method against them as I did against Gu Chujun.  I knew that they would strike back and I was not afraid.  The counterattacks from businessmen mean nothing to me and I can handle them.  I did not imagine that the corrupt businessmen were inextricably linked to corrupt government officials.  After my program was shut down, I realized that the corrupt government officials joined with corrupt businessmen to loot the wealth of the people, and there were many corrupt scholars spreading many specious viewpoints to give them cover and legitimacy.  This iron triangle also controlled the media.  I did not imagine that they were so powerful, and my personal efforts were totally outmatched.

Q: You have always told the public that you are confident about the central government on the anti-corruption issues.  When you encountered these circumstances, did your confidence in the central government waver?  Did you have doubts and misgivings about the strong government theory that you always held?
A: I believed even more so in the importance of strong government.  At that moment, only an open central government can truly solve the problem.  It was impossible to rely only on civilian forces and opinion forces, because the corrupt forces will never let them break through.  At this time, an even higher power is needed to wipe away the corrupt forces like a iron broom.

Q: But if the iron triangle that you mentioned is not restricted only in Shanghai, then what?
A: Then China will be like the Philippines and it will sink right to the bottom.  But I clearly see that China is not in that situation.

Q: You regard yourself as a local fighter who trusts the central army and therefore you want to help the central army rout the corrupt forces.  Is that the right analogy?
A: That is the situation.  I was doing the right thing, except I underestimated the enemy.  But I became more firm.  I kept my cool and I waited for the chance.  When the army from the central government arrived, I came out and worked in concert with them.

Q: I noticed the path by which your thinking has evolved.  When you first began to talk about the China problem, you focus your attention to the businessmen.  But beginning last year, you made a turn and you challenged principally the corrupt interest groups which constitute your iron triangle.  But does this mean that your understanding has changed from shallow to deep?
A: It requires experience when you are dealing with the China problem.  My observations and thoughts on the China problem form a process of accumulation of experiences.  Beginning with one businessman, I gradually realized that this was not a problem about that one businessman.  Why can he sell off state-owned properties so cheaply?  After peeling off the veneer, I discover that the real reason is often because government officials are colluding with business people to divide state-owned assets.  Shanghai has the most classical cases.  I did not begin with wanting to criticize Shanghai government officials, because I did not imagine that there would be government-business collusion.  But I found out that corrupt businesses were always linked to corrupt government officials.  Corrupt government officials, corrupt business people, corrupt scholars, this corrupt iron triangle will be the greatest roadblock to Chinese reforms and they are public enemies.  I came so late from Hong Kong tonight to meet you in Shenzhen because I want to warn about the iron triangle through you.

Q: Your deepest experience with the iron triangle was in Shanghai?  Did you start thinking systematically about the iron triangle in Shanghai?
A: It is like this.  When I first arrived in Shanghai, I did not think too much.  After the program began, I had more opportunities to get information.  I did not imagine that this seemingly attractive Shanghai had so many things going on behind the scenes.

Q: Of the three famous Shanghai cases that you worked, the social security pension case has broken open and the Zhou Zhengyi case seemed to be nearly done.  But Zhan's hospital group case is still remote.  Do you want to continue to tussle with them?
A: I am still tussling with them.  Two weeks ago, I was still exposing them.

Q: This type of courage is rare.  Many expert scholars won't do it.
A: Our civilian sector is a decadent civilian sector.  There is no little moral courage.

Q: I noted that you have been warning about the interaction between the corruption within the system and civilian decadence.  When you say civilian decadence, do you mean mainly the decadence at this level?  Or mainly about the expert scholars?
A: Of course.  When I say civilian decadence, I don't mean the decadence of the civilians.  The civilians are not responsible, especially the socially vulnerable groups who are only trying to survive and therefore one cannot talk to them about moral standards.  When I say civilian decadence, I refer mainly to the expert scholars, who have the power to speak and who are the elite.  Their decadence may be due to direct or indirect rent-seeking, but their ideas are objectively serving the corrupt iron triangle.

Q: Realistically speaking, the mainland expert scholars have made significant contributions in analyzing the China problem.  People like Qin Hui and Sun Liping may have done deeper and more systematic thinking that you have.  But they only discuss their ideas among scholars.  You are different, because you bypass the elite and you speak to the general public.  Therefore, you succeeded because the public knows you but not the others.
A: From the first day, I never had any psychological inhibitions about speaking to the general public.  I believe in the wisdom of the people and the truth exists for the people.  If the people can be told the truth, many problems will be readily solved.  Therefore, the right of the people to know is most important.

Q: It is not that mainland scholars don't know that, but they find it hard to get out of their own small circle.  There are many reasons for this.  Some scholars believe that they are strategists and they lack confidence in the people.  This seems novel, but it is a traditional belief to think you can use people but you don't have to inform them.  Thus, their eyes always look upwards.  Other scholars have ideas, they have conscience but they lack moral courage.  If you speak to the general public, the risks are greater and they don't dare to brave these risks.  Then there are some scholars who have ideas, conscience as well as moral courage, but they don't know how to speak and they don't know how to use the language of the general public to talk to them.  There are really not many mainland thinkers who dare to speak and can communicate with the general public.  The people need to know the truth, but very few people speak the truth.  Actually, there is a hidden rule: you can say anything you want behind closed doors, but you cannot speak to the people.  Anyone who speaks the truth to the people is violating the game rules and is therefore a black sheep who must be ostracized.  The difference with you is that you ignore this hidden rule.  You dare to speak, you are willing to speak and you have the ability to speak.
A: Yes.  For example, when I discuss the issue of trust and responsibility for state-owned enterprise leaders, I draw an analogy and the people understood me.  I used the example of a nanny.  I am willing to speak directly to the general public.  I don't care how the elite chatter about me, and I don't care how they criticize me, because they are not the target audience of my speeches.  

It is pathetic that people who are willing to say some truthful things like I do should be rarities.  What is the big deal about Lang Xianping?  I'm no big deal.  Of course my academic background is different from others, but many others can see what I see and possibly even more thoroughly.  So why doesn't anybody speak up?  We have so many elites who do not see the real problems, and there are quite a few who colluded with the corrupt ones.  Who are the ultimate victims of these bad relationships?  The ultimate victims can only be those common people who have no power.

Why do I care so much about the Shanghai social security pension fund?  Because this is a classical case of the iron triangle.  The life savings of the people were loaned to a small entrepreneur so that he can purchase two expressways.  Then he took the two expressways to raise more money, to be shared among corrupt businessmen and corrupt government officials.  When a media outlet reports on this, they shut it down.  When a conscientious scholar dares to report on this, they round up their vassal scholars to launch attacks.

This iron triangle is too powerful  They control the media and they control the local government.  They even use the media control to communicate the wrong information to the central government and thereby mislead the central government.

Q: There is a question here.  You are especially concerned about corruption in mainland China, but what are your views on the amazing corruption around Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan?
A: I believe that the people on both sides of the strait have a new common understanding of corruption.  I want to go through you to ask people to pay attention to two new understandings.  One is that the people on both sides of the strait are trying to clean out their own internal corruption.  The other is that in mainland, the central government has declared war on the iron triangle and this matches public opinion.  What is needed now is for public opinion to respond energetically towards the action of the central government and to expand the common understanding of the central government and the people.  The greater the common understanding between the central government and public opinion, the more harmonious society will become.


对话郎咸平----挑战铁三角我其乐无穷

陈敏(笑蜀)

(此文原定刊发于928日号的《南方周末》,后因故被撤稿)

郎咸平上海遭遇滑铁卢

淡淡的灯光中,郎咸平淡淡地微笑着,聆听着,显得意外的低调。但只要他一开口,说话不到三分钟,他会马上变得亢奋起来,两只眼睛闪闪发光。

这时的郎咸平,有如从山巅扶摇直上的猛鸱,敏锐而威猛。

话题从上海社保基金开头。我最早知道上海社保基金有问题,是在去年年底。郎咸平说。

那时郎咸平在上海主持一档叫做财经郎闲评的电视节目。一天,节目组接到一个EMAIL,举报上海社保基金被挪用。举报信提到的上海新贵张荣坤,正好是郎咸平的关注对象。我觉得很怪,一个本来不入流的小商人,短短时间内居然如此富有,能用几十个亿买下两条高速公路,而跻身2004年中国富豪前40 位。

郎咸平声称,这不是他的唯一线索,他还有别的消息来源。但来自不同方向的指控目标都是一个,即上海社保基金被挪用。经过郎咸平组织的研究小组的查证,指控属实。

这在郎咸平来说,是一个不能容忍的恶性事件。2005年前后,他已经在多种场合反复强调,社保基金是老百姓的保命钱,不能挪用尤其不能入市,否则就是摧毁老百姓明天的财富。

于是,郎咸平把张荣坤列为财经郎闲评第三集的主人公。第一集主人公是一个姓詹的游医集团头目,操纵著上海几乎所有民营医院。专搞敲诈,没病说成有病 ,小病说成大病。何以迄今屹立不倒,郎咸平很好奇。第二集是上海闻人周正毅。郎咸平认为,内地商人在香港大捞一笔之后,居然因腐败官员的庇佑,可以跑回内地躲起来,逃避香港法律的惩罚,这种有违一国两制的先例决不能开,所以他要呼吁,将周正毅引渡到香港受审。

在上海的电视节目中解剖三个沪上巨鳄,其轰动效应是不言而喻的,但其巨大风险,略知中国国情的人都不难想象。

我知道有风险,但我不能作堕落社会的一员,郎咸平主持的节目必须要有郎咸平的风格。要提别人不敢提的话题,要鞭笞社会的丑恶,推动社会往前走。郎咸平这样回答记者的问题。

但尽管对风险已经有所预计,但风险之大仍然远远超出郎咸平的想象。郎咸平兵败上海。

对郎咸平的专访持续到晚上十二点半。握别时郎咸平告知记者,他已订好机票,将于次日凌晨直飞久违的上海。看得出来,他已迫不及待。

腐败铁三角是人民公敌

记者:他们停你的节目总要有个理由吧?

郎咸平:他们找了个理由,说我普通话不准。这没道理,因为普通话准,只是对职业主持人的要求,我属于嘉宾,普通话不应该作特别要求,听众能听懂就可以了。用这个不能成立的理由停掉我的节目,显然不仅仅是技术问题。

记者:当时你是什么感受?

郎咸平:这个时候我感觉到,以一个人的力量来抵挡整个腐败势力,太难了。所以从今年2月起,我沉寂了七个月。半个月以前我又站出来发言,很多外国记者问我 ,你是不是得到了来自某个方面的授意?我说我没有得到任何授意,我现在站出来讲话,完全是出于一个学者的良知,出于我个人的独立的判断。我是一个没有权力的人。要制裁那些腐败势力,只有通过更高层次的权力才能做到。现在中央对腐败势力施以重拳,我很高兴,我要站出来呼应。

记者:你在上海捅的三个案子,都是致命的,那时你考虑过风险吗?

郎咸平:对利益集团决不妥协,从2001年开始我一直是这个态度。那我有必要为维持一个半死不活的电视节目做妥协吗?

记者:顾雏军事件,开始的时候你并没有必胜的把握,但你仍然坚持下来。但顾雏军无非一个商人,你在上海面对的是整个利益集团,数量级完全不同。

郎咸平:当时我没意识到这个问题。我以为我面对的只是商人,我只是在解剖几个商业案例。所以当时我只是用对付顾雏军的办法对付他们。我估计到他们会反扑, 但我不怕,商人的反扑对我来说毫无问题,我能应付裕如。始料未及的是腐败的商人跟腐败的政府官员有千丝万缕的关系,等到节目被关我才发现,原来是腐败的政府官员,勾结腐败的商人,共同掠夺老百姓的财富,而且有腐败的学者散布很多似是而非的观点给他们打掩护,给他们制造合法性。这样形成铁三角,共同操纵媒体。没想到他们那么强大,我的个人力量跟他们完全不对称。

记者:你一直告诉公众,在反腐败的问题上对中央政府要有信心。但你遭遇到这种情况,你对中央政府的信心有没有过动摇?对你向来主张的大政府主义有没有过怀疑和反思?

郎咸平:我更加坚信大政府的重要性。因为这种时候,只有一个开明的中央政府才能真正解决问题,想靠民间的力量,舆论的力量,根本靠不上,腐败势力根本不让你从这方面突破。这时候就需要一种更高的权力,像铁扫帚一样的把腐败势力扫掉。

记者;但如果你所说的铁三角不限于上海,那时怎么办呢?

郎咸平:那中国就会跟现在的菲律宾一样,那对人民就是灭顶之灾了。但我清楚地知道现在中国不是这个情况。

记者:你把自己看做一个乡勇,相信中央军,所以要站出来协助中央军围剿腐败势力,可做这样的比方吗?

郎咸平:情况正是这样。我这样做是对的,只是当初我有些轻敌。不过后来我比较稳健,隐忍不发,等待时机,等到中央政府的大军上来了我再出来配合。

记者:我注意到你的思想变化的轨迹。最初讨论中国问题的时候,你的锋芒所指主要是商人,但从去年开始,你有了一个转折,主要挑战腐败利益集团,也就是你所说的铁三角。这是不是反映了你对中国问题的认识过程,由浅入深的一个变化过程?

郎咸平:关注中国问题需要经验。我对中国问题的观察和思考,实际上是一个经验积累的过程。从一个商人开始,渐渐的我发现不只是那个商人的问题。他为什么能贱卖国有资产?抽丝剥茧之后我发现,背后的原因,往往都是官员跟商人勾结,内部人瓜分国有资产。上海是最经典的案例,我原来没想要批评上海的政府官员,因为我没想到官商勾结。但结果我发现,谈商人腐败,必然牵涉到政府官员。腐败的官员,腐败的商人,腐败的学者,这个腐败的铁三角,是未来中国改革开放最大的阻力,是人民公敌。

我今天这么晚了还不辞辛苦地从香港跑到深圳来见你,就是想通过你们,呼吁警惕铁三角。

记者:你对铁三角体验最深就在上海?对铁三角问题的系统思考就从上海开始?

郎咸平:是这样的。刚到上海我确实没想那么多。节目组开张之后,接触信息的机会大得多,我没想到看起来那么光鲜的上海,背后会有那么多事情。

知识分子要敢于打破潜规则

记者:你捅的三个沪上名案,社保基金已经水落石出,周正毅案看来也是水到渠成,但詹氏游医集团案仍很微妙,你还打算跟他们较量下去吗?

郎咸平:我还在跟他们较量啊,两个礼拜之前我还在曝光他们的黑幕。

记者:这样的勇气确实难得。很多专家学者做不到。

郎咸平:我们的民间是一个堕落的民间,道德勇气太少。

记者:我注意到,你最近一直强调要警惕体制内腐败与民间堕落的互动。你所说的民间堕落,主要是这个层面上的堕落吗?即主要指专家学者吗?

郎咸平:那当然。我说的民间堕落,不是说老百姓堕落。老百姓没有责任。尤其是弱势群体,他们在挣扎中求生存,不能对他们搞道德高标。我说的民间堕落主要指专家学者,主要是指那些有话语权的人,也就是精英阶层。他们的堕落可能表现为直接的寻租,也可能不直接寻租,但他们的主张客观上服务于腐败铁三角。

记者:实事求是地说,对中国问题的解剖,内地的专家学者其实贡献很大,比如秦晖,比如孙立平,他们的思考可能比你更系统更深刻。但他们只在思想界讲,而你不一样,你越过精英,直接对普罗大众发言。所以你成功了,公众知道你而不知有其他。

郎咸平:我第一天起就没有对普罗大众发言的心理障碍,因为我相信智慧在民间,公理在民间。只要把真相告诉老百姓,很多问题可以迎刃而解。所以老百姓的知情权是最重要的。

记者:内地学者不是不清楚这一点,但他们很难走出小圈子。这里可能有多种原因,一是某些学者总以策士自居,对老百姓缺乏信任。看起来新潮,实际上传统,就是民可使由之不可使知之。因此眼睛永远只向上面看。另一些学者有思想,有良知,但缺乏道德勇气。愈是面向普罗大众发言,风险愈大,他们不敢承担这种风险。还有一些学者不仅有思想有良知,而且有道德勇气,但他们不会讲话,不会用普罗大众喜闻乐见的语言对普罗大众讲话。真正敢对普罗大众讲话,也会对普罗大众讲话的思想家,内地是不多见的。

老百姓需要真相,但难得有人讲真相。实际上存在一个潜规则,关起门来怎么讲都可以,但不能对老百姓讲。谁要对老百姓说出真相,谁就是游戏破坏者,就是害群之马,就只能出局。你不一样的地方,就在于你不理这套潜规则,你敢讲,你愿讲,你也会讲。

郎咸平:是的。比如我讲国企领导人的信托责任问题,我一个比喻,老百姓就听懂了。我用保姆做比喻。我只愿意直接对老百姓讲话,不理会精英的唧唧喳喳,他们怎么议论我,我都不在意,因为他们不是我讲话的对象。

像我这样随便讲点公道话就成了凤毛麟角,这其实很可悲。我郎咸平有什么了不起?没什么了不起。当然我的学术背景跟别人不一样,但很多事情别人也看的到,而且可能比我看的更透。但为什么就没人讲?我们那么多精英,对真问题视而不见,同流合污的反而不乏其人。一直这样恶性互动,最终受害的是谁?最终受害的只能是无权无势的老百姓。

我为什么特别关注上海社保基金?就因为这是铁三角的一个经典案例。老百姓的养命钱借给一个小个体户,让他拿去收购两条高速公路,然后他又拿两条高速公路去圈钱。腐败官员跟腐败商人彼此分赃。媒体胆敢披露,他们就封杀媒体。良心学者胆敢站出来批评,他们就组织御用文人围攻良心学者。

这种铁三角能量太大了。他们控制了媒体,控制了地方政府,甚至通过控制媒体,给中央政府提供错误的信息,以此来误导中央政府。

记者:这里有一个问题,你对大陆的腐败问题特别关注,但台湾陈水扁的腐败也是骇人听闻的,你又是怎么看的呢?

郎咸平:我认为台海两岸人民对反腐问题已经取得了新的共识。我现在就想通过你们,提请大家注意两个新的共识。一个是台海两岸人民都致力于清除自己内部的腐败。一个是在内地,中央政府公开向铁三角宣战,在这点上与民意达成了一致。现在需要民意对中央政府的这个举动予以积极回应,扩大中央政府与民间的共识。中央政府与民意共识越大,社会就越和谐。


(Channelnewsasia)  China's "Larry King" speaks out on the canning of TV show.

One of China's most popular television hosts says he was forced off the air by just-fired Shanghai Communist Party boss Chen Liangyu because he was preparing a show about the graft scandal that led to the politician's downfall.

Lang Xianping, who garnered a reputation as the "Larry King of China", had his controversial financial program on Shanghai television axed in February after he was officially told his Mandarin Chinese was not good enough.

"It was just an excuse," said the native Chinese speaker and host of "Larry Lang Live", a weekly talk show that drew millions of Chinese viewers for its sharp but colorful criticism of the country's endemic corruption problems.

"The real reason the show was cancelled was I was designing a show behind the corruption case of Chen Liangyu," Lang told AFP in an interview from Shanghai.

Beijing announced on Monday that Chen, the most powerful official of China's eastern commercial hub, had been sacked due to his alleged links to the misuse of about 400 million dollars from the city's retirement deposits.

According to Lang, 50, a Taiwanese national whose day job is teaching finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, he was set to air a program focusing on graft when authorities suddenly pulled the plug.

One of the episodes in his special three-part series was to tackle investment manager and non-executive director of state-run giant Shanghai Electric Group, Zhang Rongkun, who was detained last month for his role in the pension scandal.

"Zhang was my target because we wanted to know how this man had so much money to be able to build two highways," said Lang.

"At the time, I did not know about Chen."

Lang aired one chapter on medical malpractice and a second on Zhou Zhengyi, the Shanghai real estate tycoon who was jailed in 2004 for stock market fraud but also indirectly linked to Chen.

In the second episode, shown once before it was pulled, Lang argued that Zhou, who also has equity interests in Hong Kong, should face charges there too.

After his 18-month show was canned entirely, Lang, a self-confessed lover of the limelight, disappeared from the public eye.

"It was dangerous," said Lang, who received death threats as well as calls in an internal report authored by Chinese academics for his incarceration and/or expulsion from the country.

AFP was unable to independently confirm Lang's claims.

The chief editor of Larry Lang Live, Wang Lei, was reluctant to discuss details concerning the program's abrupt end when contacted by AFP.

Lang had also incurred the very public wrath of officials after charging that executives of state-owned enterprises engaged in management buyouts were hoodwinking the public by securing assets at bargain-basement prices.

In his weekly cable program Lang often argued that the government should halt such practices until a stronger legal system capable of monitoring such acquisitions was put in place.

Mainland academics and company officials responded by calling Lang an anti-reform traitor, a charge which he said only strengthened his argument and went to the heart of China's widespread corruption problem.

His controversial position also struck a chord with a public that worries corruption is China's biggest challenge after nearly 30 years of economic reform that has vanquished Marxist ideology in favor of unrestrained capitalism.

Lang, who maintains Chen's fall from grace proved he was "correct" about social security graft, said he broke his self-imposed silence because it was now safe to do so and he was keen to get back on television.

"I initiated this myself," Lang said, adding that he was waiting for the political dust to settle before approaching the Shanghai leadership about resurrecting his television career. - AFP