The Broadcasting Authority demanded the castration of the "vulgar and extremely upsetting" dialogue in "An Autumn's Tale" and the resulting debate has been going on for more than one week without the senior Broadcasting Authority persons coming forth to explain.  The Broadcasting Authority chairman is the principal actor, but it is as if he had been vaporized.  Meanwhile civil discontent has been getting bigger and bigger.

As a result, the event has turned from a simple "argument over judgment" to a deeper and more serious issue of "accountability within the system."

... the controversial decisions by the Broadcasting Authority generated such a huge civilian response and reaction because there is a connection to the banning of the eight books by the Beijing authorities.  The more the Beijing bureaucrats suppress freedom of publication, the more the Hong Kong residents treasure their own freedom.  This is obvious from listening to the radio call-in programs.  The people of Hong  Kong are fortunate because the citizens and the media respond immediately to the ridiculous actions of the bureaucrats.  They will not indulge and they will not suffer in silence ...

When Zhang Yihe protested about the banning of her book, the General Administration of Press and Publications deputy director responsible for the ban has declined to comment so far.  When the Hong Kong citizens protested, the Broadcasting Authority chairman has declined to comment so far.  So this Special Administration Region is "special" in the sense that the citizens are "special," but unfortunately the senior officials are not so different from the mainland counterparts.

At 7pm on January 27, 2007, a Sichuan Internet forum claimed: a criminal suspect was arrested in Dazhu county on January 26, 2007 for manufacturing rumors.

According to the information, the public security bureau determined the suspect was a 24-year-old male named Zhang who has a university degree and owns a business at a Dazhu county computer mall.  The public security bureau determined that when a female employee died at the Nest Business Hotel, Zhang who had no personal knowledge about the truth of her death, began on January 15 to falsely claim to be a Nest Business Hotel employee who knew that the truth to be "three senior government officials spiked the drink of the female and gang-raped her to death."  Zhang kept distributing the information on the Internet, as well as following up on other posts about the incident.  He kept making up content, maliciously hyping up the event and instigating people who did not know the truth to gather and cause trouble.  In so doing, he defamed the image of the party and the government and he misled people so as to create chaos and disorder.

The information also stated the public security bureau found the clues and quickly moved to arrested the suspect Zhang and seized the electronic evidence on his computer.  Zhang has admitted to having manufactured and distributed the rumors that resulted in disturbance and social disorder.  The criminal suspect Zhang has violated Article 291 of the Code of Law of the People's Republic of China concerning the assembly of persons to disrupt the social order.  ...

Previously, the "64 Tianwang" website had also received some video material from multiple channels about the Dazhu incident.  After examining the information closely, we determined that the authorities can deduce who provided the information.  Thus, "64 Tianwang" will adhere to the principle of protecting our friends first and above all and therefore has not yet posted the relevant information and videos. 

Related Link:  The Mass Incident in Dazhu County

[in translation]

As of the first of this month, the Chinese government has adopted an open policy for non-mainland and foreign correspondents to gather news freely in conjunction with the needs of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.  This action has resulted in good international opinion feedback.  Certain mainland media people think that besides making life easier for the foreign media, this action has two effects on the Chinese media.  On one hand, it lets the mainland media break away from the yoke of "not being allowed to report outside your own coverage area" and really go at it.  On the other hand, this has also made the mainland media feel some competitive pressure.  But there are still insiders who do not believe that this will change the condition of Chinese opinion-making, because the right of the media to speak out does not lie in the hands of the reporters -- the Chinese Communist doctrine of "politics leads news" will continue to rule in Chinese media.

China Youth Daily veteran reporter Lu Yuegang said that it is inevitable that when the Chinese government permits non-mainland (Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan) and foreign correspondents to gather news freely, there will be an impact and influence on the mainland media.  When they cover overlapping stories, the foreign media reports will serve as a reference point for the mainland audience and readers to understand the mainland media.  Therefore, the mainland media workers working on the same story will be forced to consider their viewpoints, reporting methods and even writing styles in addition to the political positions.  "You cannot let the reader see that your report is as vastly different from what the others are saying as heaven is from earth."

Lu Yuegang said that the reform of Chinese press will be impelled by internal needs and external pressure.  The relaxation of restraints on foreign correspondents is one of those external factors.  This action will impact those mainland media that are working under the market model more than the radio/television stations or "mouthpieces" such as party newspapers and periodicals.  This is because the "mouthpiece" media do not worry about news competition and are not concerned about income or livelihood.

But he believed that certain media which want to break away from being "mouthpieces" would actively accept the challenge.  "For example, I think China Youth Daily should have a sense of crisis and confront the competition directly."

Southern Weekend's Beijing-based reporter Ma Changbo said that the the relaxation of regulations for outside correspondents has given them an unexpected gift.  Previously, the mainland authorities had emphasized that the press must not have "watchdog journalism from the outside" (that is, the media in place A cannot monitor the local government in place B).  This 'bad regulation' is now defunct with the opening to the non-mainland media.  "If the non-mainland media can do whatever you please and gather news wherever you want, then how could mainland reporters be given any less?"  Ma Changbo said that his colleagues are very enthusiastic.  "At the very least, the invisible yoke around our necks are gone.  No one will dare to stop us by saying that watchdog journalism from the outside is not allowed."

According to information, many media outlets known for "watchdog reporting" are taking advantage of this policy and sending their people to "problem areas" to begin "watchdog journalism from the outside."  Those local governments and departments that are being criticized do not dare to dissent.  A few years ago, Hunan province complained to the Central Publicity Department that the Guangzhou-based Southern Weekend intruded into its territory and the newspaper was punished as a result.  But recently, the city of Chenzhou in Hunan province publicly announced that it was setting up a prize for watchdog journalism and encouraged media supervision from the outside.  That became a topic in the mainland media circle.

CCTV Economic Channel reporter Zeng Xiaoling said that even though the relaxation of rules for foreign correspondents has a smaller impact on official media such as theirs, it should be clear that their advantages in resources will be weakened.  "For certain complaints about problems, the people will now have a choice.  They may be more willing to complain to the non-mainland and foreign reporters.  This may become a problem for us."  She said that the mainland media (especially the official media) tend to be relatively cautious about critical reporting.  Now that they have to share the same platform with non-mainland and foreign correspondents, there will be a definite impact.

But some media workers are cool towards the new policy.  Communist Party Beijing municipal party organ Beijing Daily political news reporter Geng Nuo said that she did not feel that the relaxation of rules for non-mainland and foreign reporters is giving her colleagues any pressure.  "Our reporting takes a different route from yours and our resources do not overlap with yours," she said.  "We are not worried that you outside reporters will gain any advantage after this opening.  We will do whatever we have to do."

A reporter with the official Xinhua agency who wishes to remain anonymous said tht the opening will not have a large impact on mainland media.  Mainland media were always free to gather news without any restrictions.  "But the mainland reporters do not have the right to publish.  That is the most important thing.  Particularly at the party and government mouthpieces, the right to publish is in the hands of the politicians.  There is no need to worry."  He believes that the increased freedom for foreign correspondents does not pose a big threat to mainland reporters.  The big challenge will come only after non-mainland and foreign media are allowed to enter the mainland market.

[in translation]

On the afternoon of January 24, 2007, McClatchy Newspapers Beijing bureau chief Tim Johnson and researcher Fan Linjun flew from Beijing to Chongqing.  On the morning of January 25, they traveled by car from Chongqing to Zigong to conduct in-depth investigation about the peasants who lost their land in Hongqi town.  As soon as Mr. Johnson and Ms. Fan stepped into my home, the Zigong city public security bureau Huidong branch National Security division telephoned me to invite me to have a cup of tea this afternoon.  I said: "I won't have time over the next few days, because I am preparing petition materials -- against the Zigong city public security bureau for illegally preventing me from attending an international human rights conference and refusing to renew my passport."

I am old friends with Mr. Johnson and Ms. Fan.  Mr. Johnson used to be the Beijing bureau chief of Knight-Ridder News.  In 2004, Mr. Johnson sent three reporters to Zigong to spend three days investigating the situation of peasants who lost their land.  When the American reporter attempted to verify the investigative results, the Zigong city government officials declined to answer.  From there on, McClatchy Newspapers has kept its attention on the livelihood and human rights conditions in Zigong.

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Fan came to Zigong this time mainly to conduct a full investigation of the situation of the peasants who lost their land, including the implementation of central government policies, protection of farm land, livelihood conditions, medical care, social security and other issues.  Mr. Johnson and Ms. Fan did not even bother with lunch, and they immediately started to question me fully.  At around 3pm in the afternoon, I accompanied the American reporter to visit the homes of peasants who had lost their land.  We also spoke to the peasants on the roadside who also lost their land.  Apart from me accompanying the American reporter, there was another small Audi car with four people following us.  They were protecting the American reporter as well as us.  But we did not have an entourage of large numbers of police cars and various levels of officials when the senior government leaders come to inspect the citizenry.

... In order to solve the puzzle about the death of Yang Daili pursuant to the requests of the provincial party and government units, the provincial and Dazhou city public security bureau formed a joint case squad and mobilized police resources to work day and night to obtain detailed evidence.  The special case squad visited Guangzhou, Chengdu and Dazhou many times, accumulating more than 10,000 kilometers in travel distance.  They spoke to the relatives, friends, schoolmates and co-workers of Yang Daili for a total of 235 times.  They wrote 690 pages of investigative materials, and collected almost 2,000 pages of combined evidentiary material.  They collected 36 pieces of documents and physical evidence.  The provincial public security bureau evidence examination center, the Sichuan University Huaxi Medical Center Basic Medical and Legal Science Academy, the Chengdu branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Dazhou City Central Hospital participated in testing and verifying the information along with 12 nationally and provincially eminent expert pathologists and toxicologists and 8 expert instrumental analysts who visited the crime scene 5 times and conducted 3 autopsies with 9 detailed test reports.  A total of 24 meetings were held to discuss the analytical results.  After these repeated examinations and analyses, the cause of death of Yang Daili has been confirmed.

Through the examination of the crime scene, autopsies, tests, investigations and joint diagnoses, the special case squad reconstructed the activities of Yang over the 33 hours prior to her death.  The squad excluded the possibility that Yang Daili died from physical struggle, violence, strangulation, poisoning and so on.  It also excluded the possibility that Yang had consumed alcohol or went outside of the hotel.  The pathology analyses showed that the cause of death was chronic pancreatic acute bleeding.  The laboratory reports showed that her amylase index was clearly too high and her heart exhibited spots of bleeding.  Combined with the crime scene analysis and other material evidence, it was concluded that Yang Daili's death was: chronic pancreatic acute bleeding.

According to the DNA analyses of the body fluids on Yang Daili as well as residues on her underwear, the DNA elements were identical to those of bartender Liu Chikun.  It was then confirmed that at around 230am on December 30, 2006, Liu Chikun and two other employees (Ou and Li) were checking the rooms after the KTV had closed.  They found Yang lying on the floor unconscious.  They took Yang back into the suite and left her there.  At 3am, Liu went back there and saw that Yang was still unconscious with no one else around.  So he raped her.  Afterwards, Liu found that Yang was pale in color and her lips were purplish.  So he called the hotel leader.  At 340am, the hotel sent someone over to help Liu to take Yang over to the Dazhu county People's Hospital.  Yang was found to have no vital signs.  The hospital attempted to revive Yang but they had to pronounce her dead at 4:35am.  The suspect Liu Chikun has confessed to his crime. ...

Who should they hire for PR crisis management?  How dare they devote that first paragraph to all the arduous work!  For one, I was filled with resentment at reading this claptrap.  I don't need to know that.  I only want the answer.  I find myself reading this self-congratulatory content-free filler until I reached the next paragraph and learned that the cause of death was: chronic pancreatic acute bleeding.  I have no idea what that means.  I read on.  Bartender Liu and two other colleagues found hostess Yang unconscious on the floor and all they did was to move her into a suite.  Half an hour later, Liu went back into the suite and raped Yang.  Hello!!!???  Why didn't Liu and others call for medical help immediately upon seeing the unconscious Yang?  Is this rocket science!!!???  You find a co-worker lying unconscious on the floor.  What will you do?  I know that I am a focus group of size one.  But do you share my doubt?

Black Holes  Susan Jakes, The China Blog (TIME)
China's Fantasy of Freedom  Hannah Beech, TIME

Yes, in some sense, we are aggieived that the western media could not be everywhere all of the time in order to render maximum assistance.  But why should we demand that of them anyway?
 
Ultimately, this is the tristesse of Chinese media.  It will show up as the The China Economic Times Report on the Lan Chengzhang Case (at ESWN).  Or as Top officials order "swift" investigation into the murder of Reporter Lan Chengzhang (China Media Project).  Instead, we are befuddled with technical issues of apparent questions of right/wrong.  The issues raised by Beech/Jakes ought to be straight right/wrong issues.  So why aren't they treated as such, and have to take such extra-judicial paths instead?
 
P.S.  By the way, this blogger receives petitiion messages on all sort of issues but has never felt adequate to address them in an effective manner.  The fact is that ESWN is only a personal blog and it cannot send out 50 people to follow up on all sort os leads.
 
P.S.S. Under the current format of ESWN, I am supposed to maintain a finite number of links and eliminate others.  In the pipeline of China-related recommended reading, I have: Lik Go  Daisann McLane, Learning Catonese.
 
Which old links should I eliminate?
 
Real Scoop On Fraud Journos: Q&A W/ Wang Keqin  Jonathan Ansfield, China Digital Times
Black Holes  Susan Jakes, The China Blog (TIME)
Blackmailing By Journalists In China Seen As 'Frequent'  Edward Cody, Washington Post
 
With due respect, I want as many people as possible to read these.  So I'll keep all of them as long as I can ...

At around midnight, a mainland Chinese spokesperson for a certain ministry appeared on Hong Kong television and told reporters: "Any mainland mothers who have their babies delivered in Hong Kong will face the loss of all their welware and social security benefits on the mainland!"  The spokesperson was solemn and well-meaning, whereas I almost spit out the tea in my mouth ...

Which mainland commoner receives any kind of benefit?  Forget about those objective statistics, because this is a mainland forum and we all know what is going on.  From my personal knowlegde, I went to Chengdu in 2001 and I heard a certain party secretary saying wispfully: "Chengdu guarantees a mininum payment of 156 RMB per month.  This shows the concern that the Party and the Government have for the citizens ..."  In 2002, I was in Beijing and I learned that certain workers at an enterprise had to choose extreme measures for the sake of the 20,000 RMB severance pay (that is, you are dismissed and you have to look out for yourself for the rest of your life).

How about Hong Kong?  Here are three examples: (1) The welfare payments in Hong Kong are about HK$3,000 per person (if the family situation is right, a family of four will receive about HK$12,000 per month); (2) The Hong Kong healthcare policy is universal coverage for all citizens; at public hospital, you only have to pay a HK$40 registration fee and then all medications, tests and analyses are free.  If you are have a serious medical condition and and must stay in the hospital, then you pay HK$68 per day (including room, meals, tests, medications and surgery).  (3) Nine years of free education for children (members of low-income family can attend university for free).

There is no point for me to waste my breath here.  It is just peculiar that the spokeperson for a certain department should give us the well-meaning warning: What do we actually lose when we lose our mainland citizen status?  I cannot help but remember that Karl Marx wrote that "the only thing the proletariat can lose is their chains."  Does that mean that they can "win the whole world"?  Heaven only knows!

As a scholar, I do not completely like Zhang Yihe's writings and works.  I have my personal doubts and criticisms of her writings.  But I firmly support her freedom to publish.  I believe that Zhang Yihe's writings did not violate state laws or social morality.  There was no proper legal basis for restricting her publications.  Everyone has the right the express his/her own political position and cultural thoughts, and criticise the positions and thoughts of others.  On this matter, all intellectuals share the same idea as Zhang Yihe.  I hope that everyone will hard to bring China more open and wider space for writing and criticising! 

[translated in summary]

During a visit of the Forbidden City, the reporter observed that there were two other foreign coffee shops.  Compared to Starbucks, they occupied more area and their signs were more obvious.

Following the directions, the reporter came to a row of small red houses which used to be the waiting rooms for government officials waiting to the emperor.  From the outside, the green Starbucks logo cannot be seen.  Entering inside, there are all sorts of gift shops and Starbucks only occur a corner with less than 20 square metrs of area.

From the map, the reporter found an indication that there is another French coffee shop in the Imperial Garden.  Following the direction, the reporter went that way and saw a row of foreign language letters that indicate a beverage shop.  The reporter walked in and found a small red house most of which were occupied by girls.  There are three tables in the middle of the room, with six 3-person milk-white-colored sofas around a coffee machine.  In a large outside courtyard, there were several dozen dark-green chairs and ten tables.  "Do you sell French coffee?"  "We sell Italian coffee."

From the map, this location did not seem to the one.  So the reporter continued heading towards the Imperical Garden.  Indeed, the reporter found another coffee shop, slightly smaller than Italian coffee shop.  This one had the sign "French Jazz Island Coffee."  Compared to the Starbucks shop, the other two were more spacious.
 
According to information on the website of French Jazz Island Coffee, it was the second coffee brand name that entered the Forbidden City, after Starbucks.  The date of entry was April 27, 2006.  According to workers at the Italian coffee shop, it opened six months ago.

So: Why pick on Starbucks and not the others?

[in translation]

This reminds me of <The Past Is Not Like Smoke>.  According to information, Mr. Li Changchun chaired a meeting.  At the meeting, the former leader of the Information Office of the State Council said (more or less): "My department can only control publishing houses, not individual authors."  So the matter was referred to the Ministry of Culture, from which a deputy minister said (more or less): "Zhang Yihe is already tired.  Besides her writing is a leisure activity.  It is not easy to control."  Since the matter was originally brought up by the United Work Front Department of the CPC Central Committee (at the time, it was a deputy director of that department who defined <The Past Is Not Like Smoke> as an "anti-Party declaration"), Mr. Li Changchun therefore decided thta the United Work Front Department had better clean up the mess.  Ultimately, the United Work Front Department asked somone to speak to my elder brother (who was a vice-chairman in the central committee of the China Peasants and Workers Democratic Party at the time) and requested that he forward the message to his younger sister (me): "Please don't write any more in the future."  That was how <The Past Is Not Like Smoke>.

In spite of the vast attention drawn to Zhang Yihe's Statement and Position, there has been no official reaction.  The person in the hot seat is Wu Shulin of the General Administration of Press and Publications.

Once against, Zhang Ziyi has betrayed the men of China.  She appeared with a foreign boyfriend in a high-profiled manner at a basketball game.  The two hugged, kissed and whispered to each other.  She even touched her boyfriend's face with her hand while looking content!  Therefore, the Internet patriotism (with respect to the sleeping bed) has been mobilized in roaring fashion once again.  Various obsenities mixed with personal and national hatred have been thrown at Zhang Ziyi.

Meanwhile Gong Li (who was also discovered by Zhang Yimou) had also been reported earlier to be strolling in the streets with a foreign boyfriend.  But there was no such similar effect.  Was this because Zhang Ziyi participate in movies in in which she writhes her body passionate under the foreign men?  But Gong Li's passion play with the foreigner in <Miami Vice> was said to be even more dubious.  So it seems that the netizens are spending a lot of effort to watch over Zhang Ziyi.  Whenever she strays, they condemn her angrily.  They must really love her.

Here is a spoof from 163.com (via ChineseNewsNet)


"Come on.  Give me a kiss!"
"You want a kiss?  Pay up first!"


"Wow!  Three hundred!  Is this Japanese yen?"
"What is wrong with your eyes?  They are Vietnamese Dong!"


"Hmm ... you didn't brush  your teeth?  
Your mouth tastes a lot fouler than Kai-shan."
"I did brush my teeth.  I used Colgate toothpaste!"


"You're really obedient.  Be a good boy and brush often.
But remember to use Chinese toothpaste next time.
Must suport Chinese goods!"
"Hmm ... I'll remember!"

[in translation]

The program segment <Comrade, Lover> of RTHK programme <Hong Kong Connection> only interviewed three gays.  The Broadcasting Authority believes that "it is insufficient to have the opinions of three gay persons on same-sex marriage" and therefore the program was "advocating same-sex marriage."  As a result, the program was determined to be "unfair," "incomplete" and "biased."  According to this reasoning, the Broadcasting Authority thinks that the program should have interviewed opposite-sex lovers about same-sex marriage.

In this decision, there is an erroneous presumption: opposite-sex believers must necessarily oppose same-sex marriage.

Suppose the program interviewed five opposite-sex-love believers, and it finds that 3 finds nothing wrong with opposite-sex marriage and offers support, 1 offers no opinion and 1 offers vehement objection.  If <Hong Kong Connection> presented these results, the program would not be considered "unfair," "incomplete" and "biased" but it will still be considered to have the "effect of advocating same-sex marriage."

Although the Broadcasting Authority seems to think that "impartiality" means the program must represent "agree" and "disagree" simultaneously, the result might be as follows: three homosexuals strongly approve same-sex marriage, while one opposite-sex marriage advocate strongly disapproves.  Is this deliberate selection concealing the fact that "most opposite-sex practioners do not object"?  Is this impartial?

Proceeding further on, should the program attempt to locate a homosexual who opposes same-sex marriage for the sake of impartiality?  If this was impossible, then is the program 'partial'?  No matter what, should this program which was only able to find homosexuals who approve of same-sex marriage be considered to have "the effect of advocating same-sex marriage"?

Simply put, there is no causal relationship between whether a program is impartial and whether it can produce the effect of advocating same-sex marriage.  Suppose we accept the irrational logic of the Broadcasting Authority and think that "impartiality" equals "including the opinions of opposite-sex lovers."   If most of the opposite-sex marriage lovers actually accept same-sex marriage, then there would still be "the effect of advocacy of same-sex marriage"?  If "impartiality" means "equal representation of opposite-sex lovers" including "the opinion of opposite-sex lovers against same-sex marriage," then this becomes a selective filtering of opinions in which the "effect of advocacy of same-sex marriage" has been lightened (assuming that this can even be achieved.).  But this is definitely not impartial.
 
Therefore, the Broadcasting Authority is actually prejudiced against homosexuals.  It set up the premise of "advocacy" and then framed "impartiality" as the end goal.  "Lack of fairness," "incompleteness' and "bias" are werel hypocritical excuses.

This is the tranlsation of one particular blog post.  But the overall impact of this seemingly trivial event (with respect to mainstream media) is actually tremendous.  Simply put, this seemed to have been a thoroughly one-sided battle in which the Internet opinion (through forums and blogs) thoroughly trashed the official press release.  The reality is this: there is no significant blog/forum force out there defending the position of the Broadcasting Authority.  Think about the implications ...

Journalists make a lot of mistakes when they start writing for a blog type thing which allows for comments (thus making them aware of their mistakes). First, don't talk down to your readers. Many of them are probably smarter than you, and literally all of them certainly know some things you don't. Second, blogging isn't just about throwing random thoughts out there without bothering to check them first. Sure, it's a bit more shoot from the hip than careful writing is, but the internets have this thing called "the google" that makes basic factchecking fairly simple. Third, don't have contempt for the readers who care enough to read what you write and respond. In case you didn't realize, these are the people who actually give a shit enough about current events to maybe occasionally buy a newspaper or magazine, or at the very least click through your website and watch news on the teevee. In other words, they pay the bills. Being actively hostile to them is certainly odd behavior. And, yes, discourse on the internet can be rude and caustic, some people may make you cry by telling you to go Cheney yourself, and you certainly don't have to engage people who are rude, but really who cares? People are mean, wah.

There is one final deep injustice. Even though it's "just a blog," people may hold "Time's Washington bureau chief" to a slightly higher standard than they do "some random person with a blog." The reasons for this should be obvious.

Why can "news publicity" be swapped for "compensation"?  How can "fake reporters" use "news" to conduct "extortion" and get money?  The direct answer can only be: "Fake reporters" can take a "real problem" to trade with criminals.  Otherwise, the extorted party is sure to call the police.  Therefore, we should not imagine the "fake reporters" to be ogres.  Sometimes, they can uncover problems that real reporters do not dare touch.  

For example, suppose "illegal sub-standard steel reinforcement bars" have become an industry in support of shoddy construction; then there will be "fake reporters" who specialize in extorting the producers of those bars.  As another example, if it becomes common for pig-breeders to inject water into their animals to increase bodyweight, then there will be "fake reporters" who specialize in extorting those breeders.  There are many coal mines in Datong Shanxi), and the "fake reporters" are obviously watching the coal mines carefully.  This is a food chain relationship.  

The degree of proliferation of "fake reporters" can be used to determine the form and size of the illegal products.  To a certain degree, " fake reporters" become a restraining force on the criminal elements.  This is game-theoretic play.  As the game intensifies, one party loses its patience and cool and then tragedy occurs.  According to the reports, before Lan Chengzhang arrived, the illegal mine owner had already received eight groups of "reporters."

When the local government conducts a campaign against "fake newspapers, fake periodicals and fake reporters," it is only plugging up one end of the problem.  But if you only plug one end of the problem, the criminal elements on the other end will have an easier time.  But if you also stop the criminal elements, it would also be a lot easier stopping the fake newspapers, fake periodicals and fake reporters.  Furthermore, if the local legal environment permits any citizen to safely report illegal activities, then there would not be any use for "fake reporters."

[in translation]

... Famous Peking University professor Kong Qingdong publicly rebuked Zhang Yihe in a speech yesterday.  He pointed out the Zhang family enjoyed special treatment from the Chinese Communists during the 1950's, when many Chinese people were living under starvation.  In her book, Zhang Yihe described that "to eat tofu, you must eat more than 20 kinds," "towels are replaced every day," "the bedsheets are changed every day, and they have to be washed very clean."  Kong Qingdong said that "her class was the enemy of our government," "the Communist Party was magnanimous towards them, but they keep dreaming about changing the facts and saying that the anti-rightist campaign was wrong."

Kong Qingdong said: "You (the rightists) think that you are proper heroes, so why are you asking the Communist Party for vindication?"  "Your cases have been overturned after the reforms began, but why do the big rightists want to demand hundreds more times in compensation from the people.  This is ten times worse than back the?" "Who is going to write the histories of our common people?  More than 60 people perished in a mine well.  Who is going to write a The Past Is Not Like Smoke for each of them?  How much be paid for each death?  All lives have value.  Do the lives of upper-class people have different values than those of lower-class people?  The revolution was intended to change this."  "We must used our shoulder to hold up this gate, in order that the sun can shine into here."

Relevant Link:  孔庆东：章诒和家庭所属的阶级是政权的敌人  KDNet

... the officer said ... that only several hundred people "gathered peacefully" outside the government offices.  "There was no confrontation during the gathering. Nobody was injured and no property damaged. The gathering was very peaceful and the crowd left after 7pm," the officer said.  He added that authorities had not mobilised riot police even though several roads near the government buildings had been blocked during the protest.

From The Mass Incident in Dazhu County, here are some photographs related to these statements:


"Authorities had not mobilised riot police"


"There was no confrontation during the gathering"


"The gathering was peaceful"


"The crowd left after 7pm"


"No property damaged"

Why did the police officer make these assertions?  Does he not know that about these photographs?  Actually, he probably does not know that these photographs are present because he could not find them after the order to remove them.  He probably believes that they are all gone.  But they can only remove some, but not all.  The surivivors will come back to bite them.

Informed sources told Boxun that several tens of people have been isolated in Guangzhou's Number 8 People's Hospital because of suspicion of the avian flu!  Also, many more persons have been placed isoloation at a certain Guangzhou military hospital!!

With due respect, should we invoke a social panic on account of a report such as this?  It may well be true (or it may not be).  Would you go screaming out into the streets as a result of reading this?  Where is the proof beyond a vague allegation?
 
Follow-up: Many Hong Kong media showed up at the Number 8 People's Hospital but did not find anything unusual.  (Sing Tao)  The Sing Tao reporter called the Number 8 People's Hospital yesterday.  A man on the general line said that they have suspected SARS patient(s) at the hospital, but the details must be obtained from the outpatient department.  The outpatient department had no comment.  The duty room at the inpatient department said that they have not heard of any SARS patients.  An inpatient department nurse said that they have not been informed to keep a high alert.  According to the revelant procedures, the hospital has to go into high alert if there are SARS patients.

Dozens of lawmakers kicked, shoved, punched, and threw shoes at each other, stalling passage of the government's new annual budget and a long-beleaguered military procurement bill.  The fighting was attributed to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) opposition to a proposal by the main opposition Kuomintang (KMT) to adjust the make-up of the Central Election Commission (CEC).

Chaos erupted in the afternoon when dozens of lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) stormed the speaker's dais to prevent the third and final reading of a proposal to revise the composition of the CEC.  Voting was called after in the afternoon representatives from major parties failed to reach consensus during the last-ditch inter-party coordination meeting on the issue in the morning.

Lawmakers of the opposition KMT and those without party affiliations responded to the DPP's move to block the voting by rushing forward to protect speaker Wang Jin-pyng, one of the KMT's senior members.  DPP lawmaker Lee Ming-hsien picked Chen Chao-jung of the KMT and grabbed him by the collar of his jacket and tried to pin him down against a desk.

Dozens of other legislators shouted, pushed, shoved and pulled the ties of each other.  A couple of them were hurled onto the floor and several others engaged in wild chases during the melee.  Some climbed on a table and others hurled objects as they fought over the microphone and tried to prevent the other side from controlling the podium.  When the men were busily hitting each other, their female colleagues did not just watch.  DPP woman Legislator Wang Shu-huei flung a shoe at speaker Wang Jin-pyng, but it struck precisely at the face of independent lawmaker Tsai Hao standing next to protect him like a bodyguard.  

Another legislator, the politically unaffiliated Yen Ching-piao, picked up the shoe and threw back at Wang Shu-huei and ripped up a DPP political placard.  Wang then hurled the shoe back at the speaker a couple more times again, though all missed. Yen then yelled at her with a stern warning. He was only withheld by other lawmakers when he attempted to charge to Wang.

Throwing his arms up, speaker Wang went back into his office under heavy protection. But an unidentified lawmaker locked his door from the outside.

There is a Chinese saying: Good news never get out of the door; bad news propagate one thousand miles away.  Whereas Taiwan practically never gets mentioned in American news, this is the sort of item that makes it onto CNN (see video at Taiwan parliament ends as fists fly).  The CNN anchorperson said: "This is not the first time, and it won't be the last time."

But this event is unique because of the pair of shoes.  

(TVBS, ETToday)  DPP woman Legislator Wang Shu-huei had purchased this pair of leisure shoes for NT$1,800 in a street market.  Overnight, this has become the most famous pair of shoes in all of Taiwan.  Wang Shu-huei said: "I did not intend this to happen.  Actually, this is not a good thing for our international image.  But if the same situation were to recur, I would exactly the same because this is my duty to do so."

Wang Shu-huei intends to hold a public auction.  There is currently someone offering NT$68,000 already, and NT$100,000 is definitely within reach.  Wang Shu-huei said, "Our party needs money.  I'll donate it to the party."  P.S. (Apple Daily)  There is an alleged bid of US$10,000 (~NT$320,000).

(United Daily News)  As for the other collector's item -- the motorcycle chain/padlock that prevented the speaker from exiting, there is presently no known auction market for it, even though this was also unprecedented.