• [092]  A Reporter At The Nail House (03/31/2007)  (Asia Weekly (YZZK), April 4, 2007, p.32)

[in translation]

On the pedestrian bridge outside the subway station in Yangjiaping (Chongqing), many citizens gathered to look at the "nail house."  The worksite is surrounded by a bamboo fence, which has drawn a throng of spectators.  They kindly made room for me near the gate and waved for me to approach.  A young man even strip away a few of the bamboo sticks so that I can poke my camera in to take a better photograph.

From the outside, I can see that the home owner Yang Wu was hanging up a white banner that read: "The nation respects the people's rights."  A young father by my side told the daughter in his arms: "Uncle Yang is very brave.  Someday, if anyone wants to demolish my house, I will fight them to the death."  There are several women who are holding stacks of documents and looking for reporters to plead their cases.  It seemed that land requisition with low prices and forced evictions are rather commonplace, except the people had no place to release their emotions.

Yang Wu's wife Wu Ping appeared and this caused a stir in the crowd.  The waiting media surrounded her to interview her.  Due to communication problems with the worksite security guards, Wu Ping could not enter.  The dissatisfied crowd began to push at the gate.  Within thirty seconds, everybody entered into the worksite.  The crowd was well-disciplined.  As soon as the media went in, they withdrew back to outside the worksite and continued to watch.

The next day, I went to the worksite again.  The bamboo gate has been replaced by a strong wooden gate with a blue warning sign "No trespassers allowed."  The security guards stood in front of the gate and the atmosphere was tense.  But as long as the reporters display their press cards, they were allowed to come and go freely.  The land developer even arranged for representatives to be interviewed.  They are trying to use public relations methods to balance the one-sided media coverage for the rights defenders.

During my three days covering the case of the nail house, I did not see the police intercede.  Everything was left to the land developer.  This is a degree of freedom rarely seen in reporting rights defense in China.  By comparison, this was heaven-versus-earth compared to my coverage of land requisitions in Sanzhou village (Shunde city, Guangdong province) in November 2006.  At the time, as soon as I entered the village in a rented car, I was followed an undercover police officer dressed as a motorcycle driver.  As soon as I approached the scene of the incident, I was immediately taken to a hostel by undercover police officers for interrogation.  I signed papers that I voluntarily turn over my materials and I let them erase the related photographs in my digital camera.  Then I was escorted out.

• [091]  Taiwan at the UN Human Rights Council (03/31/2007)  (Radio Taiwan International)

The head of Taiwan's Examination Yuan has called on the United Nations to support Taiwan's bid to join the World Health Organization (WHO). Yao Chia-wen was speaking in Geneva at the fourth meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on Thursday. This is the first time a top-ranking Taiwanese official has been able to put Taiwan's case directly to a high-level UN meeting.

Taiwan has not been able to join the UN or the WHO due to pressure from China, which considers Taiwan part of its territory. Yao addressed the meeting as a representative of the non-governmental organization Liberal International.

Yao said that Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO could cause serious repercussions not only for the people of Taiwan but for the whole world. He also said that the people of Taiwan have shown their willingness when it comes to issues of public health. He gave as examples the SARS outbreak of 2003 and Taiwan's efforts in offering international humanitarian aid.

It is one thing to give a speech, but something happens afterwards.  Here is Xinhua's report (via 6Park):

[in translation]

UN Human Rights Council president Luis Alfonso de Alba apologized to China about the appearance of Taiwan "officials" at the meeting and promised that similar mistakes will not occur again.  He promised to delete all video recordings and minutes of the incident.  He also promised that he will prevent Taiwan "officials" from getting meeting passes like they received this time via a technical error.  ... Meanwhile the Chinese and Cuban representatives asked the UN headquarters in New York City to sanction Liberal International for violating the regulations.

• [090]  Netizens Should Be Tolerant (03/31/2007)  In Netizens Should Be Tolerant, I had previously translated the blog post of Xue Yong.  I have now added the blog posts before and after this particular post.  In totality, this series of blog posts is illustrative of how public discourse should be conducted.  Here is the chronology:
   
  - Previously, Xue Yong had publicly asked the scholar Wu Jinglian to disclose his sources of income because of potential conflicts of interest between his official government posts and corporate directorships.
   
  - Blogger/scholar Wu Jiaxiang went to Xue Yong's blog and was immediately repelled by Xue's self-characterization as an "anti-intellectual scholar."  Perhaps this label reminded Wu of the bygone anti-intellectual era, he let loose with a missive that contained some rather intemperate words.
   
  - Xue Yong responded with a blog post that asked netizens to be more tolerant of dissent.
   
  - Meanwhile, another blogger Lili-Ruth Jiang found Wu Jiaxiang's blog post and went ahead to read most of the 519 posts in Xue Yong's to assess the opinion.  She came out with a great deal of admiration for Xue Yong and stated her reasoning.
   
  - Wu Jiaxiang found Lili-Ruth Jiang's blog post, read it and went back to reflect.  He came out with the conclusion that his heart was filled with hatred when he dashed off his critique of Xue Yong.  "My case provides ample evidence that we can easily become the types of people that we hate."  He duly apologized and said that he would comment again only after he has read the works of Xue Yong.
   
  - Xue Yong came back with an acknowledgement of his admiration and gratitude towards Wu Xiajiang, and clarified what he said about Wu Jinglian.

• [089]  Internal Affairs (03/31/2007)  (Southern Weekend)  By Wang Ganrong (王乾荣). 

[in translation]

There was a conflict between Renmin University School of International Studies professor Zhang Ming and Dean Li Jingzhi.  This "very serious clash" occurred at a professorial review/evaluation meeting about Xiao Yanzhong.  Zhang believed that Xiao "already had a great academic reputation in the 1980's and it was inexplicable for him not to have been promoted to professorship already."  According to Zhang, Li tried to interrupt his speech twice and later located other people connected to Zhang to get them to "break relationships" with Zhang and thus force Zhang to quit out of humiliation.  "Anger filled Zhang's heart," and he wrote about this and other doubts about the review/evaluation process on his blog.  This caused quite a public stir.  In Li Jingzhi's open letter to the faculty and students of the school, he wrote: "This is an internal affair of the school, and there was no need to go to the media to hype it up."

Here I don't want to discuss who is right or wrong.  I just want to share my views about whether "internal affairs" ought to be discussed in the public.

I believe that if the internal office affairs are state secrets, business secrets or something involving the privacy of a citizen, then it should not be disclosed; in fact, it would be wrong to disclose them.  But even if your unit involves state secrets or you are an organization that spends public funds, your ordinary internal affairs should be transparent because you should not have any internal affairs that the public cannot see.

For example, consider the "minor matters" that affect "the personal interests of a particular individual."  The leader should deal with it in accordance with state law and policy or else he is violating discipline.  If this individual cannot get justice, then it is his right to petition, complain and go to the media.  Can you use the name of "internal affairs" to shut him up?  Your internal affairs are the affairs of society, not affairs in a true vacuum.  A fight between a married couple may be a family affair, but when it becomes criminal assault, it may show up in court with the media following up.

In the past (and including now), many people were taken advantage of by "internal affairs" and there was nothing that they can do (or they did not even think about what to do).  For example, a friend of mine has written dozens of books and he has been writing a weekly feature article for his newspaper.  The people at the newspaper say that it is hard to distinguish who is good or bad, because "anyone can look at a newspaper with a cup of tea and a cigarette for a long time" without ever being able to tell.  So while my friend was respected greatly by his colleagues and readers, his job rating was always the lowest and his pay too.  If he went to the media to complain, it would have been "hype" or even "malevolent hype"?  According to the logic of "internal affairs," he is doomed to suffer forever.

Several years ago, it would be wrong to even think about publicizing "internal affairs."  This was mainly because there was no "public notice bulletin board."  Most workers can only let "anger filled their hearts" when they encounter unfair "internal affairs."

But things are different nowadays.  For example, professor Zhang Ming published the unfair treatment of him in his blog.  He may have accused XXX falsely, but XXX can refute him.  If he maligned YYY, YYY can sue him in court.  The heavens will not fall down on account of these actions.  Actually, when many things show up in the public media, the truth becomes clearer; when something is debated publicly, the rights and wrongs become clearer.  These are the benefits that the Internet bring to the citizens.  Some people are scared of that, but more and more people welcome it.  For example, there is now the group of "sun bathers 晒客" who publish the wages in various occupations and industries.  This is known as "exposing the wages" under the sunshine.  Someone showed that the retirement pay for professor-class workers was 800 RMB per month whereas that for retired janitors was 200 RMB per month.  Shouldn't this vast wage gap draw public attention and give the "relevant departments" some enlightenment?  Can you say that this is purely the "internal affairs" of certain companies or units?  I am thinking that even the anti-corruption organizations may be able to get some valuable tips from this "internal affairs" information.

• [088]  Zero Marks, Again (03/30/2007)  History occurs twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.  Once upon a time during the Cultural Revolution, a rural student handed in a blank test paper and was made into a national hero for daring to challenge a system that favored the capitalist roaders' children.  Today, we have another student who is being turned into a national hero/clown for receiving zero marks too.
   
  (yWeekend)  This week, the top Tianya post was titled <The Graduate School Entrance Exam results are out, and I got zero marks>.  This was netizen Nianqi's own description of what happened.
   
  On January 20, she was taking the English test.  On her way in, she had a spate with the supervising teacher because she brought a mobile phone into the test room.  Although she was angry, she calmed down and handed the phone over to a friend.  Five minutes before the end, she found that the supervising teacher "read her answer and then told another student."  She complained about it.  Two months later, she found out that she received zero marks in the English test.  When she checked with the University Alliance, she was told that it was because the supervising teacher had made a note on her exam booklet: "This student brought a mobile telephone into the test room without permission."
   
  Here are some netizen comments:
   
  - This is supposed to be the third time that she has taken the Graduate School Entrance Exam.  How could she not know that mobile phones were banned from the test room?  But according to the post, she argued with the supervising teacher that she only wanted to check the time with her phone and she refused to deposit the mobile telephone on the teacher's desk in front for the duration of the test.  It is hard to imagine that she could have taken the test for three times.
   
  - She said that the supervising teacher looked at her answer and then told another student.  Please pay attention: Nianqi had flunked twice before in English.  So why would a cheating student --  someone who had the money to pay off a supervising teacher and then made sure that she was assigned to the test room monitored by that teacher -- want to ask that supervising teacher to peek at the answers given by another lousy student?  The high costs and low benefits from this piece of cheating are unpersuasive.
   
  - Netizen wcp0324 wrote: "The Girl Who Got Zero Marks is increasingly becoming a modern Rashomon.  Both the girl and the University Alliance are liars.  The girl is trying to get her marks back, while the University Alliance is trying to make this matter go away."

• [087]  Was There Rape? (03/30/2007)  I read South China Morning Post and I could not find the 'r'-word.  So I will quote from The Standard in which the 'r'-word is in the headline:

Education chief Arthur Li Kwok-cheung had warned the Hong Kong Institute of Education it would be "raped" if it refused to merge with the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the institute's president Paul Morris testified Thursday at a Commission of Inquiry probing alleged government meddling in the institute's affairs and academic freedom.

Morris, the only witness to be questioned Thursday by his lawyer, Martin Lee Chu-ming SC, said he heard in 2003 that the institute would be "raped" from Simon Ip Sik-on, a former chairman of the institute's council, after Li had had lunch with Ip and two other senior institute officials on July 19, 2002.

According to Morris, Ip explained to him in 2003 what the secretary for education and manpower meant by his remarks. Morris said he understood the word "raped" meant the institute would be rendered "not viable."

As noted in Apple Daily, there were problems with how to cover the 'r'-word on television:

... yesterday it was revealed that Education and Manpower Bureau's King Arthur had threated to "rape" the Institute of Education.  "Rape" means "the crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts" and the dictionary specifies its pronounciation as /relp/.  Cable TV reporter Ho Wing-hong was perfect in his pronunciation.  However, not everybody was as good.  On ATV, female reporter Vienna Cheuk reported that Arthur Li threatened to "rap" someone.  While Li is known for doling out tongue-lashing, he is not known to have sung "rap" songs.  Meanwhile, the TVB newscast completely avoided the 'r'-word and used the word 蹂躪 (='trample') instead.
 
According to CUHK Department of Translation director Gilbert Fong (方 梓 勳), it is wrong to pronounce 'rape' as 'rap.'  However, the expert Koo Tak-king (古 德 明) said that the dictionary lists two pronunciations: /relp/ and /rep/.  /rep/ is close to 'rap,' but very few people pronounce it this way.

Did Arthur Li say that?  Not according to evidence, which isn't even hearsay because there is no assertion that the word 'rape' came out of his mouth.  So while this is a sensationalistic headline, should it be in there?

• [086]  The Gangster and His Toy Guns (03/30/2007) In The Video From The Gangster, wannabe gangster Chou Cheng-pao was filmed with a stack of firearms in front of him.  In the videotape, Chou was seen corking the guns and issuing threats against his ex-boss.
  
   
  (China Times)  On the afternoon of March 29, the police received a solid tip on the whereabouts of Chou.  A large number of armed police officers were dispatched to the scene.  When they charged into the building, they saw Chou sitting and waiting at the scene without offering any resistance.  The police found the bulletproof vest, two long guns and two pistols.  Upon inspection, they found that these just toy BB guns.  Chou could not have offered any meaningful resistance even if he wanted to.
   
  Here is the police description of the media story.  On March 26, the Taichung police received a report from TVBS's central regional bureau and they proceeded to the TVBS office to interview the correspondent named Chang.  In the statement, Chang told police that he found an envelop from an identified source at past 8am that day.  Upon viewing the film, the police believed that the camera work was professional-quality and not easily accomplished by ordinary people.  The videotape had the fingerprints of Chou Cheng-pao as well as two prints belonging to another individual.
   
  On the morning of March 27, the police attempted to contact Chang but was unable to reach him.  The case squad checked Chang's telecommunications records and found that he maintained close contact with a colleague named Shi.
   
  In the evening, the police identified the motor inn in which the video was taken.  They obtained the close-cirtcuit television tapes.  Upon examination, they observed that four men came in two cars and stayed in the room for more than one hour.  At this time, the police fingerprint laboratory came back to report that the prints on the video tape belonged to TVBS reporter Shi.  So the police were sure that the reporters were involved somehow. 
   
  On March 28, TVBS senior officials called the police to apologize.  TVBS said that they have found out that the videotape was taken by one of their reporters (namely, Shi).
   
  (TVBS)  Here is the official statement: On March 26, TVBS News published a news report on "Suspected criminal Chou Cheng-pao held guns and took video of himself to threaten Liu" and drew high attention from society.  Through the investigation held voluntarily by the TVBS news center, it was found out that the video was taken by the Nantou correspondent Shi Chen-kang.  The central regional news center correspondent Chang Yu-kun and Shi were concerned about their own personal safety and therefore conspired to deceive the news center management by falsely claiming that the videotape had been left by unknown persons.  Both Chang Yu-kun and Shi Chen-kang have been dismissed from their posts.
    
  Sanctions against TVBS and the individual reporters have not been decided upon yet.  A total of 11 cable/satellite television channels broadcast segments from the videotape.  TVBS had the original edited video which was turned over to the police, but they made copies that they used for broadcasting.  CTTV and Era TV got a 17-second segment from the Taichung police.  The other channels simply showed recordings of the TVBS broadcast.  TVBS may be fined up to NT$1 million (but no suspension in accordance with the regulations), and the other channels are unlikely to be fined more than TVBS is.

• [085]  The Villas of Xuzhou (03/28/2007)  (Beijing News)  In Lali mountain, Xuzhou, Jiangsu province, about 3,000 mu of protected forest land was cleared to make way for villas, swimming pools and tennis courts.  According to provincial and city people's congress representatives: "The mountain is our treasure!  On one hand, we are spending money to make the uninhabited mountains green.  On the other hand, someone is excavating the mountain and cutting down the trees in order to build houses.  Our city's forestry department should enforce the law.  No matter who cuts down the trees, they are the sinners of history!" 
   
  Actually, the sight at the scene is less than luxurious and more like squalid.  There was no a single person to be seen among these unoccupied or unfinished villas.
  
   
  According to the reporter's investigation, more than half of these forest-destroying new villas actually have land permits.  The forestry department is confounded, because they have never ever reviewed any applications for these villas.  Nevertheless, the owners seemed to be able to produce legitimate land permits.  According to an informed source, "They all went through their connections to get official documents, but the information was never entered into the files."
   
  This leaves the big question of just who these owners are.  According to nearby villagers, they don't know.
   
  The above was taken from the news report in Beijing News and it is based upon a report in Yangzi Evening News.  Clearly, the forestry department has gone out to check and therefore saw the legitimate land permits.  It also so means that the forestry department know the identities of the owners.  So why is the information being withheld for the news story?
   
  Here is the same story, but written slightly differently in CCTV.  There is one telling difference:

(Beijing News) 记者调查发现，半数以上毁林新建的别墅均有土地证。“绝大多数都有土地证！”铜山县林业局的苏局长称。他同时表示，该局始终没有审批一家。

[in translation]  The reporter investigated and found out that more than half of the villas built after clearing forests owned land permit.  "The majority of them have land permits!" said Tongshan county forestry department chief Su.  At the same time, he said that the department had not reviewed or approved a single building.

(CCTV) 记者调查发现，半数以上毁林新建的别墅均有土地证。"75％都是徐州市级机关工作人员的，且绝大多数都有土地证！"铜山县林业局苏局长称，该局始终没有审批一家。

[in translation]  The reporter investigated and found out that more than half of the vaillas built after clearning forests owned land permit.  "75% of them belong to Xuzhou city-level government office officials, and the majority of them have land permits!"  Tongshan county forestry department chief Su said that the department had not reviewed or approved a single building.

So Beijing News pleaded ignorance while CCTV had no fear about saying 75% of the villas belonged to city government offcials.  The difference is that each media organization exercises its own editorial license in the name of social harmony.

• [084]  A Drowning in Hong Kong Harbor (03/28/2007)  (Ming Pao via ChineseNewsNet)  On March 19, Mr. Yang, Mrs Yang and their 30-year-old daughter Yang Lijuan of Lanzhou city (Kansu province) borrowed 11,300 RMB at high interest rate in order for the daughter to fulfill her dream of meeting singer/actor Andy Lau in person.
   
  According to Yang Lijuan, she had a dream when she was 16 years old.  She dreamed that she met Andy Lau and she remembered his clothes and what he sang.  Later on, she saw a report in a magazine about an Andy Lau and the clothes and songs were exactly as in her dream.  From thereon, she began to devote full-time dreaming about Andy Lau.  She never continued her studies, she did not work and she did not date any men.
   
  The Yangs arrived on March 19.  The next morning, the three went to the Andy fan club, but it was not open.  On March 21, the three went to Government Headquarters to petition Chief Executive Donald Tsang to assist them.  Government workers recommended that they go to the Tsimshatsui Cultural Center instead.  There, the workers arranged for them to go to the Andy Lau fan club that evening to learn about the birthday party scheduled for March 25.  On that day, Ah Huan got her picture taken on stage with Andy Lau, but never got an opportunity to spend time alone with the singer/actor.
  
   
  On the evening of March 19, Mr. and Mrs. Yang went to eat at a 24-hour food store in Tsimshatsui.  Mrs. Yang was very tired and fell asleep on the table.  When she awoke, Mr. Yang had disappeared while leaving a 12-page 10,000-word letter.  The letter began with cursing Andy Lau ("who do you think you are?  you are very selfish ... I don't want to see my child suffer.  I have decided to kill myself in protest.  When I am dead, Andy Lau had better meet with our child or I will die with my eyes open ..."  Mrs. Yang called the police, who conducted a search and found Mr. Yang drowned in the harbor.
  
   
  In 1997, Yang Lijuan came to Hong Kong for the first time to look for Andy Lau.  In 2004, she came to Hong Kong and stood outside Andy Lau's house but never saw  him.  Andy Lau is aware of the situation about her before.  Through his manager, Andy Lau said that if fans go through improper, unhealthy and abnormal means to try to meet him, he will ignore them.  He hates fans who show no filial piety and he believes the parents should also stop their children from going too far.  When mainland reporters told Yan Lijuan what Andy Lau said, she cried and thought that maybe she was selfish in causing some much trouble for her parents.  But she did not mend her ways.  The newspaper reports say that Mr. Yang sold his house and his kidney in order to finance those previous trips.

• [083]  The Video Threat From The Gangster (03/28/2007)  (TVBS)  During the past couple of weeks, there were several shootings in Taichung.  Now a man has come out with a video mailed to television channel TVBS to claim credit.
  
  In the video, a man claiming to be Chou Cheng-pao appears wearing a bullet-proof vest and displaying different kinds of firearms (Berreta, M4  on a table in front of me.  He claimed to be a former gangster working for gang boss Liu Jui-jung, and he is challenging Liu for betrayal: "You are the big brother and you dare to do these things.  Please do not be a son of a turtle egg.  Do not hide in the turtle hole.  Come out.  It's between the two of us.  It does not concern anyone else."  Chou claimed to have been behind the three shootings.  He also wrote a letter with his palm print to prove that he was Chou Cheng-pao.
   
  (Apple Daily)  One of the first conseqeunces of the video is that the backdrop is so unusual that the police quickly found a certain room in a certain motor in to be identical.
  
   
  The second consequence of the video threat is that the police have been conducting sweeps and sudden inspections of hotels, KTV and other places of entertainment.
  
   
  (Apple Daily)  A third consequence is that a local legislator received a telephone call from someone: "I am the Ah Pao on television.  Give me NT$200,000 so that I can flee!"  But the legislator decided that this was a scam and ignored him.
   
  (Apple Daily; ETToday)  The video which was broadcast first by TVBS and then later carried by other television channels has drawn the attention of the National Communications Commission.  This video featured a man displaying firearms (including loading the ammunition and making to pull the trigger) and issuing threats.  As such, it violated that Article 18 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law which requires classification of such content.  Such violations may be subjected to a maximum fine of NT$2 million.
   
  There have been prior instances of Taiwan gangsters shooting their own digital videos for public consumption., and this explains why there is objection to offering publicity to gangsters.  Is this news in the name of the people's right to know?  Or is this encouraging worse behavior?  Internationally, a similar question is whether Osama bin Ladin's videos ought to be shown on television?  This is a test of finding the balance between freedom of press and media self-discipline.
   
  LATE BREAKING NEWS:  (China Times) TVBS has just disclosed that one of their reporters was responsible for taking the video for Chou Cheng-pao!  TVBS claims that it was not aware because the reporter hid the fact.
   
  Video link: 男子公開亮槍 警方全力追緝匪徒 YouTube

• [082]  Engagement (03/27/2007)  One year ago around this time, I was attending the Advertising Research Foundation Annual Conference, in which the latest and greatest marketing concept was presented: Engagement.  In one sentence: "Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context."  Frankly, I have no idea what that means.  If I had any business sense, I would have jumped into this latest fad.  But I haven't.
   
  Nevertheless, one year after, there is this opinion column by Ivan Choi in Ming Pao titled "In universal suffrage, engagement is the first step (普選engagement的第一步)."

... in recent years, I am beginning to believe that in the face of Beijing, the business community and the many conservative forces, it is a bad idea to use an oppositional approach to advance democracy in Hong Kong.  Instead, I believe in 'engagement' (循循善誘).  To put this in simple terms, Beijing is undoubtedly a non-democratic government, but it is not the tyrant that used to resort to armed suppression without notice.  Instead, in order to join the new globalized society, it must lear to become "civilized."  During that process, it definitely has doubts and misgivings.  Therefore, the most significant meaning of this CE election is to give a rehearsal of a direct election, which make Beijing understand that the sky did not collapse and it was no big deal.

During this "quasi-direct-election," the pan-democratic camp did not propose Hong Kong independence or any such, and it did not bring up topics sensitive to Beijing.  In fact, Alan Leong even characterized the central government as "pragmatic and rational" during the television debate.

As for the business community, they also saw that as long as there is the determination, willingness to learn and sufficient preparation, even a 60-year-old government official who has been working in an air-conditioned room for the last 40 years, can have a respectable performance on television debates and not be  humiliated by the more articulate barrister.  Thus, universal suffrage will not be won only by barristers and street warriors.

What are you afraid of then?

Therefore, I want to ask Beijing and the Hong Kong business community, what are afraid of about universal suffrage?

... The historical verdict may be: in the 2007 Chief Executive election, Donald Tsang took a half step forward.  This half step might have been extremely awkward, but it was a half step forward and set an example for everyone around him.  That is 'engagement.'

Whether Alan Leong got 132 votes or 123 votes, nobody will remember in a few weeks' time.  History will only remember: in the spring of 2007, there were no personal attacks, there were no smearing and there was no incitment of class antagonisms and ethnic group contradictions.  Alan Leong and Donald Tsang gave a warm-up/rehearsal for universal suffrage. 

• [081]  Building A Harmonious Society (03/27/2007)  (Boxun)  A photograph to keep for the unintended irony.  On March 26, there was a parade of the security patrol team in Chikan district, Zhanjiang city, Guangdong province.  The security team was dressed in camouglage uniforms and steel helmets and the marchers were holding signs that say: "Build a Harmonious Society."  
  
  Once upon a time, Chairman Mao said: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."  Nowadays, we say "Harmonious societies are built by people in camouflage uniforms and steel helmets."

• [080]  Schadenfreude (03/27/2007)  (Washington Post)  Sorry about this interruption but I cannot help laughing.  At issue is TIDE, for Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment.  "Ballooning from fewer than 100,000 files in 2003 to about 435,000, the growing database threatens to overwhelm the people who manage it ... TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the data."  Here is an example:

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said last year that his wife had been delayed repeatedly while airlines queried whether Catherine Stevens was the watch-listed Cat Stevens. The listing referred to the Britain-based pop singer who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The reason Islam is not allowed to fly to the United States is secret.

Anyway, this is a bizarre news story.

• [079]  Desperate Media (03/27/2007)  First, here is the photograph:
  
   
  Okay, is this blog getting desperate with the photograph of a nude woman in order to attract more eyeballs?
   
  Well, this photograph appeared at the Beijing News BBS and it is featured on their front page of their website.  If a nude woman is good enough for a top mainstream newspaper in the capital of China, then it is good enough for this blog.
   
  Okay, is Beijing News getting desperate with the photograph of a nude woman in order to attract more eyeballs?
   
  At 10pm in the evening, CCTV began broadcasting three episodes of <Desperate Housewives>.  One of the housewives is Mary Alice Young (played by Brenda Strong).  After making a delicious breakfast and seeing her husband and children off, she pointed a gun at her temple, fired and killed herself.  In the narration of the story up to that point, when another housewife Lynette made love to her husband, he refused to wear a condom; when Susan wrapped in a bathrobe had an argument with her ex-husband, he ripped off the bathrobe and she was instantly completely nude on screen ... when this series of sensitive shots and subjects were shown on the television screen, CCTV had its audience astonished.
   
  How did CCTV arrive at this point?  Previously, CCTV had shown <Band of Brothers> with a significant amount of editing.  Nevertheless, the audience was impressed.  However, when some of the audience went and purchased the orignial DVD's, they were very displeased with the excisions and they expressed their displeausure on the Internet.  In order to avert the audience blowback, CCTV announced beforehand that there will be less "cutting" for <Desperate Housewives>.  A CCTV leaders said: "When we purcahsed this series, we did some post-production.  Our editing principle is very simple: we only did a few changes to remove one or two sensitive scenes.  Basically, we kept the original series intact.  In the USA, there were 23 episodes in the original.  We are also showing 23 episdoes."  According to a viewer, "Although the number of episodes did not change, the length is shorter.  When I watched the tape, the average duration was 40 minutes.  On CCTV, it was just over 30 minutes."
   
  If it is good enough for CCTV, it is good enough for Beijing News; if it is good enough for Beijing News, it is good enough for this blog.  
   
  This story is actually more important than you think with respect to the censorship issue.  When CCTV edited <Band of Brothers> heavily, they got lambasted by viewers who saw the original DVDs.  If they edited <Desperate Housewives> heavily too, they knew that the public lashback would happen all over again.  If they did not start showing series such as <Desperate Housewives> and run the same old stuff as before, they know that they would be losing their viewers to DVDs.  So when CCTV showed <Desperate Housewives>, two things happened.  First, all other media can go just as far ("if it is good enough for CCTV, it should be good enough for us").  Second, even this is not going to satisfy everybody, as I am sure that some forums and blogs out there have run detailed comparisons of the CCTV broadcast with the DVDs and then enumerated all the omissions.  CCTV will be pressured to go even further the next time.  This is known as sea change on an inch-by-inch basis.

• [078]  yWeekend Covers The Case of Professor Zhang Ming (03/26/2007)  In The Case of Professor Zhang Ming, the reader is left highly dissatisfied because Professor Zhang Ming is presenting one side of the story on his personal blog and Dean Li Jingzhi is presenting the other side of the story on the Renmin University School of International Studies official website.  The two stories are opposite to each other.  So who should the reader believe?  This is one of those cases that calls for a traditional journalist to go in and look for third-party corroboration.  yWeekend has done that.
   
  In Conflict #1, there was a faculty meeting to review the promotion of Xiao Yanzhong.  Zhang and Li both agreed that there was an argument between them, but their descriptions were diametrically opposite to each other.  Here is what the yWeekend reporter found out from one of the teachers who attended the meeting.  He said, "I was at the reviewing meeting for Xiao Yanzhong.  Zhang Ming's description was basically correct."  However, he said that this took place over a year ago and he does not recall whether Zhang pounded on the desk.  "Even the meeting minutes could not have shown such a detail."  
   
  This teacher continued: "It was quite amusing.  When the professors began to express their opinions, Zhang Ming requested to speak first.  He said that the review process was illegal.  At the time, Li Jingzhi wanted to interrupt him twice, but Zhang Ming stopped him by saying: 'Don't say anything.  Wait until I finish before you talk ..."  After Zhang Ming, Li Jingzhi said a couple of things.  Then we voted.  One professor even joked: 'I want to say something too.'"
   
  As for the retaliation claimed by Zhang Ming, this teacher said: "Li told many people that he cannot communicate with Zhang.  He met with many people and asked them not to align with the wrong team."
   
  In Conflict #2, Zhang Ming took on the case of the thesis subsidies for the graduating students by giving a press interview to confirm that he knew that the students had not been paid.  Li Jingzhi considered the subsidy fees to be a non-issue which Zhang used to damage the reputation of the university.
   
  The reporter contacted five doctoral students who had graduated from Renmin University at the time.  These students, who had different thesis advisors, confirmed that they had not received the fees.  But on the day after the news report appeared, the school told them to collect the money.  One student admitted that he was the one who contacted the media.  He was about to graduate but the school told him that there was no money.  He went to the university administration and was told that the money had already been sent to the school two months ago.  He was told to keep his mouth shut by the school administrator.  So he called up Dean Li Jingzhi, who asked him: "Have you gone stupid because of studying too much? (是不是读书读傻了)"  The student is not necessarily unsympathetic to Li Jingzhi.  He said that this was a typical case in which "the ass decides for the brain" -- "If I were sitting in Li's place, I might be even worse than him."

• [077]  The Virtual Tea Rooms in Taiwan (03/26/2007) (Apple Daily)  This is about the development of a sub-cultural language code.
   
  Once upon a time, Yahoo ran a chatroom service and it became the congregation of prostitutes and patrons.  Eventually Yahoo shut its chat room down, even though it was the biggest one in Taiwan at the time.  Now the escort services have seeped into the smaller chat rooms.  The trick is that the the escort services are never advertised in clear languge.  Instead a sub-cultural language code has been built mostly around tea.  Yes, tea.
   
  Here are the best known tea-related and other terms:
   
  Taste tea (品茶): Patronize a prostitute
  Drink tea (喝茶): Transaction with a prostitute procured by a pimp
  Part-time tea (兼茶): Part-time prostitutues (implying that they are pure and innocent-looking amateurs)
  Iced tea (冰茶): Under-aged prostitute
  Warm tea (高溫茶): Mature-aged prostitute
  Golden Suma tea (金酥麻茶): Blonde Russian/Eastern European prostitute
  Fish pond (魚池): Internet chat room
  Go fishing (釣魚): Police disguised as patron to collect evidence of prostitution
  Eat fish (吃魚): Transacting with a prostitute working on her own; also known as "subsidized friendship" (援交)
  Turtle (甲魚): A fraudulent organization that pretends to have young girls offering "subsized friendship" 
  Engine room (機房): Dispatch office for the prostitutes
  GTO: Pimp/procurer
   
  In the news story, the Apple Daily reporter went to the Taipei People's Chat Room and found a "refined tea shop."  Unfrotunately, it does not appear to be offering tea.  Instead, there are ads for "Fresh bookish tea; special slim tea; Japanese cool green tea; Korean smooth ginseng tea; many flavors to suit your taste, starting at NT$4,000."
   
  The Apple Daily News reporter then went to get a room in Taipei and he called the "refined tea shop" to ask for Golden Suma tea.  He was informed by the client service representative that only "established customers get to drink that tea."  However, he will sent over an "university student part-time tea" to come over for 50 minutes at NT$4,000.  The reporter was then asked for his real name and the address of his telephone bill.  The procurer said: "We have the means to find some basic information for just NT$100."  The reporter pretended to get mad and said that he thought this sounded like some kind of ATM scam.  The procurer said: "I could not have told you up front about this.  If you were a 'dove' (meaning cop), you would have taken precaution."  So the reporter gave an invalid address and somehow that passed scrutiny.  Twenty minutes later, a short-and-fat 'dinosaur' (meaning 'ugly woman') showed up.  She took off her clothes quickly without any embarrassment, so that this was obviously not her part-time job.
  
  Can you really 'make someone out' with NT$100?  The police said that the procurer was only saying that in order to frighten off the police.

• [076]  Sunshine Is Hidden Behind Clouds (03/25/2007)  (Southern Metropolis Daily)  (For background, see Comment 200703#071)  

... What kind of medicine is so expensive (note: 22,538.21 RMB per dose)?  It turns out to be an import drug and the recommended price is lower than the cost of the importer.  The seller could not say what the actual cost charged by the manufaturer was ("Sorry, we did not have the data with us so we cannot tell").  Since this is the age of globalization, the sellers of Chinese medicine also tried the same.  A certain pharmaceutical company had a Vitamin C-Yingqiao tablet which they asked for 99,999 RMB.  However, the buyers' experts knocked the price back down to 0.053 RMB.  Ha ha ha, it is easier to bully your own people, who are recommended to register overseas and then come back into China.

After reading this piece of sunshine news, my heart was clouded.  Who is to blame for the sky-high price for medicine?

The pharmaceutical companies?  But didn't a pharmaceutical company executive said that "medicine must not be sold like steamed buns" and "the prices are low enough, and there can be no lowering"?

The hospitals?  But they complain that the government only covers 7% of public hospital expenses and the rest would have to be raised by themselves.  What can they do?

The medical sales representatives?  One medical sales representatives even exposed the situation (there is a certain medicine that the pharmaceutical company is charging 3.8 RMB but the hospital is selling it for 98 RMB.  So it would see that these are the culprits?  But the same whistleblower said: "I have figured out that the medicine goes through ten intermediaries before getting to the patient.  Each of these intermediaries demand a cut."  Who are these intermediaries?  Who is charging money?  I have once read a joke: At the big anti-corruption rally, the big corrupt ones were delivering the report, the medium corruption ones were listening to the report and the small corruption ones were the defendants (反腐败大会上，大腐败作报告，中腐败听报告，小腐败当被告).   It fits this situation to a tee.
 
A while ago, I was feeling very listless and unenergetic, so I went to the hospital.  The doctor quickly scribbed a medical scrip for me which cost more than 300 RMB.  The doctor instructed me: "You must take this medicine every hour during the day.  Each time, you take three pills.  There is enough medicine for two weeks.  You must remember to drink a lot of water when you take the pills.  Frankly, I have never heard of this regime.  So I asked: "Doctor, why is my illness?  What is this medicine for?"  The doctor told me quite honestly: "Actually, the medicine does not do anything.  Right now, what you need most is to drink a lot of water."  Bwwwwaaaaa

• [075]  Taiwan By The Numbers (03/25/2007)  (TVBS) (1,121 persons age 20 or over interviewed on March 21, 2007)  This is a public opinion poll on preferences among the four DPP presidential election candidates.
   
  If the base is the entire population, then the support levels are:
  Su Tseng-chang: 24%
  Frank Hsieh: 20%
  Annette Lu: 10%
  Yu Shyh-kun: 4%
   
  If the base excludes those respondents with pan-blue political party identification (KMT, PFP), (that is, only DPP, TSU and independents are included) then the support levels are:
  Frank Hsieh: 24%
  Su Tseng-cheng: 21%
  Annette Lu: 10%
  Yu Shyh-kun: 5%
   
  If the base is restricted to only those respondents with pan-green political party identification (DPP, TSU) (that is, pan-blues as well as independents are excluded), the support levels are:
  Frank Hsieh: 40%
  Su Tseng-chang: 29%
  Annette Lu: 12%
  Yu Shyh-kun: 8%

• [074]  How Can You Trust A Reporter? (03/25/2007)  For this, you have to recall the story in How Can You Trust A Politician? (Comment 200703#043).

Chen Litian is the deputy mayor of Jiang County.  Last year, more than 100 migrant laborers came to demand their 130,000 RMB back wages.  The laborers tried all the legal methods, including going to the Labor Mediation Committee but they got nothing.  None of the relevant Jiang county departments paid any attention to them.  So the laborers were forced to go to the Yuncheng city party committee to present their problem.  They probably received some attention, because the Jiang county government dispatched deputy mayor Chen Litian to Yuncheng to meet with the laborers.  After negotiations, Chen Litian turned over a signed document to the laborers to guarantee that the problem will be resolved within three days (beginning tomorrow), or else the county treasury will foot the bill.  But when the laborers got back to Jiang county, the promise of the deputy mayor was not kept.

Well, this is a common enough story and there is nothing new except that Chen Litian told the reporters that his only objective on this trip to Yuncheng was to get the laborers to return to Jiang county.  Besides, how can anyone take a promise seriously? (March 14, Shanxi Evening News)  Right, how can anyone take it seriously?  Chen Litian deceived people and then he blamed his victims for being gullible.  That is enough to make you sick inside.

In the March 14 report in Shanxi Evening News, the closing sentence was: During the interview with our reporter, Chen Litian said, How can a promise be taken seriously? (陈力田在接受记者采访时说，写承诺的事怎么能当真？).   This story was carried by other newspapers across China and made Chen Litian a target of criticisms.

yWeekend has followed through with an interview of Chen Litian as well as the Shanxi Evening News reporter. 

On March 16, Chen Litian told the yWeekend reporter: "No.  I definitely did not say that a promise cannot be taken seriously."  According to his recollection, at around noon on March 8, he was meeting with the procuratorate director when Shanxi Evening News reporter Hu Zengchun knocked on the door to enter.  Hu place a tape record on Chen's desk and produced a press card.  Chen then demanded to see the letter of introduction.  When Hu showed him a letter, Chen did not think that it qualified.  Chen asked Hu: "What is your matter?"  Hu produced a piece of paper and put it in front of Chen: "Did you write this?"  Chen recognized this to be a photocopy of the letter that he wrote on January 10, 2006 to promise the migrant laborers that the problem "will be solved in three days, or else the treasury will advance the paypment."  Chen said: "Yes.  What about it?"  "How were you going to deal with it?" asked Hu.  "In accordance with the law," said Chen.  The conversation lasted for more than 20 minutes and Chen said that he never said anything like "how can a promise be taken seriously?"

On March 20, the yWeekend reporter made contact with reporter Hu Zengchun of Shanxi Evening News.  Hu said that he was busy but he would ask a colleague who was also at that interview to review the tape.  Half an hour later, the colleague called back and confirmed that Chen Litian did not say that.  Later on, Hu explained that their original report did not contain a direct quotation.  Instead, Chen Litian was explaining to Hu that this matter cannot be solved on his personal say-so alone.  Accordingly, Hu Zengchun wrote that Chen implied that the promise cannot be taken seriously.

Later on, the yWeekend reporter use Baidu to search for this story.  On March 14, Beijing News had a report titled: <<The deputy county mayor reneged on his promise to pay back wages while saying 'how can it be taken seriously?'>>.  The report identified the source to be Shanxi Evening News and then quotation marks were placed around "How can a promise be taken seriously?" to make it an actual quotation from Chen Litian.

The yWeekend reporter contacted the Beijing News editor, who said that he found the original Shanxi Evening News article and another Shanxi report from NetEase/Sohu.  Due to the deadline, he used mainly the other newspaper's report, which has the double quotation marks.  The Beijing News editor does not remember the name of the other Shanxi newspaper.

Chen Litian intends to sue Hu Zhengchen of Shanxi Evening News.  "I'll definitely sue him.  How can he write it that way?  All the negative things about me on the websites were caused by his report.  Therefore, I want to hold him responsible."

By the way, Chen Litian met the migrant laborers in January 10, 2006 and the case foundered in the court system.  On March 14, the report on <The Deputy County Mayor's Promise Was Not Kept> appeared in Shanxi Evening News.  The next day, the county made the decision to pay the migrant laborers out of the treasury first (80,124.99 RMB was allocated and almost 70,000 RMB has already been paid out while some remaining laborers have to be located).

• [073]  Jimmy Lai Netchats With Netizens (03/25/2007) (Apple Daily via New Century Net)

When asked why he seldom gets interviewed by Hong Kong media, JImmy Lai said: "First, many Hong Kong media will not interview me.  Second, I feel that since I am a media person, I should not get too much exposure.  But the lack of exposure over the long-term meant that the sense of mystery becomes misunderstood.  When the media person has a bad image, the entire organizatiom suffers.  Therefore, I have decided to show up more often so that the public can see me more often.  They can judge for themselves.  I won't hide and let people trash me."

...

EasyFinder is a relatively sensitive issue for Next Media.  A netizen asked Jimmy Lai, who is a Catholic, why he wanted to run a magazine like EasyFinder?  The netizen suggested that EasyFinder's problem is with the management and wondered if Jimmy Lai realizes that.  Another netizen said that Next Media has few ads and are often sued, so did Jimmy Lai consider replacing the management completely, or even transform his entire media empire.  Jimmy Lai said: "Even Catholics have to do conduct business!  When an organization publishes different publications, mistakes will happen.  They are already changing and the readers should be able to see it.  No matter what occurred in the pst, the important thing is what you do in the future.  We accept responsibilty for what we did previously.  The readers should see what we are doing now."  "Actually, there is has been some changes in the management of EasyFinder.  I know that.  I spent quite a bit of time on EasyFinder."  "The media cannot avoid offending people.  Ultimately, bad news is good news.  It is impossible for us not to expose the scandals for some people!  Some people feel that it is bad news, but we have to report it.  We put it on the front page and we make a big deal out of the story.  So we offend people.  I realize that.  But we should avoid overblowing something, we should act responsibly and we should treat it in a nice way."

...

Next Weekly and Apple Daily became phenomena in Hong Kong media, and Next Media's impact in Taiwan is possibly even greater.  This time, Jimmy Lai wants to get into Internet media.  His opponents are not the old media which have not moved forward in decades, but they are the thousands of creative netizens.  Why is Jimmy Lai up to?  Faced with so many competitiors, what is Apple Daily's most distinguished mark?

"The distinguished mark of Apple Daily is that it is constantly evolving.  Society is progressing rapidly through information transmission.  Everybody's way of enjoying information is constantly changing.  Therefore, a newspaper may keep up with this change.  We the media must be the ones who change the fastest."

But when netizens asked Jimmy Lai whether he helt that his media company is not forward-looking and somewhat tired-looking, the answer was unreservedly "Yes."  BHe felt that the newspaper should work hard to cope with the impact from the Internet.  "I think that the impact is causing us a lot of worries and damge, but these worries and damages are opportunities for us to re-invigorate ourselves."

When asked about how he intends to use the Internet to improve the competitiveness of Next Media, he said that there are definitely many things to do and the company is thinking about working with Internet media and use new media more.  Thus, this particular netchat with the readers is one such new experiement.  The newspaper will have more conatct with the Internet.  This is an experiment.  The Internet has a great deal of impact on society and readers, and so the newspaper ought to evolve in that direction.  If we do not put the relevant information into the newspaper, it will hard for us to know how to evolve.  I believe that this change will have ingredients of the Internet, because the influence of hte Internet is getting bigger and bigger.

YouTube videos:
黎智英 網上訪問 07-03-21 part1 
黎智英 網上訪問 07-03-21 part2 
黎智英 網上訪問 07-03-21 part3 
黎智英 網上訪問 07-03-21 part4 

• [072]  Hong Kong By The Numbers (03/24/2007)  (Ming Pao)  (Weekly tracking poll over the past eight weeks beginning February 5; the numbers in blue are the support levels for Donald Tsang and the numbers in red are the support levels for Alan Leong).

Another question in the latest poll is when should universal suffrage for the Chief Executive be implemented: 58% said 2012, 13% in 2017, 11% in 2022 and 5% said that there should not be universal suffrage.

• [071]  The Sky Is The Price Limit (03/24/2007) (Southern Metropolis Daily)  The following photograph is remarkable by the shocked expressions on the faces of the reporter and the glum face of the pharmaceutical company representative who had just made a declaration.
  
  The occasion is a somewhat unusual public event as when the Guangdong provincial pharmaceutical shopping network negotiated publicly with suppliers over product prices.  At this moment, the product is Herceptin, which is used for treating breast cancer.  The pharmaceutical company had just made an initial offer of 23,538.21 RMB for one dose of Herceptin.  That was why the reporters were shocked.
   
  As the experts from the buyer's side attempted to negotiate down the price, the seller said: "This is an important.  The price asked by other side was 21,659 RMB.  Therefore, the distributor is only making a three-figure profit.  After twenty minutes of back-and-forth negotiation, the seller came down with a revised figure of 23,538 RMB (with the 0.21 being eliminated).
   
  According to later research, Herceptin sells for over HKD $16,000 per dose in Hong Kong and that is also close to the price in the country of origin.

• [070]  The Review of Bowtie's Rally (03/24/2007)  How boring can political rallies be?  That depends on your attitude and this reviewer had a good time because he/she was looking for all the politically incorrect things.

[in translation]

There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics!  This is an eternally constant rule, which showed itself last night at the rally for the re-election of Donald Tsang.  It is an open secret that the traditional lefties do not like Bowtie Tsang and often file complaints to Beijing.  But for the sake of political interests, the pro-China political groups shouted their voices hoarse as cheerleaders for Tsang and praised him for becoming "much more friendly."  Their show was even better than the one given by movie star Stephen Chow at the rally last night.

As Bowtie is about to be re-elected, the pro-China political groups realize their future political spoils will depend on their performance last night.  So on this final show, they all did their very best.  This is the one performance that will determine whether they get to eat rice or congee next.

The six pro-China political groups not only supported Tsang by showing up in large numbers.  The leftie leaders also did their very best.  Federation of Trade Union president Cheng Yiu-tong led off to say that Bowtie has become more approachable; he used to be stubborn, but now he cares about labor workers and listens to public opinion.  He praised Bowtie to the heavens, and he even figured out a job for Bowtie's wife -- she could make some soup for her husband to relieve the job pressure.  This repulsive monologue was enough to make many attendees break out in goose pimples.  No wonder some of the attendees said that they saw Bowtie moved to tears at Brother Tong's words.  In show business, this is known as mutual acting support.

DAB vice-chairman Tam Yiu-chung observed that Brother Tong had gone for broke so he did not dare to slack up.  He praised that Bowtie shares the same goals with the DAB, and that is to build an even more prosperous Hong Kong and an even more harmonious society.

The Alliance's Ho Chong-tai saw that Brother Tang and Tam Sir has used up all the goose-pimple-making words of praise, so he used his quick wit to coin a new (and difficult enough to make one puke) descriptive term for Bowtie -- he said that Bowtie had both "talent and morality才德兼備."

It was only Liberal Party's James Tien (who had gotten into a habit of clashing with Bowtie) who was more direct without using those four-word terms of praise.  He said that he realized the Liberal party disagrees with the SAR government on certain issues.  However, Bowtie's policy platform was better than Alan Leong's and that is they are supporting Bowtie.  The FTU, DAB and the Alliance were all shining Bowtie's shoes, but James Tien was stingy with his shoe polish.  He had better expect that when Bowtie starts appointing Executive Council members, Secretaries, deputy Secretaries, assistants to secretaries and the chairman of the Tourism Board, the Liberal Party may get fewer posts.

In which newspaper was this review published?  Not in Apple Daily.  The newspaper's website is listed in the top-left corner of the photograph.

• [069]  Who Censored Premier Wen Jiabao's Speech (03/24/2007)  (YZZK via ChineseNewsNet)

[in translation]

From the record of the live press conference given by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, 162 words concerning democracy were censored.  This showed that Hu-Wen do not have totally control of the propaganda department.

It is common for Chinese and overseas media to encounter censorship by having essays or sections being censored.  But if the state leader of China gets censored, then this is big deal.  A few days ago, a global television audience saw Premier Wen Jiabao held a press conference at the end of the National People's Congress and they were impressed by his frankness and sincerity.  His words were printed in black-and-white everywhere, but they could not escape review and excision by the Chinese Communists' publicity department.  A total of 162 words related to democracy were deleted.

... According to the recording of the Premier's press conference, the reporter from France's Le Monde asked Wen Jiabao:

﹕“最近您在《人民日報》發表了一篇文章﹐我想引述其中的一些話﹐您提到社會主義制度和社會主義民主並不是相互排斥的﹐您同時還說社會主義的初級階段還要建設一百年。請問您是否意味著說中國在未來的一百年都不需要民主﹖另外﹐談到民主﹐我還想問一個問題﹐是有關最近中國的前總理和共產黨總書記趙紫陽在香港出版了一本書﹐他在書中提到﹐中國如果要實現現代化﹐就需要像東邊的臺灣那樣實現民主的政策﹐過去臺灣也是處于獨裁的統治下﹐現在實現了民主和多黨制﹐您對這位前總書記的話有何評論﹖”

Recently, you published an essay in People's Daily.  I would like to quote some words from it.  You said that the socialist system is not mutually exclusive with socialist democracy.  At the same time, you said that it will take another 100 years to complete the first phase of socialism.  I ask you whether you imply that China will not need democracy for the next 100 years?  Also, when it comes to democracy, I would like to ask another question.  This is about former Premier and Communist Party Secretary-General Zhao Ziyang publishing a book in Hong Kong.  In the book, he mentioned that if China wants to modernize, then they must implement democracy as in Eastern Europe and Taiwan.  Taiwan used to be under a dictatorship but it has realized democracy and a multi-party system.  Do you have any comments on what the former Secretary-General said?"

In his response, Wen Jiabao re-emphasized that his People's Daily essay mentioned that democracy, legal system, freedom, human rights, equality and fraternity are universal values that mankind pursues.  When it comes to "socialist democracy" needing "to guarantee democratic election by the people, democratic policy making, democratic governance and the right to democratic monitoring," he said that "it is necessary to create a set of conditions to let the people supervise and criticize the government" "in an equal, fair and free environment so that every individual can develop fully; that is, to realize their creative spirit and independent thinking.  Concerning the Zhao Ziyang book, he said: "Concerning the book published in Hong Kong and the points that I have discussed, I don't see any connection.  I have not read the book."

The book that the French reporter referred to was "The Sayings of Zhao Ziyang under House Arrest."  But Zhao Ziyang did not publish it.  It was his old friend Zhong Fengming who recorded and edited it and then got it published in Hong Kong.  Wen Jiabao has been involved in politics for decades and he obviously understood the significance of the question.  He wanted to speak out, but he held back.  But this unsubstantial conversation (including the last part of the question from the Le Monde reporter) was reviewed by the Publicity Department of Li Changchun and disappeared from the official print and televised versions, as if nothing ever happened.

• [068]  Hong Kong By The Numbers (03/24/2007)  (HKU POP)  "POP's CE Election rolling poll began on February 26 using similar questions, whereby respondents were asked to rate the suitability of the two candidates and to vote hypothetically."
   
  With respect to the question, "If you were to vote for the Chief Executive tomorrow, which one would you choose?" the lastest numbers are (see Table):
   
  Donald Tsang: 82.0%
  Alan Leong: 12.7%
   
  With respect to the trend, Robert Chung said: "Our latest figures show that people's support for Donald Tsang in general is slowly rising in the last few days, while that of Alan Leong is dropping slowing."
   
  The table also contains breakdown by self-identified political inclination.  Among those who claimed to be pro-democracy camp, Donald Tsang leads by 65% versus 30%.
   
  There are two Chief Executive elections: one by a "small circle" of 800 "electors" and the other one for public opinion.  The results of the public opinion race are almost in except for the final day's poll.
   
  Here were the original scenarios:
   
  (Scenario 1) Alan Leong leads over Donald Tsang in the public opinion poll but loses the "small circle" election.  This would be the perfect evidence to show that the "small circle" election was undemocratic.  This scenario will not be realized.
   
  (Scenario 2) Alan Leong gets about the same percentage of votes in both elections.  At this point, Alan Leong looks like getting 13% in the public opinion poll.  He has about 130 nominating votes out of 796 Election Committee members, or about 16%.  This may be taken by some people to show that the "small circle" election reflected the public opinion.  The issue right is how to debunk that assertion loudly and convincingly.  How would you do it?
   
  (Scenario 3) All those 130 or so electors cast blank ballots, so that Donald Tsang wins by 650 or so to zero.  This will probably be taken as a tactic to avoid Scenario 2 from taking place.  But do you know how the general population would react to such a move?
   
  P.S. Here are the numbers for the final polling date (March 24, 2007)
   
  Donald Tsang: 83.1%
  Alan Leong: 10.3%

• [067]  Adultery!  (03/23/2007)  In T.S. Eliot's epigraph to the poem Portrait To A Lady:

Thou hast committed --

     Fornication: but that was in another country,

     And besides, the wench is dead.

     (The Jew of Malta, Christopher Marlowe)

(Wenwei Po via ChineseNewsNet)  In the list of corrupt government officials, National Bureau of Statistics director Qiu Xiaohua was the first provincial-level official to be charge with bigamy ... According to Wenwei Po, Qiu Xiaohua seriously violated three areas.  First, Qiu Xiaohua received a total of 220,000 RMB in gifts since 2003; secondly, Qiu Xiaohua was suspected of polygamy; thirdly, Qiu Xiaohua committed adultery with multiple females, including some who reside outside of mainland China.

... According to article 258 of the Criminal Law Code, "anyone who gets married to someone else while still married can be subjected to two years or less in imprisonment."
 
Explanation:  Why was the Chrisotpher Marlowe play invoked here?  Once upon a time, the ESWN blogger was forced to study T.S. Eliot's poems as an Australian high schooler.  As such, he had to reseach the Marlowe epigraph.  In this instance, there is no further meaning beyond the fact that this evoked certain ancient memories ...

• [066]  It Is Confusing ... Very Confusing (03/22/2007)

(World Politics Watch)  Universal Suffrage Headlines Hong Kong Elections.  By Luke Hunt.  March 22, 2007.

Hong Kong 's elections are shaping up with all the pomp and ceremony of a Canto-pop star singing numbers from a Looney Tunes cartoon. And the result is about as forgone as Bugs Bunny surviving a bullet from Elmer Fudd. ...

... Long Hair [Leung Kwok-hung], a working class Marxist who likens himself to South American revolutionary Che Guevara, is often dragged kicking and screaming by police from street protests and has been jailed four times.

A few years ago he was dismissed as an unimportant clown who protested for the sake of protesting, but in the lead-up to the current poll he is increasingly being seen as the point man for the growing frustrations of those wanting to elect their own leader.

... 

Photo: Legislator Leung Kwok-hung, known as "Longhair" because of his waist-length tresses, has stunned the Hong Kong political establishment with his popularity and demands for universal suffrage. By Luke Hunt.

(Hong Kong Research Association)  (Survey of 1,386 Hong Kong citizens on March 14-20 with respect to their ratings (1-6 scale) of the 30 directly elected Legistive Council representatives)

#1. Rita Fan: 3.93 points
#2. Audrey Eu: 3.47 points
...
#28. Albert Cheng: 2.51 points
#29. Lee Kwok-ying: 2.46 points
#30. Leung Kwok-hung: 2.39 points ["stunned the Hong Kong political establishment with his popularity ..."]

(HKU POP)  (Survey of 1,020 persons on January 22-26, 2007 about their ratings of the top ten (based upon unprompted mentions by respondents) Legislative Councilors to get their ratings (0-100))

#1. Rita Fan (63.8%)
#2. Audrey Eu (59.0%)
#3. Selina Chow (57.2%)
#4. James Tien (54.3%)
#5. Albert Ho (52.7%)
#6. Lee Cheuk-yan (51.1%)
#7. Jasper Tsang (50.9%)
#8. Martin Lee (48.6%)
#9. Emily Lau (48.1%)
#10. Leung Kwok-hung (34.0%)

• [065]  Hong Kong vs. Taiwan on Democracy (03/22/2007)  In Comment 200703#059, there was a HKU POP public opinion poll in which mainland Chinese political figures were all rated higher than Taiwan political figures.  Even Jiang Zemin beat out Ma Ying-jeou.  What is the underlying "hostility" of the Hong Kong residents against Taiwan political figures?  The following opinion column may offer one explanation.
   
  (Ming Pao commentary by 秦勝)  

... those who know the process by which Hong Kong was returned to China know that the Communist Chinese leadership ultimately decided to adopt the principles of "one country, two systems," "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong" and "a high degree of automony" in order to solve the problems of the return of Hong Kong and the governance thereafter, as well as to use the successful implementation of "one country, two system" and the ensuing prosperity, stability and greatness of Hong Kong in politics, economy and society as a model example for Taiwan.  The Taiwan people may then ultimately accept the "one country, two systems" model to resolve the unification issue between the two sides of the Taiwan strait.

After the return of Hong Kong, there may still be many problems in the economy and society but the place can basically be described as stable.  The relationship between mainland and Hong Kong showed that the two economies are fused together and certain special mainland policies were helpful in the economic transition of Hong Kong during hard times.  The principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" appear superficially to be working.  Yet, insofar as political democracy is concerned, there is little progress in Hong Kong and there is a great deal of social division.  On the surface, there is nothing to boast about in Hong Kong to Taiwan.

But Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council believes that Hong Kong is ripe for universal suffrage and, if implemented, the effects would be just as good as (if not better than) Taiwan.  But precisely because the ruling party in Taiwan (Democratic Progressive Party) is pushing the Taiwan independence route which is causing longlasting tension across the strait, the various elections in Taiwan have created a negative impression to the Hong Kong people.  The chaos has worried certain Hong Kong people.  If Hong Kong were to realize the same political democracy in Taiwan, there would be chaos and instability.

Representing the pan-democratic camp in Hong Kong, Alan Leong is presently challenging the current Chief Executive Donald Tsang in the election.  His speech at the second debate was accused by certain Hong Kong persons as advocating "Hong Kong independence."  To a large degree, in the minds of certain Hong Kong people, democratic politics in Taiwan has been kidnapped by the Taiwan independence path chosen by the Democratic Progressive Party.

• [064]  Li+X Talks Back (03/22/2007)  (Ming Pao)

[in translation]

Concerning the sale of "oil fish" by the ParknShop supermarket, Hutchinson Whampoa chairman Li Ka-sjomg was still angry yesterday.  Once again, he urged the people of Hong Kong to use their brains and think: "You won't about the 85% of the other shops that are selling it ... media reports must be balanced.  Many things were not true.  Why won't you investigate the other 85%.  ParknShop has always acted responsibly."

Li Ka-shing pointed out that ParknShop was only a small majority in the oil fish affair.  On the market, 85% of the oil fish had nothing to do with ParknShop.  So why did the media only gave broad coverage to ParknShop.  He pointed out that certain "victimized" companies were not victims; rather, their public relations work was god.

Li Ka-shing was getting excited.  By chance, an Apple Daily reporter asked him about he felt when he began the media target on account of his status as celebrity.  Li Ka-shing answered immediatel y: "Without Apple Daily and Next Weekly, the rest of them do thing!   You are asked a good question today.  I appreciate it."  Then he emphasized that he is not denouncing the Apple Daily reporter.  Rather, he knew that "it was the person who is causing trouble." 

• [063]  Yet Another Unanswered Question about Hong Kong numbers (03/22/2007)  As if I have not gotten enough, I am asking for more punishment.  There were two televised debates between the candidates for the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive position.  The media hired the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to conduct public opinion polls immediately afterwards.  Here are some of the highlights in chronological order: 

(The First Hong Kong Chief Executive Election Debate) (March 2, 2007)
(HKU POP) 46.3% said Tsang was better and 33.7% said Leong was better.  If election were held today, 65.6% said Tsang and 21% favored Leong.
 
(The Second Hong Kong Chief Executive Election Debate) (March 16, 2007)
(HKU POP) 38.5% said Tsang was better and 38.8% said Leong was better.  If election were held today, 64.8% said Tsang and 21.9% favored Leong.
 
There are also any number of other polls by Lingan Universty's Public Governance program, the Research Association of Hong Kong, etc.  The overall impression is this: while Alan Leong is supposed to have improved in performance from the second debate compared to the first one, the public support for Leong as CE has held still or dropped.  Why should debate performance not run in the same direction as the overall support?
 
This is a subject that I have not found anyone willing to explore.  The only indirect suggestion is that Alan Leong might have seemingly won the second debate through a number of facetious and flippant remarks that he has subsequently regretted (e.g. the mention of Milton Friedman), but this only erodes the public confidence in his governance as CE (i.e. all talk and no substance).  But the survey/polling data do not tap into this directly.  So I don't have any data and therefore I cannot tell you that this is the case.  However, it cannot be denied that there is a problem when there is a divergence between evaluation of debate performance versus overall support.  If there is a problem (and this may be structurally tied in with being in the 'opposition' with no record of governance), then one had better be prepared to analyze the problems and come up with solutions instead of shooting the messenger (namely, yours truly here).
 
Anyway, I posed this question to my readers (that is, those who are interested in Hong Kong): Is there a problem, given the survey/poll data (and I can tell you that everybody knows that there is a problem based upon those survey/polling data when the loser of the televised debate leads the public poll by 40% or so)?  What is the problem?  And what is the solution?  Discuss among yourselves ...

(Explanation: Maybe the survey/polling data are confusing here.  The two HKU POP polls were conducted immediately during and after the debates and the respondents are restricted to those to have watched some portion of the televised program.  As such, the total 'universe' is about 2 million persons or so.  Other surveys and polls were conducted afterwards and cover the general population (more than 4 million adults including those who did not follow the debates) and Donald Tsang leads by an even bigger margin). 
 
Relevant Link: The Horse Race  Daisann McLane, Learning Cantonese

• [062]  The Fourth Reason (03/21/2007)  In The Unanswered Question about Hong Kong numbers, I offered three reasons why only 5,000 persons showed up for the Hong Kong demonstration march for universal suffrage.  Since then, there have been further suggestions.
   
  One suggestion was that this particular demonstration march was not well-publicized.  I don't accept that because I was bombarded with information about the march.  However, I will grant that I am an exception, because I read a dozen online Hong Kong newspapers everyday plus whatever other forums and blogs.  In any case, who do you blame for this?
   
  Another suggestion was proposed at Interlocals.net:

I believe that it has to do with the disempowerment of participants in the democratic movement. I still remembered a couple of months ago, a teenage girl asked me why we still kept on protecting the star ferry pier even though it was useless. I asked her, how did she know that it was useless, she answered half a million people came out in 2003 and 2004 and still nothing had changed in the political system.

We caught in a deadlock. Some people believe that such deadlock was created by central government's control over Hong Kong's political development; but I think the problem is actually come from within. To use central government's phrasing, there are "deep conflicts" (深層矛盾) within Hong Kong, and such conflicts have to be addressed from within.

I don't agree with that one.  In 2003, 500,000 persons showed up to march against Article 23.  Please remember that 500,000 is only just over 10% of the total adult population in Hong Kong.  Could it be said that nothing changed?  The Article 23 legislation was withdrawn and the Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa became instant lame duck and eventually resigned for reasons of "ill health."  How can one say that "nothing had changed in the political system"?  This was a cataclysmic change.

I have no reason to doubt that more than 60% of the Hong Kong people want universal suffrage.  Every single survey/poll that I have ever seen has indicated such.  I attribute the poor turnout this time to the three reasons that I wrote about.  I firmly believe that if a demonstration mechanism can be devised to circumvent those three situations, which is largely due to perceptions about professional political parties, politicians, activists and internecine struggles.  I firmly believe that if an event can be organized to ensure that it will absolutely not be an occasion for any political party, politician or activist group to get their share of media hype, then it is possible to surpass that 500,000 figure of 2003 easily.  This may be a demonstration march, an assembly or some other means.  We just have to eliminate the factors that make people reluctant to reveal their preferences as recorded in surveys/polls.  Such an occasion would not go through the usual channels (such as the Civil Human Rights Front or Apple Daily) but through a direct appeal to all persons (inclluding political parties, politicans, media, activist groups, university student associations, movie stars, singers, citizens, etc) and even forcing them to show their hands (Are you for or against universal suffrage?  If you care, then just come down for a silent 30-minute assembly and then we all go home.  We promise that there will be zero speeches, prayers or whatever.  There is only one message: we want universal suffrage.  Period.  There will be nothing on vindication of June 4th, gay marriage, minimum wage, preservation of cultural heritage sites, government-business collusion (Li+X), environmental pollution, Star Ferry/Queen's Pier, small class sizes, CyberPort/Mody Mall, flat tax, F*L*G/Nine Critiques, whatever).
 
So how can that happen?  The funny thing is that the only way I know is to go through all the channels which I said must be bypassed!  Hey, this is where we are ...

• [061]  Home Redecoration For Free (03/21/2007)  (Tianya forum by Qianqianhai)  (in translation)  My home is in Hangzhou.  Recently, the government designated certain homes in our village for demolition, but actual progress was stuck because of the vast disagreement between the government and the residents with respect to the compensation issue.  During this period, the villagers began to find strange things happeneing.  The village security partol seemed to have evaporated, windows were smashed in the middle of the night, cars were vandalized with hammers and houses were robbed.  Recently, I was away from home for a week, and this was what I found when I returned.
  
  The debris in front of the entrance gate.
   
  
  This is my home -- all the windows have been taken out.
   
  
  All the electric cables were pulled out and the copper content removed.
   
  
  This is the living room with everything taken away.
   
  
  This is what used to be the kitchen.
   
  Given the current atmosphere on the Chinese Internet, the two major trends of the comments were respectively: (1) condemnations about government-business collusion; and (2) these photographs must be faked.

• [060]  Hong Kong Does Not Have An M-Shaped Society (03/20/2007)  (Ming Pao; Business & Management professor Francis T. Lui, HKUST)
   
  When the Statistics Bureau released certain census data last year, Ming Pao claimed that Hong Kong is turning into an M-shaped society (i.e. increases in the percentage of rich and poor people with a diminishing middle class).  Here are the raw household income data:
   
  Less than HK$10,000 per month: 23.9% in 1996; 27.9% in 2006
  HK$10,000 to HK$29,999 per month: 51.3% in 1996; 45.2% in 2006
  HK$30,000 or more: 24.9% in 1996; 26.9% in 2006.
   
  This would seem to indicate that Hong Kong is an increasingly unequal society.  But what is economic equality?  One definition is "equality in outcomes", which means that everybody should make about the same amount of money no manner how hard/easy they worked.  The other definition is "equality in opportunities", which means that everybody should have the same opportunity to compete.
   
  Before 1978 when the economic reforms began, China was basically following "equality in outcomes" with the consequence that "the national economy was near collapse" (that was the official government description).  Deng Xiaoping opened up the economy and since people have to be motivated to compete, Deng tossed out the old anti-capitalism ideas and proposed the shocking idea of "Let some people get wealthy first."  Today, China's per capita GDP is 8 times that in 1978!  Still, economic progress has developed unevenly,  For the past decade or so, income is rising 7-8% among urban dwellers and only 4-5% among rural dwellers.  Although the rural farmers have improved their lot compared to the pre-reform years, the rural-urban income gap is rising.  Thus, the Hu-Wen government has to propose the policy of building a "harmonious society."
   
  Hong Kong has never gone through a socialist style "equality of outcomes."  Instead, "equality of opportunities" was always the mainstream thought.  So how has Hong Kong society changed in terms of its socio-economic structure?
   
  The best way to measure income distribution is not through the Gini coefficient, nor to examine the income gap between the richest and poorest classes.  When income increases while distribution is unequal, the Gini coefficient may rise; but when distribution becomes more equal, the Gini coefficient may also rise.  Therefore, while the Gini coefficient is useful, it should not be misapplied.
   
  As for the income gap between the richest and poorest classes, it is not meaningful.  One of the economic goals of the HK SAR government is to attract wealthy or productive professionals to emigrate to Hong Kong.  Their presence will certainly increase the income gap, but they are quite welcome because they will generate employment and income for the poorer people.
   
  The better statistical measure would be the actual distribution of household income.  The census data cited by Ming Pao above are the raw unadjusted data.  There are three adjustments that are necessary in order to make the 1996 and 2006 data comparable to each other.
   
  First, the number of persons per household had changed.  In 1996, there were 3.3 persons per household on the average.  In 2006, the number has gone down to 3.0.  As household size gets smaller (e.g. by families moving apart), household income goes down.
   
  Second, the consumer prices fell by 4% from 1996 to 2006.
   
  Third, since 2000, Hong Kong has a mandatory provident fund in which persons earning less than HK$20,000 will have an additional 5% of the monthly income deposited into a special retirement account.  The employee wages should include this consideration.
   
  Therefore, if we have to make a comparison of 1996 and 2006 household income data, we must make the three adjustments above (which results in adjustments of 10%, 4% and 5% respectively for a total of 19%).  This means that a household earning HK$10,000 per month in 1996 is equivalent to a household making HK$8,100 per month in 2006; etc.  Here is the adjusted household income distribution:
   
  Less than HK$10,000 per month: 23.9% in 1996; 21.6% in 2006
  HK$10,000 to HK$29,999 per month: 51.3% in 1996; 42.8% in 2006
  HK$30,000 or more: 24.9% in 1996; 35.6% in 2006. 
   
  These data do not support the hypothesis of an M-shaped society in Hong Kong.
   
  One additional point to note is that although the percentage of low-income household has decreased, the size of the change is small.  But the reason should be obvious.  Over these ten years, about 500,000 persons immigrated from mainland China to Hong Kong.  In 2001, the median household income for new migrant families was only HK$6,100, far less than the total median household income of HK$18,000.  When one group of low-income families moved into middle-class, another group of poorer migrant families arrives.  Thus, the percentage of low-income households cannot decrease significantly unless Hong Kong decides to use education and economic productivity as the basis for screening immigrants.

• [059]  Hong Kong By The Numbers (03/20/2007) (HKU POP) (1,033 persons interviewed on March 7-12 to name the top political figures in mainland China and Taiwan on an unprompted basis; 1,036 persons interviewed on March 13-16 to give ratings (0-100) to the top 10 political figures from the previous survey stage)
   
  1. Wen Jiabao 76.5%
  2. Zhu Rongji 74.7%
  3. Hu Jintao 73.0%
  4. Wu Yi 71.3%
  5. Jiang Zemin 63.1%
  6. Ma Ying-jeou 60.3%
  7. Lien Chan 52.2%
  8. Lee Teng-hui 35.0%
  9. Lu Hsiu-ilen 29.4%
  10. Chen Shui-bian 20.5%

• [058]  Chinese Voters Upset At Not Receiving Bribes (03/19/2007) (Ming Pao via ChineseNewsNet)

[in translation]  

In elections at the Dingmei village, Dongfu town, Xiamen city, there had always been vote buying.  Last August, when the village committee election was being held, villagers Hu Feihuang and Hu Jianbiao were vying to become village director (mayor).  The Hu family elders arranged for the two candidates to go to the Temple of Lord Guan and swore that they will not buy votes.  So this election last year saw no vote buying.

But the absence of vote buying caused unhappiness among some villagers.  An elderly villager named Chen said that in previous years, a vote in the village director election was worth three to four hundred RMB, and even as much as 1,000 RMB.  "One can make a lot of money by becoming villager mayor.  What is so wrong about coughing up some money?"  Chen's wife explained further: "One person gets a few hundred; a family can get more than 1,000 RMB.  If one vote is worth 1,000 RMB, then the whole family will make several thousand RMB."  Among the dozen or so villagers interviewed, half of them approved of vote buying.  According to Liu Xiguang, who is a National People's Congress delegate from Hebei province, some wealthy or resource-filled rural village have highly competitive elections in which people spend over a hundred thousand or even several hundred thousand RMB in elections.

According to associate professor Wu Licai of the Huazhong Normal University's Political Science Research Institute, village mayor candidates used to offer "gifts" to town mayors and party secretaries.  Therefore, it is "progress" to go from "offering gifts" to your bosses to "bribing" villagers.  He believes that the logic why villagers welcome bribery is very simple: the candidates are making an "investment" which they "will re-coup eventually."  This logic reflects that the common problem that in the development of democracy in the rural villages, the villagers has the "right of speech" only during the voting but otherwise had no influence in the village public affairs.

The direct election of the village committees is one of the steps for village self-autonomous rule.  But in the presently held direct elections, there have been various degrees of vote buying.  Furthermore, things have seem to get getting worse.   Here are some examples:

- In Guankou town, Jimei district, Xiamen, there was an election for village party branch committee in 2006.  Village cadre Chen was campaigning to become a committee member.  During the Lunar New Year period, he gave tea leaves and cigarettes to voters under the name of New Year presents and tea-tasting to curry favors.  Afterwards, Chen was relieved of his party duties by the relevant department.

- In Yongtai, Intersection town, Lunan county, Shantong province, the Yongtai residents committee director named Wu was campaigning for re-election.  He publicly offered 20 RMB to each and every voter in the name of thanking them for their work.  For each villager who voted for Wu, he offered 300 RMB for the family.

The Civil Affairs Bureau Base-level Political Power Construction Department Rural Village Division director Wang Jinhua admitted at a Peking University forum that one-third of the petition cases in 2005 were related to voting irregularities.

• [057]  The Unanswered Question about Hong Kong numbers (03/19/2007)  In the post Learning From The Hong Kong and Taiwan Demonstrations (9/17/2006), I noted: "In Hong Kong, any number of public opinion polls show that 60% or so of the population want universal suffrage here and now."
   
  Yet, when the call went out for the people of Hong Kong to march for universal suffrage, not more than 5,000 people showed up (Comment 200703#053).  There is an obvious problem here, but nobody seems to want to confront it honestly.  Here is the quote from SCMP: James Sung Lap-kung, a political scientist at City University, said: "The low turnout might not necessarily mean Hong Kong people do not want universal suffrage. But it signals that they want the democrats to change their form of fighting for it."
   
  What is he talking about?  Why do the majority of the citizens who have said time and again that they want universal suffrage decline to turn out for a well-publicized demonstration march towards that goal?  The organizers of these marches have never answered this question satisfactorily.  Perhaps they do not know how to or perhaps they don't want to state the obvious.
   
  Here are my conjectures (and nobody has run any polls to plumb those reasons):
   
  (1) The people may want universal suffrage, but they do not want to be used by political parties or politicians.  For reference, see Comment 200703#031, in which the most effective political campaigning tool for public office right now is evdiently to have no political party affiliation!  The most recent march for universal suffrage was under a cloud as to whether this was aggrandizement for Chief Executive candidate Alan Leong.  As much as Leong may want to deny it, he is the person to whom the media go to for quotes.  Universal suffrage does not equate the endorsement of candidate Alan Leong.  The people will not turn out for theatrics of politicians.
   
  (2) It is also known that Hong Kong marches usually bring in groups with diverse special interests and issues.  The organizers do not want to ban other messages, but this results in diversions and digressions.  For example, the following AP photo showed a banner that said: "Vindicate June 4th."  Universal suffrage in Hong Kong does not equate to vindication of June 4th, at least not in everybody's mind.  This is just one of many subjects (such as minimum wages, gay rights, etc) from past marches which some people may not care to be associated with.
  
   
  (3) And then there is the sideshow as reported in The Standard:

Members of the League of Social Democrats - a group which includes maverick lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung and controversial former radio talk-show host Raymond Wo