The woman Li Guangxiu is a resident of Zhaoxi village, Zhaocun town, Luyi county.  One day, somebody chopped and removed the 160 plus poplar trees on her land.  She went to the town government to demand justice.  However, the matter was not resolved for years.  Instead, the Zhaocun town mayor Zhou Guangzhi was abusive, evasive and elusive.

On the morning of August 4, Li Guangxi went to see Zhaocun town mayor Zhou Guangzhi one more time.  Zhou cursed her out and said: "You deserve to be scolded.  Your next stop will be at the Nanjian detention center."

According to the photos, Li Guangxi got down on her knees to beg the mayor.  But the mayor sat at his desk, smoked his cigarette and cracked jokes.  Eventually the mayor summoned security guards to carry Li Guangzhi out of his office.

The forum post about this incident drew lots of attention on the Chinese Internet.

Comment: "This is going too far.  What kind of town mayor is this?"
Comment: "You may think that people are easy to bully, but you forget that you are one of the people too!  Someday someone is going to seek retribution against you."
Comment: "This mayor is counter-educational material.  The county's Communist Party Discipline Committee should investigate him."
Comment: "No matter whether the petition of this old woman was reasonable or not and no matter what the government has done or not done so far, a town mayor should not be gloating at the sight of a kneeling citizen.  This type of official out to scram!"

(Southern Metropolis Daily)

On the morning of November 16, our reporter contacted Luyi county Zhaocun town mayor Zhou Guangzhi.  Zhou said that this incident was a premeditated act to undermine his image.

According to Zhou Guangzhi, the citizen Li Guangxiu is a famous veteran petitioner in the town.  This person frequently goes to Beijing and/or Zhengzhou to file petitions.  Recently she was brought back to town.  According to the regulations, she ought to be detained.  Out of consideration for her advanced age, the government did not take that step.  The tree-chopping incident had been dealt with several years ago and Li had signed a promissory note not to cause trouble again.  On August 4, Li Guangxiu came to the office once more.  She screamed and cried in his office.  Nobody could make him stop.  She also threatened to drink pesticide to commit suicide.  In the end, he had to summon the security guards to remove her.

Zhou Guangzhi said that the photos were secretly taken by Li's son while Zhou was not paying attention.

This particular report drew the attention of the Luyi county Communist Party committee.  An investigative team was sent to Zhoucong town.  On November 17, the decision was made to reprimand Zhou Guangzhi severely and to relieve Zhou of his duty as town mayor.


On November 15, a forum post entitled <Extra cool!  Xindu police station director verbally flooded for one minute> appeared.  Within two hours, almost 500 persons had read it.

The forum post contained a video taken by a shaky hand-held mobile phone camera.  A woman wearing a red down jacket pointed her finger right at the nose of a round-faced uniformed man.  She said: "If you don't settle this matter for me, I am going to go to your supervisor!  You are a leader!  Aren't you the police station director? ..."  This was followed by howls and roars from a soprano voice.  But because she spoke too rapidly, it was basically impossible to hear what she was saying.  However, she was obviously cursing him.  During the tirade, a male police officer tried to interject but had no success in breaking the verbal stream.  So he stood back with an embarrassed look on his face.

This video went on for almost one minute.  At the end of the video, there was no sign that the woman was going to stop.  According to the netizen who posted this video, he went down to the Xindu police station a few days ago, and took this video of what he saw. 

Netizens say that this video must rank as one of the canonical works in the art of cursing people out.  Apart from the two sentences at the start of the video, the rest was basically just "rumbles."  One netizen commented: "This woman pounded on the desk, howled and screamed, but the police station director did not take issue with her.  Whatever the matter entailed, this police station chief is quite classy."

Our reporter called Xindu police station director Li Jingwen.  He said: "I am busy right now.  I don't have time to talk about this matter."  When asked to confirm if he was the person in the video, Li promptly hung up the phone.  So our reporter went down in person to the Xindu police station.  Li lit a cigarette, took a long pause and said: "This is nothing extraordinary.  It is part of the routine."  Then he said emotionally: "This video has caused a lot of aggravation to my life."

Li Jingwen was less upset about being cursed out than being brought to public attention.  Two days ago, his son told him the first thing in the morning: "I didn't get to see you last night.  But you are famous!"  Then the son showed him the Internet video which someone had secretly taped last month.  The son said with a disappointed look: "Dad, you are usually so tough with me.  How come you behaved like that?"  His wife watched the video and said: "Who took that video?  Isn't that embarrassing"  Then she giggled and said: "Hey, you are not normally so gentle towards me."  Li had no response.  Then his colleague called up to say: "Is that you?  Aren't you normally mean to us? Don't you yell all the time?"  Li had to grunt and laugh bitterly.

Li Jingwen said that he had to play a stern and authoritative role in his life.  But this video has ruined that reputation for his son, his wife and his colleagues.  Li Jingwen said that when colleagues laugh in front of him, he thinks that they must have seen this video.  "Which busybody did this?  I am going to protest to the website.  I am going to demand the video be deleted."

With respect to the incident itself, Li Jingwen declined to elaborate.  He said that this was part of his job.  On that day, the woman had misunderstood police procedure.  One of her relatives was assaulted and therefore she got excited.  Li can understand why she got excited.  Li declined to provide further details about the case on grounds of privacy/confidentiality.

According to another police officer who wants to remain anonymous, the incident took place on October 10th.  "That woman was awesome, as her curses reverberate throughout the whole building."  This police officer said that a relative of the woman was injured during an altercation, and she was demanding the police arrest the other party immediately and make them pay medical compensation.  The police officer said that the woman came back later to apologize in person.  When she learned that a video was secretly made and posted on the Internet, she called to apologize again.  But Li declined to confirm this additional information.

Recently, the post <The Corrupt Party Secretary's Microblog (Published In Serial)> has been red hot over at the Tianya Forum.  The author "A Certain Party Secretary" made a total of 114 "microblog format" diary entries, covering hot subjects such as miscegenation, graft, violence and so on.  Netizens ran a "human flesh search" on the principal character and determined that he was Hubei province, Enshi Prefecture public security bureau deputy director Tan Zhiguo.

Did Tan Zhiguo write the "Diary of Corruption"?  On November 15, our reporter contacted the netizen with ID "A Certain Party Secretary" and interviewed him over QQ for as long as 30 minutes.

Q: Why did so many people decide that Director Tan was the author after they read the diary?  It was really well-written.  I think that only a senior government/party official can write something like that.
A: I never named any names.  The netizens made their own inferences.

Q: So you finally admit that you wrote the diary?
A: I did not say that I wrote it.

Q: You said that you did not name any names.  Doesn't this imply that you wrote it?
A: I refuse to admit to it.  Ha ha.  If the writer's safety can be guaranteed, I will talk.

Q: The diary is well-written.  The diary of that tobacco bureau chief cannot compare to this.  Why is your government job grade level?
A: I am an ordinary citizen.  I have no income, no job and no means to support a family.

Q: How can you get such a good read on the psychology of government/party officials?  My guess is that you have been at least a department head.
A: If you can keep this secret, I can tell you that I am an unemployed young person who graduated one year ago.

Q: The diary does not appear to be written by someone who just graduated a year ago.
A: But that is a fact.  I also cannot find a job.

Q: You should disclose your identity at the appropriate time.
A: That was what I was thinking.

Q: Some people say that the diary was written by a human rights defender.  Is that so?
A: It depends on how you look at it.  If you are asking whether the matters mentioned are true, you can verify them yourself.  They are absolutely true.  In terms of effect, this case has already caused a stir.  I had gathered the materials posted by the relevant complainants, studied the facts carefully and then I wrote the diary.  I hope that the relevant government departments will seriously address the problems brought up by these complainants.

Q: You made those posts over the course of several days.  Were you worried that the police might come after you?
A: I was just describing what I heard or read.  The writing contains plenty of insinuations, hints and ruminations.  The posts never named the names of the victimizers or the locations.  Only the known victims were named.  If you say that the things did not happen, then I am writing fiction; if the things are real, then I should not be arrested.  This is my idealistic thinking.  I am presently safe and sound in Beijing.

Q: You are not necessarily safe because you are in Beijing.  It is very easy to track the IP number.
A: That is why I plan to move.

On November 15, Tan Zhiguo told the media: "I am the target, but I definitely did not write the diary."  Also, Tan said that the situations in the diary were fabricated with the intention to smear him.  He thinks that it is someone who he offended in the past, or else it is a competitor.  The diary links his known public activities with fiction.  Tan Zhiguo said that he has filed a report with the Enshi Prefecture Public Security Bureau to demand an investigation.

At around 8:50am yesterday about 300 meters away from the Southern Fortress Park on the Changjiang Bridge in Nanjing city, a young man in his 20's suddenly hurdled over the railing and jumped into the Yangtze River.  Meanwhile a man named Zhang used his digital video camera to record the scene.

Several minutes ago, the young man had his hand on the railing and got ready to climb over.  Pedestrians stopped him.  One pedestrian called the police.  The young man let his hand ago and asked for a cigarette.  He said, "Don't worry.  Let me finish this cigarette first and I will seriously re-consider."  But before he finished that cigarette, he would hurdle the railing and jump into the river.

After the young man entered the waters, everybody prayed that he would survive.  Then a body was seen to be moving in the river.  The crowd around Mr. Zhang said excitedly: "He's alright!  He's alright!  He's swimming towards the shore."

A small wooden boat with two fishermen headed towards the young man.  Since there were high winds during high tide, one fisherman rowed cautiously while the other fisherman offered a pole to the young man to hold on to.

When the boat got close enough, the fisherman pulled the young man aboard.  The young man looked ashen and disoriented, but he told the fishermen: "I thank you for saving me.  I will pay you money."  Then he passed out.

The boat head towards shore where the police were waiting.  The emergency medical workers had their stretcher ready to receive the young man and rush him to the hospital.

However, the young man died from severe internal bleeding later.

Mr. Zhang posted his video onto the Internet.  Unexpectedly, even as people felt sorry for the young man, they also turned their attention to Mr. Zhang.  How come he had the time to take the video but not to participate in the rescue?

"Actually, it was not that I did not want to help."  Mr. Zhang could barely hide his distress.  "The police had been called already.  A fishing boat was nearby.  I don't know how to swim.  Even if I know how to swim, can I save him by jumping into the river as well?"

Mr. Zhang said that all he could do was to give some help when the boat reached shore.  "Do you know the feeling of seeing a life dissipate right in front of your eyes?  Just when he decided that he wanted to live, he was greeted with death."  Mr. Zhang said that the reason why he posted this video was to tell any suicidal person that you only live once.

Q: Did you expect such a huge Internet reaction to your question to President Obama?
Rui: I did not expect it.  In the Internet era when information can be disseminated quickly across different platforms, many unexpected things happen.  But I thought it was a meaningful conversation.

Q: Did you find any pertinent netizen comments?
Rui: I read a lot of comments.  My conversation with President Obama was interpreted in different ways.  But I didn't think it was any big deal.  Different people look at issues in different ways.
I spoke with Obama using English this time.  Some Chinese people have difficulty understanding English, so that they got different information.  I think that the audience that understands English better will appreciate the scene better.  I think it is normal for different people to come up with different judgments.

Q: You have been responding to Chinese netizens over the past several days.
Rui: Yes.

Q: Some Korean netizens also questioned why China can represent Asia?  How do you respond to them?
Rui: Some Chinese media may be digging too deep or even exaggerating certain things.  I have not heard any Korean, Japanese or other Asian reporters complaining.  Not at all.  With such a large population base (in China), it is normal for some individuals to hold different opinions.

Q: Don't you want to give them an explanation?
Rui: I have checked the American search engine Google.  There are just two or three items in Google.  In the information-flooded Internet, only two or three Americans gave an opinion on this matter.  I think it is negligible.  I believe that it is the same thing with South Korea.  This is not a news story.  Therefore I don't think that I need to discuss this issue any further.
While the whole world did not see any problem, a small number of Chinese persons -- very few, fewer than 5% of Chinese netizens -- are sensitive about this matter for some reason.  Is this because of cultural reasons?  Or language misunderstanding?

Q: Before you posed the question to Obama, what was the atmosphere at the scene like?  How did you decide that you can raise your hand?
Rui: It was pretty light-hearted at the scene.  But it was somewhat unexpected, because he had clearly said "I am departing."  After the final question from an American reporter, he decided to offer one extra chance for the Korean people.  It was the normal atmosphere for a press conference.

Q: Then he said: "I want to confirm if any Korean reporter wants to ask a question?"
Rui: I can understand that.

Q: Were you concerned while you stood there and waited?
Rui: I was not concerned.

Q: What happens if a Korean reporter got up and asked a question?
Rui: I would have to respect his wish then.  It was his press conference.  If a Korean reporter stood up and he wanted to give that question to him, I can obviously accept it.  I raised my hand because no Korean reporters did.  The action was stalled.  As a reporter, I thought I ought to create some movement.

Q: You said previously that people have different understandings in English versus Chinese, and that is why the word "represent" upsets certain Chinese netizens.  What does this word mean in English and Chinese?
Rui: I have to thank everybody.  I checked the online survey with the largest sample base of more than 600,000 votes, and I saw that more than 95% of people chose to support me.  This tells me what the absolute majority of people think.  With respect to the term 'represent,' I want to note these things:
Firstly, a very small minority of Chinese friends are extremely sensitive to this term 'represent.'  No matter who used this word, a small number of people are extremely sensitive to the term 'represent.'  No matter what the subject is or where it was said, these people will react strongly.  This has nothing to do with.  It is a cultural phenomenon with unique Chinese characteristics.  I can't tell you why.  You ought to interview a cultural scholar if you want an explanation.
Secondly, I don't think it is any big deal to converse with President Obama.  But because the Chinese media do not interview foreign dignitaries (especially someone at the level of President Obama) very frequently, people paid extra attention.  I can understand that too.
Thirdly, 'represent' is a normal term in the English language.  Last year while I was in London, I said "on behalf of."  This time, I used 'represent.'  It is not equivalent to the Chinese word
In Chinese,
代表 means something like "the People's Republic of China ambassador who is vested with full authority."  This is not what I mean here.  People may be injecting certain special Chinese cultural meaning to the English terms.  When I spoke to President Obama in London, you can watch the video and see that, at one point, I was asking a question from a Chinese perspective.  At another point, I was asking a question from a global perspective.
On this occasion, when I said I "represent the entire Asia," I was a Chinese person who is an Asian reporter and I want to ask a question from the Asian perspective.  The word "represent" means
代表, but it also carries many other meanings.
But what was the most significant thing that happened at the time?  I don't think that everybody spotted it.  I only noticed it today when I saw the video again.  I said "I think I get to represent the entire Asia" and President Obama immediately replied half-jokingly "Absolutely."  In his eyes, an Asian reporter is an Asian and it is normal for him to represent Asia.  In Obama's eyes, it was normal for a Chinese reporter to represent Asia.  Therefore, he said "Of course, absolutely" to acknowledge that point.

Q: Based upon what you said, we take it that you habitually use this word as an interviewing technique?
Rui: I don't think that this is an interviewing technique.  I am saying that under the circumstances, I am making President Obama look better when I emphasized that I was Asian.  Actually, I was trying to persuade him to speak with me.
Because he kept speaking only with Americans, I personally think that it was not good for his image.  When you choose to face the global media, why can't you take a question from outside USA?

Q: For two years in a row, you have created controversy in China over the term "represent."
Rui: Yes

Q: Will you avoid using this term in future?
Rui: I don't think that I will intentionally avoid it.  This term can continue to be used.  I want to say that under certain circumstances, we are Chinese and we represent China; in other circumstances, we represent Asia.  This is quite normal.
When we go out of China to attend certain international functions, this is commonly accepted to be the case.  This is not something you or I can decide for ourselves.  If we have this natural identity, it is part of our identity.

Q: In summary, do you think anything needs to be corrected or improved as a result of this Internet controversy over your question to President Obama?
Rui: I don't think there is anything in the entire interview.  A small number of people interpreted things differently.  I don't think it is any big deal.

Q: Do you feel misunderstood by netizens?
Rui: It is routine to be misunderstood.

Q: If being misunderstood is routine, what do you think is the biggest misunderstanding about yourself?
Rui: My job means that I will be exposed in front of the public.  I am destined to be discussed.  I am destined to be misinterpreted (in the sense that different people will come up with different interpretations).  I think it is normal to be misunderstood by a small number of persons.
When I get misinterpreted, what do I often say?  It is "I oppose your viewpoint, but I firmly defend your right to speak."  For me, everybody has the right to express his/her opinions.  This right is far more important than the specific opinion over a matter.  It is normal for people to have different opinions.

Q: What is the gap between your misinterpreted image and the one that you want to give people?
Rui: In my impression, I was misinterpreted by people in the Starbucks affair and in this current affair.  In the Starbucks affair, the majority of netizens agreed with my view.  The so-called misinterpretation was limited to only a small number of persons.

Q: You once spoke to a reporter about the Starbucks affair.  Afterwards, you were mischaracterized as a nationalist who didn't understand globalization.  Is this what you are?
Rui: Indeed.  Why was I misunderstood to be a nationalist?  Many people wondered why Rui Chenggang objected to Starbucks when he drinks Starbucks coffee himself just like we do.  Why didn't he want Starbucks to be located inside the Forbidden Palace?  It was easy to connect this to nationalism.
But my blog post was about cultural preservation.  Even though the Starbucks incident was boiling over on the Internet, not too many people actually read my original blog post.  What does this tell you?  The Chinese media were hyping up the Starbucks affair but only about 500,000 persons read my blog post.  It never went much higher.  When this issue became a news story, people were passing around hearsay and rumors based upon what the newspapers were saying.  Nobody went to read my blog post.
That whole affair began with my blog post, which was only read by 500,000 persons.  However, I think 100 million people around the world have likely heard about the affair.  This is a classical case of information asymmetry when only 500,000 persons reading my blog post out of 100 million people.  There had to be plenty of misunderstanding about what I actually wanted to say.

Q: I remember that at a Yale academic conference, someone said to you, "Hmm, we don't think that you are a news worker because you are from CCTV which is owned by the government."  Do you frequently face these kinds of doubts when you travel overseas?  How do you react to these kinds of questions?
Rui: I have actually frequently encountered these kinds of questions.  Foreign media wonder whether I was a reporter and whether I was a media worker in the true sense.  Whenever I encounter this kind of question, I think the best response is to show them how I work as a reporter.
Most of these skeptics change their minds after watching the programs that I and my colleagues produce.  But sometimes they will refuse to admit it because of a certain kind of mindset.

Q: What kind of mindset?
Rui: Sometimes they have an indescribable sense of superiority.  Certain western people or reporters claim that their media are absolutely free.  In reality, I don't think that their judgments are correct.  I will use my actions to show them that we are pretty good reporters too.  When they see our programs and interact with us, they will ultimately come to the correct conclusions.

Q: If a foreign reporter says that to you, are you annoyed?
Rui: No.  First of all, this situation does not always happen.  It sometimes happens, possibly because of lack of information.  They don't know how the Chinese media work, they don't know what the Chinese media are like, they don't know what questions Chinese reporter ask.  You can't blame people for making the wrong judgments because of insufficient information.  The best thing is to fill in the information gap and let them see how you work as a reporter.  They will give you the proper respect as a peer.

知識份子的夢囈  陶傑




蘇珊宋塔一直沒去過中國,她把對遠東的一些嚮往,跳躍式記錄下來,在她才女的筆下,中國不是一個國家,而是童夢的一種床囈:「中國是最有異國情調的國家( The most exotic place at all)」,「中國不是我想去就去得了的( China is not a place that I can go just because I decide to go.)」

在蘇珊宋塔的世界「我」是中心,「中國」只圍繞着這個「我」( I)而存在。這是什麼意思?意思就是:美國這些左派知識份子,成天在批判美國的霸權,駡布殊攻打伊拉克是大美國主義,美國不該是世界的軸心,實際上在左派的潛意識裏也一樣。





Intellectuals talking in their sleep    Chip Tsao

The late female writer Susan Sontag had many fans during her lifetime.  She wrote insightfully about culture, photography and the psychology of men who like to watch pornographic movies.  But when it comes to talking about China, she laid bare her true self.

Susan Sontag wrote an essay entitled: "Project for a trip to China" : "I want to go to China.  I will cross the Luowu Bridge between China and Hong Kong.  China is a place that I want to go to.  When I was four years old, my father's friend Mr. Chen taught me how to use chopsticks.  He said that I am like a Chinese person --- Chinese food, Chinese torture, Chinese manners."


Susan Sontag never went to China.  She jotted down some of her fleeting yearnings for the Far East.  In her writing, China is not a country.  Instead, it is her childhood dream talk: "The most exotic place at [of] all" and "China is not a place that I can go [to] just because I decide to go."

In Susan Sontag's world, the "I" is the center and "China" is only on the periphery of the existence of this "I."  What does that mean?  The meaning is this: These American leftist intellectuals criticize American hegemony all the time, they say that Bush's invasion of Iraq is American chauvinism and America should not be the axis of the world.  But the same thing applies to the subconsciousness of these leftists themselves.

Such is the vacuity of western "intellectuals."  Susan Sontag's China consists of fragmentary bits and pieces with cursory colors and flavors ...

There has never been any genuine Chinese scholars in the west.  If during Obama's term, Asian policy is misled by fog-headed intellectuals such as Susan Sontag, how can there be peace in the world?


[ESWN comment:  This op/ed piece by Chip Tsao is factually challenged.  Susan Sontag visited China with a group of "American leftist intellectuals" in 1973 during the late stage of the Cultural Revolution.  She wrote about that trip in many places; for example, in On Photography.  When she was the president of the International P.E.N., she worked for the release of Chinese dissident writers (such as Bei Ling).  When Bei Ling interviewed Susan Sontag, this is what happened:

During our interview, I asked Susan if she wished to visit China again. Her answer was an eye-opener for me: “Of course I hope to go to China again. But I wouldn’t go if I didn’t feel it would be useful: useful to me intellectually and humanly—for instance, that I would understand better something that I should understand—and useful to some people there and to Chinese in exile. I’m not prepared to be a tourist in China. That seems to me immoral.”

Later I was to discover that Susan stood by her moral commitments in life: commitments to fellow human beings, to herself and to me.

From that point I urged her to let me arrange a trip to China according to her intentions, and I also suggested that she visit Taiwan again at the same time. She agreed with my suggestion that she visit China in the capacity of literary artist, without official itinerary. She also showed great enthusiasm for revisiting Taiwan. Susan hoped to teach for one semester as a visiting professor at Peking University, and take the opportunity to more deeply explore another side of life in China.

We talked over details of her route through China, and the people she would meet during her visit, which I suggested should last for at least a month. I looked forward to showing her an emergent new popular culture, exposing her to alternative voices and letting her bump against a vigorous arts culture.

I wanted her to see the changes and distortions resulting from the influx of capitalism into China. What she cared about was what this trip could offer for the development of politics and culture in China, and what help it could be for the intellectual projects I was engaged in.

The plan was for us to meet in Hong Kong to see the changes since the handover to China. The poet Huang Canran had translated many of her works, and he could take her to meet some local literary figures. Then, we could cross the Lowu Bridge between Hong Kong and China as she did 20-some years before, stepping through the Lowu Checkpoint to the new city of Shenzhen and then taking a train to Guangzhou. After an introduction to the Guangzhou cultural scene, Susan could take the 30-plus-hour Guangzhou-Beijing Express and watch the countryside unfold from south to north.

I was hoping the trip could take place in 2000 or October of 2001, for autumn is Beijing’s best season. This was my city, Beijing, and I could arrange many unconventional activities. Susan listened to my wishful arrangements with tremendous interest, chiming in with her refrain: “Time . . . time . . . how can I set aside the time!” My hope for Susan’s visit was to let her make far-ranging observations on a society where totalitarianism was merging with capitalism. I even wanted to hear her constructive opinions on what courses were open to our dissident intellectuals. I also told Susan that a visit to Taiwan would be worthwhile, if only to grasp the mutual influence between Chinese culture and native Taiwan culture in recent history.

Later, after I was detained and deported, it was clear I would not be serving as her guide to China for the time being. Nevertheless, I still proposed that Susan go to China and follow the route I had arranged. I told her, “The planning has been done for your tour of China; there are friends all set to meet you along the way. I can help coordinate things from America. Don’t let what happened to me deter you.” But each time I said this, Susan countered with her firm refusal. She stressed that this was not a consideration of friendship, but based on moral reasons: “If the Chinese government won’t let you return, then I won’t go to China. When they let you go back, I’ll go back with you.” Still I tried to persuade her, being firmly convinced that her personal encounter with China, and her resulting ideas, were necessary for China in its throes of social and cultural change. I hoped she would not stay away because of me, while intellectuals and artists and writers of conscience were anticipating her arrival. There were some important positions there that needed her support.

Only in light of the terrorist attack of September 11 did I redirect my focus and give up urging her for the time being.

Chip Tsao was writing an op/ed piece and not a news report.  As such, he is exercising his freedom of expression which is guaranteed under Hong Kong's Basic Law.  This freedom does not carry any duty/obligation to be factually accurate.  That is to say, one can quote one or two sentences from one writer irrespective of her other positions/contributions, and proceed to condemn an entire category (e.g. "American leftist intellectuals).  And one can get paid very well for doing that.]

Yesterday around noon, Wu Danhong wrote on his microblog that when the netizen "Below Zero Degrees" got her masters degree in law from Zhengzhou University in 2007, her thesis <A discourse on verifying hearsay> plagiarized extensively from Wu's 2004 article <A study on how to verify hearsay>.  Although the thesis contained extensive citations of other works in other places, that particular section was not annotated.

According to the known information, the netizen "Below Zero Degrees" is Wang Leng, associate professor at the Henan Finance, Politics and Law University and the assistant editor of <Biography of Rich and Famous People> magazine.  Previously Wang had interviewed Yu Jinyong who was a supporter of Tang Jun during the "Academic Degree Gate" whereas Wu Danhong was one of the major critics of Tang Jun.

On his microblog, Wu Danhong wrote: "Doctor Yu, you have damaged yet another of your admirers.  If you didn't boast that your interviewer Wang Leng holds a law degree, I would not have paid any attention to a third- or fourth-rate professor.  I would never be curious enough to check and find out that her master thesis plagiarized me extensively."

This microblog post drew plenty of "spectators."  Based upon the information, our reporter went into the Chinese masters thesis database and retrieved Wang Leng's thesis <A discourse on verifying hearsay> and compared it against Wu's article <A study on how to verify hearsay>.  Our reporter found certain parts were identical.

The comparison show that the third section of the fourth chapter on "The design of methods for legislation and exceptions on hearsay evidence in China," the entire five principles on "the pre-trial testimony" and "the evidence accepted by both side" were identical to the last five of the six principles in third section about "the structure of the rules for hearsay evidence" in Wu article.  The overlap involved almost 3,000 words.

In addition, the definition of "hearsay" in the first section of the first chapter was identical to Wu's article, including the case examples and analyses in the second section.

Wu Danhong said: "She used about 80% of my article.  All the core contents were used."

A netizen noted that if what Wu said is true, then Wang's degree should be rescinded based upon the published degree requirements at Zhengzhou University.  Specifically, there is an article to the effect: "If more than 250 consecutive words from another work are used without citation, it would be considered plagiarism."

Surprising Wang Leng made a rapid response.  She wrote on her own microblog: "I plagiarized in my masters thesis.  I also plagiarized in my bachelor's thesis.  To avoid plagiarizing again, I did not write any articles for the next five years.  I have also solemnly informed my colleagues that I will not apply for promotion to full professorship.  You are welcome to continue to provide guidance to me."  Not only this, but she wrote that even though her microblog identifies her as a professor, she is only an associate professor.  "Mr. Zhuang at told me privately that I can do so.  I told him that I was a teacher.  He subjectively decided that I was a professor.  I accepted it out of vanity."

This response drew plenty of grumblings from unhappy netizens.  As for Wu Danhong himself, he did not seem eager to pursue the case any further.  He wrote: "Fine, I thank you for your frankness.  You are at least better than the unrepentant Doctor Yu."



I feel obliged to take maybe one question from the Korean press -- since you guys have been such excellent hosts.  Anybody? This gentleman right here -- he’s got his hand up.  He’s the only one who took me up on it.  Go ahead.  And I'll probably need a translation, though, if you're asking the question in Korean.  In fact, I definitely will need a translation.  (Laughter.)

Q:  Unfortunately, I hate to disappoint you, President Obama, I'm actually Chinese.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it’s wonderful to see you.

Q:  But I think I get to represent the entire Asia.

THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely.

Q:  We're one family here in this part of the world.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, your English is better than my Mandarin also.  (Laughter.)  But -- now, in fairness, though, I did say that I was going to let the Korean press ask a question. So I think that you held up your hand anyway.

Q:  How about will my Korean friends allow me to ask a question on your behalf?  Yes or no?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it depends on whether there’s a Korean reporter who would rather have the question.  No, no takers?

Q:  (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  This is getting more complicated than I expected.  (Laughter.)

Q:  Take quick, one question from an Asian, President Obama.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the -- as I said, I was going to -- go ahead and ask your question, but I want to make sure that the Korean press gets a question as well.

Q:  Okay.  My question is very simple.  You mentioned interpretation.  I know part of the difficulty being the American President is that some of the decisions that you take, actions you make will be interpreted in a way that are not what you thought they would be or what you meant they would be.  For instance, some of the actions you’ve taken were interpreted as anti-business, domestically, in the United States.  And as someone just mentioned, some of the actions taken by the U.S. government that you represent as well were interpreted as sacrificing other countries’ interests for America’s own benefit. So you find yourself constantly being interpreted in a thousand different ways.  How do you address these interpretations?

THE PRESIDENT:  With a wonderful press conference like this that give me the opportunity hopefully to provide my own interpretation.  But, look, you make a valid point.  We live in a connected world.  Everything I say, everything my administration does, anything one of my aides does is interpreted in one fashion or another.  In America we call it spin.  And there’s a spin cycle that is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  And I think that in this media environment, it is in some ways more challenging to make sure that your message and your intentions are getting out in a consistent basis.

But I think that if I’m consistent with my actions and I’m consistent with my goals, then over time hopefully people look at my overall trajectory and they can draw accurate conclusions about what we’re trying to do.

With respect to business, for example, we’ve had in the United States some battles between myself and some in the business community around issues like financial regulation or health care.  At the same time, I’ve said repeatedly and I said on this trip, we can’t succeed unless American businesses succeed.  And I’m going to do everything I can to promote their ability to grow and prosper and to sell their goods both in the United States and abroad.  And the fact that the economy is now growing and trade is expanding and the stock market is up I think is an indication that I mean what I say.  And hopefully by the end of my administration businesses will look back and say, you know what, actually the guy was pretty good for business -- even if at any given point in the road they may be frustrated.

So -- all right, now I’m stuck with this last one but I think I’ve got to go fly a plane.

(KDnet BBS)

The action by Rui Chenggang created a controversy among Chinese netizens.  Some scorned him while others applauded him.

Netizen Fundy wrote: "Please!  I beg you not to say anything without my permitting you to represent me.  Please do not represent Asia so easily when you don't have any Korean blood.  We should stick to losing our face within China!"

The well-known scriptwriter Ning Caishen wrote: "Only student cadres say that they represent Asia.  Brother Gang must have been a good student."

The writer Wu Ang wrote: "If you have even done any of the following:
(1) jump the queue for something
(2) boast how well your English is
(3) wore three different western suits at various times
(4) made a romantic proposal, got rejected but persisted anyway
(5) want to talk when you meet a foreigner
please reflect on your own behavior first before you condemn Rui Chenggang."

<New Weekly> chief editor Feng Xincheng wrote: "No matter if Rui Chenggang represents Asia, he definitely represents China."

Whether you approve or disapprove, I think you should listen to the most important participant in the incident.  Here is what Rui Chenggang wrote on his blog:

The live global broadcast of Obama's press conference was not supposed to have any questions from non-American reporters.  Obama pointed only at the White House reporters who traveled with him.  This is Obama's custom.  But he decided at the spur of the moment to add an extra question at the very end.  He emphasized that he wanted the question to come from the Korean media.  But after waiting for a while, no Korean reporter raised his/her hand.  This is rare for Obama, and somewhat embarrassing.

This was the fifth time that I have seen Obama.  In order to bring the proceedings to a close, as well as seizing the opportunity to have emerging countries have a say, I raised my hand from the first row and I stood up.  I reminded him that I am from China.  He waited a little bit longer but still no Korean reporter raised a hand.  So we began to talk.  Afterwards a white reporter who claims to be working in Korea raised his hand and asked a question.  So Obama's gesture towards Korea was finally accepted.

The atmosphere at the scene was quite light-hearted.  People were humorous.  G20 was being held in Asia for the first time, and also the first time outside the eight developed countries.  It would be regrettable if the American President's press conference did not have any voice from Asia.  I wanted to see the interaction with the Korean reporters too but nobody was talking.  No authentic Korean reporters raised their hands.  We Asian reporters may be very professional in our work, but we are somewhat shy compared to our American and European colleagues.

Actually, it is no big deal to ask an American president a question.  Obama faces various kinds of challenges, even verbal attacks, on a daily basis.  This is part of his job.  However, he deals mostly with American media.  In Asian countries (including Japan), there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of soft power, international communication and influence as compared to the developed nations.  The top-level international news conferences are frequently hosted and dominated by American and European media.  But things are changing now, as we in Asia (especially the Chinese media workers) are rapidly internationalizing.  I have sensed this strongly while crossing the globe over the last couple of years.  Our support comes from our rising national power in these times.

[ESWN exercise:

President (1) comes to country (2) to attend an economic summit and holds a press conference.  However, the President only took questions in his own language from his own national reporters who were traveling with him.  At the end of the press conference, he allowed one question from the host country (2).  No reporters from country (2) took the offer.  So a reporter (3) from country (4) in the same region (5) asked a question instead.

In this case,
(1) = Obama
(2) = South Korea
(3) = Rui Chenggang
(4) = China
(5) = Asia

The result was a controversy over the behavior of Rui Chenggang.

Suppose there is another case in which:
(1) = Hu Jintao
(2) = Canada
(3) = Sean Hannity (Fox News)
(4) = United States of America
(5) = North America

President Hu Jintao comes to Canada to attend an economic summit and holds a press conference.  However, the President only took questions in Chinese from Chinese reporters who were traveling with him.  At the end of the press conference, he allowed one question from Canadian reporters.  No Canadian reporters took the offer.  So a American reporter Sean Hannity in the North America asked a question instead.

Would the result be a controversy over the behavior of Sean Hannity?  No, the result would be a demand for President Hu Jintao to apologize for the format of the press conference which should have held after he arrives home.]

According to <Chengdu Wanbao>, an Internet user went to cheer a female friend in a beauty contest (entitled "You Are The Hottest") in Chengdu on November 8.  There, he saw something quite unexpected.  He posted the 26-second videotape onto the Internet.  In the video, everything began normally.  A shapely woman wearing a black dress walked onto the stage with the music blaring.  She took two spins around the stage, went up to center stage, stopped, turned her body around, pulled down the zipper in front of her dress and then dropped her dress down on the ground.  The entire process took only two seconds.

The audience sat in stunned silence for a moment.  Then shrieks came out.  One man was heard to say: "Wow!  This is too shameless!"  Then people began to take out their mobile phones to take photos.  A worker rushed up and put a jacket on the woman.

According to an informed source, the woman is a professional model.  "She said that she did it in protest against the 'hidden rules.'  She had participated in many contests and been propositioned under the 'hidden rules' (=exchange sex for favorable results).  She has always refused.  This time she took off her clothes ..."  But some netizens rejected the claim: "Resistance is not an excuse to bare your body.  It won't bring you true success either.  Even if you become famous, nobody will actually appreciate you."


If you are a frequent Internet users, you will know about the many Internet celebrities, stories and issues.  You can be famous overnight, or you can be the target of loathing in a instant.  Even as people are awed by the power of the Internet, they may not know that these Internet phenomena are not natural events.  Instead, there are hidden promoters behind the scene.  They have set up their own system, they have clear division of labor, they have strategies, they have public relations specialists and they even have their own thugs.  Let us see how they work.

Several days ago, the marketing specialist Mr. Wang at a certain company found the need to market a new company product.  Mr. Wang contacted an Internet promotions company.  Mr. Wang was shocked at the marketing techniques that this company offered him.  They said that, as long as Mr. Wang agrees, they will use any and every means possible to raise awareness of his product (and even his entire company) in a matter of one to two months.

What were these marketing techniques?  According to Mr. Wang, they will attack any competitive product of the same type and price level.  At the same time, they will spread good positive reviews of his product through word-of-mouth.

Mr. Wang thought that these marketing techniques were unethical.  He got on the Internet and located several other Internet promotion companies.  But he found almost all of them used the same techniques.  So he ended up giving up the idea of using the Internet to market his own product.

Our reporter got on the Internet and searched for "Internet promotion."  There are a large number of companies in this business.  They seem to offer many different kinds of services.  But in the end, they can be reduced down to three major methods: (1) "push" () your product; (2) "attack" () your competitors; (3) "delete" () negative information about your product.  So how do they do it?

Our reporter contacted an Internet promotion company for the purpose of becoming an Internet celebrity.  This promotion company worker said "Okay" without a pause.  He also told our reporter that "You have to stand out if you want to be famous."

The promotion company worker told our reporter: Over the last couple of years, none of the Internet celebrities were normal people.  The promotion company worker told our reporter: The true looks and background of the subject are immaterial; the important thing is that the subject must be willing to expose his/her secrets to the world.  He said that negative information causes netizens to jump out to condemn; and the louder the criticisms, the higher the received attention.

An Internet promotion company worker said: "We have been studying the Internet for a long time.  What is hot on the Internet?  Sex, violence, vulgarity."  This person said: If there is controversy, there is no attention; if you want to become famous, negative news is essential.  When the negative news is pumped up to a certain level, they will enter the second phase of reversing the image.  Another person will present an "authentic" portrayal of the subject's background.  Of course, some of this is true and some of this is fabricated.  Usually, when more netizens become sympathetic, the negative image is erased.

This Internet promotion company worker described the process of hyping.  First of all, you get one group of people to make some unruly statement, even posting some obscene photos or writings.  This will draw broad attention.  Then another group of people come up to make clarifications and explanations.  Then the matter is put to a vote among netizens as if this was a really important matter.  This is how such projects work.  Of course, the detailed steps are carefully planned, with media coverage.

Experts believe that young people are more prone to think "I want to be famous."  When they see people becoming famous by doing abnormal, vulgar or obscene things, they are apt to imitate.  This is not good for youth development.

When some people hire Internet promoters, they also want Internet hit men.  On one hand, they want their companies/products to have raised profiles.  On the other hand, they want to attack/destroy the image of their competitors.  Different Internet promoters will offer different proposals, which are all based upon one basic principle: fabricating negative information!

These Internet promotion companies all claim that they can "successfully guide Internet public opinion."  How do they accomplish that?  A certain Internet promotion company worker said: The company has a lot of part-time people working for them, possibly as many as several tens of thousands of people all over the country.  During their off-hours, they earn twenty to thirty cents per post.  If they make many posts a day, they can earn ten or twenty yuan a day.

According to these Internet promotion companies, they use various means to control large numbers of "Internet navy" at the major portals and websites.  That is how they control public opinion.  According to one Internet promotion company worker, they can blow a negative news story for your competitor up to the point that it will be everywhere overnight.

Beijing Internet Media Association president Ma Xiaolin expressed his concerns about this phenomenon: "In order to elevate your standing in your industry and increase your market share, you smear and trash your competitors.  This is unfair competition.  My view is that if this trend is allowed to develop, it will not only affect and worse the Internet-based business, but it will contaminate the entire business world.  It may ruin the reputation of Chinese brands and cause consumers to lose faith in product safety."

Apart from promoting and attacking, a number of Internet promotion companies can also deal with "public relations crises."  That is to say, they specialize in deleting negative information for companies or individuals.  A certain Internet public relations company worker said: "We can directly delete posts at certain smaller websites.  We can delete Baidu and Google cache entries."

Our reporter saw the price list from a certain Internet promotions company.  The price varies depends on the degree of difficulty to carry out public relations.  The price could be as low as 2,000 yuan per post, or as much as 5,000 yuan per post.

In order to demonstrate their prowess, the Internet public relations company deleted a post as demonstration.  This person said: "If we want something to vanish, it will vanish.  There is rarely something that cannot be deleted."  He also said: "Every editor will delete posts.  I know one editor who earned more than 700,000 yuan last year just for deleting posts."

Our reporter found these Internet promoters, hit men and "public relations crisis" erasers operating brazenly and fearlessly.  Their techniques are unethical, if not illegal.  The question is, Is there any government department overseeing and restraining these kinds of activities?

Our reporter called the Ministry of Culture's complaint hotline, the Beijing City Public Security Bureau Internet Supervisory Department, etc.  But they all said that there are no specific laws that regulate Internet hyping.  The ZBeijing Internet Media Association president Ma Xiaolin said: Besides corporate self-restraint and industry self-restraint, there needs to be other relevant laws concerning Internet hyping.

(South China Morning Post)  Collision video turns up the heat again   By Minnie Chan and agencies.  November 6, 2010.

Japan said it is investigating the leak of a video showing a collision between a Japanese coastguard vessel and a Chinese fishing boat off the disputed Diaoyu Islands in September that inflamed bilateral tensions. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing expressed concern over the video, and diplomatic and military experts said the footage proved that Japanese patrol ships had been to blame for the incident as they had sought to contain the Chinese trawler.

Forty-four minutes of video footage, posted on YouTube yesterday morning, was widely picked up by Japanese television networks, prompting Beijing to express concern and sending Japanese officials scrambling to contain the damage, a week before Japan hosts an Asia-Pacific summit.

The clip appears to show the blue Chinese boat, the Minjinyu 5179, which was later detained by Japan, colliding with a grey-hulled patrol ship as a plume of black smoke billows from the Japanese vessel. Antony Wong Dong, president of the Macau International Military Association, said the video had been shot in such a way as to show the Chinese trawler intentionally crashing into the Japanese ship. "The video obviously was recorded by a cameraman on the Japanese coastguard boat, who used a good angle to shoot the whole process," Wong said. "We don't know whether the Chinese trawler was provoked before the collision, but it crashed rapidly into the Japanese ship after being circled by the Japanese vessel, which raises doubts about whether the Chinese side was provoked or had no other choice but to ram it."

Video footage taken by the Japanese coastguard had previously only been shown to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, security officials and some lawmakers, but not released to the public for fear it would worsen the spat. "I have a strong sense of crisis because our information management is not in shape," Kan said. "It is important for both countries to respond calmly even if such a problem arises."

Japanese foreign minister Seiji Maehara told a parliamentary committee that the Japanese government would investigate the leak. He said the Chinese embassy in Tokyo had called Japan's foreign ministry to check into the leak, and that China later had "expressed concern and conveyed worry in Tokyo and Beijing through diplomatic channels".

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said yesterday that the collision had occurred because the Japanese coastguard was undertaking "illegal operations" within Chinese territorial waters in the East China Sea. "The so-called video cannot either change such a fact or cover up Japan's illegality," Hong said in a statement on the ministry's website.

Beijing-based Sino-Japanese experts said the collision video would not harm China's international image, but would cause more domestic problems for Japan. "The video showed clearly that our small trawler was contained by at least three big Japanese coastguard patrol ships, which is like a poor child being bullied by three bruisers," Gao Haikuan , a specialist in northeast Asian security with the Chinese Association for International Friendly Contact, said. "I believe our fishing boat was forced to clash with the Japanese ship as it was under great pressure."

Kan is hoping to talk with President Hu Jintao when they attend next week's Asia-Pacific forum in Yokohama, and both Gao and Wong said the footage might have been leaked by Japanese right-wingers seeking to derail the talks.

Jiang Lifeng , former director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of Japanese Studies, said the video had also pushed Kan into an embarrassing position. "Actually, both Kan and Maehara decided not to make the video public as they wanted to improve ties with China," Jiang said. "However, the video dragged them back into the crisis, ruining their plan."

(Ming Pao)  Editorial.  November 6, 2010.

From the YouTube video, the Minjinyu 5179 collided twice with Japanese coast guard ships.  In the collision with patrol boat the Yonakuni, the ocean wake showed that the Yonakuni accelerated rapidly from the right hand side of the Minjinyu 5179, turned and decelerated in front of the Minjinyu 5179.  Although the Minjinyu 5179 was slower, it still collided with the stern of the Yonakuni because the distance was too short.

In the other collision between the Minjinyu 5179 and the patrol boat the Mizuki, the ocean wake showed that the Mizuki was on the left side of the Minjinyu 5179.  As the two ships neared each other, the Mizuki swung its tail at the Minjinyu 5179 (like a "dragon shaking its tail").  If this was a case of car driving, it would be reckless conduct by deliberately inducing the Minjinyu 5179 to collide.  A marine expert who viewed the video concluded that the Japanese coast guard ships had flaws in their conduct when they deliberately caused collisions.

These videos were shot and edited by the Japanese on the basis of seeking public opinion support.  As such, they ought to be showing the most favorable contents and angles for Japan.  But these leaked videos do not establish that the Minjinyu 5179 deliberately rammed the Japanese ships.  On the contrary, the behavior and motive of the Yonakuni and the Mizuki are debatable.  When an edited video was showed to a group of Japanese parliamentarians recently, they unanimously condemned the Minjinyu 5179.  But the facts now showed that it would be highly prejudiced to state that the Minjinyu 5179 bore all responsibility. 

(Oriental Daily)

After watching the collision video, a Hong Kong marine expert Tony P.K. Yeung from the Maritime Services Training Institute pointed out that the Japanese coast guard deliberately intercepted the Chinese trawler and caused it to collide with the patrol boat.  He criticized the Japanese ship for reckless behavior which might have caused the trawler to sink.  The behavior violated international navigation norms.

In the first collision, the Japanese ship had been on the right behind the trawler.  Then it suddenly accelerated, turned left and decelerated.  The trawler could not brake quickly enough in seas with one meter waves.  This gave the impression that the trawler rammed the patrol boat.

The marine expert pointed out that when a trawler is towing fishing nets, its motion is restricted.  Any ship in front of such a trawler should take evasive action.  But the Japanese ship did not take any evasive action.  After the collision, the Japanese ship did not stop.  Instead, it accelerated (with lots of black smoke appearing) and it turned its stern around, creating a huge wave directed at the trawler.  There was a likelihood that the trawler might have sunk.

The marine expert said that the maximum speed of the Chinese trawler was at most 15 knots, whereas the Japanese boats can run at between 20 to 25 knots.  "There was no way that a slower boat could collided a faster boat."  From the photos that Japanese showed later, the damage from the collisions was minimal, indicating that the Chinese trawler did not carry a lot of momentum.  He characterized the behavior of the Japanese boats was dangerous and inconsistent with international navigation norms.

(Agence France Presse)  September 7, 2010.

A tense maritime incident Tuesday in which two Japanese patrol vessels and a Chinese fishing boat collided near a disputed island chain triggered a diplomatic spat between the Asian giants.

China expressed its "great concern" over the series of two collisions in the East China Sea, while Japan summoned a Chinese diplomat to protest the incident, in which no-one was reported injured and no vessels sank. Chinese vice foreign minister Song Tao later summoned Japanese ambassador to China, Uichiro Niwa, and lodged "solemn representations", the state Xinhua news agency said.

The uninhabited islands -- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China -- lie between Japan's Okinawa island and Taiwan. They are claimed by Tokyo, Beijing and Taipei and are frequently the focus of regional tensions.

Japan's Ichiro Ozawa, who is vying to oust Prime Minister Naoto Kan in a party leadership race this month to lead the nation, said Sunday that Tokyo must strongly fend off Beijing's claim to the disputed islets.

The incident started when Japan's 1,349-ton patrol boat the Yonakuni ordered the Chinese trawler to cease fishing in the disputed waters, Kyodo News agency reported, citing the Japanese Coast Guard. The Chinese boat's bow then hit the Yonakuni's stern and also collided with another Japanese patrol boat, the Mizuki, some 40 minutes later, Kyodo reported citing the coast guard. Three Japanese patrol boats then chased the Chinese vessel and 22 Japanese personnel boarded the ship to question the Chinese crew on suspicion of violating the fisheries law, Kyodo reported. The Japan coast guard later arrested the captain of the Chinese ship on suspicion of obstructing public duties, Kyodo said, quoting a senior government official.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu had earlier told a regular news briefing that "China expresses great concern over this incident". Beijing had stressed to Tokyo that the islands have been part of Chinese territory since ancient times, she said. China has urged Japan to stop the "so-called law enforcement activities in the adjacent borders" and not do anything that might "jeopardise the safety of Chinese fishing boats and Chinese people". "We will keep a close eye on developments and reserve the right to make a further response," Jiang added.

Japan's foreign ministry said it had "summoned a minister-counsellor at the Chinese embassy in Tokyo and lodged a protest over the incident". "We stated that the incident resulted from illegal fishing on China's part," the ministry said. "We asked the Chinese government help prevent a recurrence of the incident and give thorough instructions to Chinese fishing boats."



(Canadian Press)  Japan lawmakers see video of ship collision near disputed islands that heated China relations.  November 2, 2010.

Members of Japan's parliament reviewed a video Monday showing a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and Japanese patrol vessels off disputed islands that has flared into an emotional row between the countries. The video, taken by the coast guard vessels involved, was shown to about 30 members of the lower house Budget Committee. It was reportedly about six minutes long. The video has not been made available to the public or other members of parliament. Japan's coast guard claims the captain of the Chinese ship refused to stop for an inspection and collided with its vessels. The captain was arrested and prosecutors considered pressing charges, but he was later released and sent back to China. The 14 crew members were released earlier.

The screening of the video, considered as evidence in possible further legal action against the captain, has raised concerns that it could rekindle emotions. Prime Minister Naoto Kan has seen it, government officials said, but his ruling party is against opposition demands that it be made more widely available.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman later Monday said the showing of the video changed nothing. "The so-called video cannot change the truth and cannot cover up the unlawfulness of the Japanese action," Ma Zhaoxu said in a statement posted on the ministry's website.

The Sept. 7 incident sparked a high-level tiff with Beijing because it occurred in waters near a group of islands claimed by Japan and China in the East China Sea. Several large anti-Japanese demonstrations have occurred in response across China. Called Diaoyu or Diaoyutai in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese, the islands are controlled by Japan but also claimed by China. Located 120 miles (190 kilometres) east of Taiwan, the islands are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and are regularly occupied by nationalists from both sides.

After the collision, China demanded an apology and compensation, but Tokyo countered by demanding that Beijing pay for damage to the patrol boats. Beijing cut off ministerial-level contacts with Japan, repeatedly called in Tokyo's ambassador to complain, and postponed talks on the joint development of undersea natural gas fields.

(The Associated Press)  Purported video behind China-Japan clash leaked    November 5, 2010.

Japanese officials are checking the authenticity of a video purportedly showing a collision between Japanese coast guard vessels and a Chinese fishing boat off disputed islands that was leaked Friday, potentially worsening a dispute between the Asian neighbors. Coast guard spokeswoman Mariko Inoue said the government is checking into the video, which was shown on YouTube and then Japanese television networks.

The Sept. 7 collision sparked a high-level tiff with Beijing because it occurred in waters near a group of islands claimed by Japan and China in the East China Sea. Several large anti-Japanese demonstrations have occurred in response across China.

The video has raised concerns it could rekindle the dispute ahead of an international summit in Japan next week. Tokyo hopes to have a bilateral meeting with China's leader on the sidelines of the summit. The video showed a trawler bumping a Japanese vessel, while sirens wailed in the background and the Japanese crew shouted orders for the ship to stop. A voice on the video said in Japanese, "The ship is taking aggressive action." The ship then appeared to ram the Japanese vessel. "Check our position!," the voice said. The trawler then steamed away.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku called the leak of the video "unexpected and grave" because it is evidence in a continuing investigation into the collision. Sengoku also confirmed Friday that China has questioned Japan about the leak through diplomatic channels. "I don't think the Japanese government at this juncture intends to release the video," said Noriyuki Shikata, spokesman for prime minister's office. "The prime minister is saying that we have to conduct a thorough investigation and try find out the background of what happened, although we haven't confirmed that this is the true video."

On Monday, about 30 members of Japan's parliament reviewed a video of the collision which was reportedly about six minutes long. The video was not officially made available to the public or other members of parliament, however. "If this means that information from the government has been leaked, we must handle this as an incident," Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara told a parliament committee.







(Al Jazeera)


Suppose you walked into a store called QQ.  You point to a QQ shoe brand and you say, "I want this!"  The QQ salesperson will bring this pair of QQ shoes to you with both hands.

That's natural, right?

But that's not how reality works.

Let us say that you chose to have a 360 display window to be placed around the QQ store.  You point through the display window to a QQ shoe brand and you say, "I want this!"  So the 360 salesperson brings over a pair of shoes to you with both hands.  You leave with the shoes without carefully inspecting them.  Well, sorry, you lost out.  Because if you inspect the shoes carefully, you will be astonished to find that this is a pair of 360 brand shoes!

Yes, the great and smart 360 has made a decision for you: you want 360 and not QQ!  This is "hijacking."

Well, you may find the above scenario to be unthinkable.  But you ought to take a look at the following screen captures:

Here is your QQ screen on a normal computer.  If you click on the "Safety" button at the bottom, you reach QQ's safety page.

But if you had installed 360's "Koukou Bodyguard," then something else happens when you click on QQ's "Safety" button.  You get directed to QQ's "Koukou Bodyguard" page instead!

If you are familiar with the history of Google and Baidu, you will know that QQ was far from the first victim.  Within the 360 browser, if you search either Google or Baidu, you end up with the results from a different search engine.  Isn't this awesome?

Did 360 tell you (whom 360 claims to protect) about what is going on?  I am afraid not.

In the explanation of "Koukou Bodyguard," 360 said: "We tacitly state that we do not alter any QQ features.  All functions are enabled by the user himself, and they can be used/restored anytime."  But 360 is doing the exact opposite.  First of all, they have tacitly re-directed the destination of QQ's "Safety" button.  Secondly, the process was not enabled by the user who is not informed about what is going on.

"Strictly speaking, 360's Koukou Bodyguard is hacking QQ's Safety button.  This is the first occurrence in the history of software around the world.  Within the software industry, the most basic rule is that software ought to be independent entities which can compete fairly with each other.  Your software should not intrude into someone else's software and modify their functions in order gain competitive advantage.  This is highway robbery.  Robbers do not compete; they intrude."

This type of hacking activity is like a shopping mall security guard who can barge into a store and replace your store counter with one displaying his products.

The Shanghai Internet Society Credit Investigation Website is actually not about consumer/corporate creditworthiness.  Instead, it is about 'credit' in the sense of the reputation of an individual or entity.

With respect to individuals, the website has 80 netizens who have been exposed for "illegal activities."  The netizens are identified only by their nicknames (such as "Jolin's shadow," "lin555" and even "anonymous").

The list of illegal activities include: issuing false invoices for a small fee; selling fake diplomas; posting pornographic photos; rumor mongering, disrupting public order.  These activities took place in local Shanghai websites such as KDS, Liba, etc as well as national websites such as Sina blog, Renren, QQ, etc.

Here are some examples:

  • On June 21, 2010, "Jolin's shadow" posted <The mistress price list for Shanghai female university students> including the photo of one student.  The price list shows the prices at 12 different universities ranging from 20,000 yuan to 500,000 yuan.  This post spread like wildfire and drew in the mainstream media.  According to news reports, "Jolin's shadow" was a man named Guan living in Lane 1053, Hongqiao Road, Changning district, Shanghai.  At the time, the Shanghai media reported: "According to the police investigation, Jolin's Shadow engaged in rumor mongering that disrupted public order.  After being lectured by the public security bureau in accordance with the law, Jolin's Shadow expressed genuine remorse."
  • "Han Naichuan" posted <Dark inside secrets about the university entrance exam> at Renren website.  After being lectured by the public security bureau in accordance with the law, "Han Naichuan" expressed remorse.
  • "Yellow -cao" organized an event for model airplane aficionados to fly model airplanes in Shanghai when such activity were explicitly banned during the World Expo.  After being lectured by the public security bureau in accordance with the law, "Yellow -cao" expressed remorse.
  • "zzj00" was displeased with a traffic fine and went on the Internet to say that he "wants to follow the footsteps of Yang Jia."  After being lectured by the public security bureau in accordance with the law, "zzj00" expressed remorse.
  • "357156568" went on the Internet to say that "he lost his job twice already, he has no money, therefore he is going to bomb the World Expo."  "357156568" was placed under administrative detention.

In addition, the Shanghai Internet Society Credit Investigation Website also rated various local Shanghai websites.  Of those rated, 30 received five stars and only Tudou and Dingding received four stars.