The following post from veteran journalist and CMP director Qian Gang (钱钢) was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime after 11:51am Hong Kong time today, Febuary 9, 2012. Qian currently has more than 830,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

Hong Kong media reports on Wang Lijun.

Qian Gang’s post was a re-post of another Sina Weibo post sharing links and images of coverage of the Wang Lijun case from Hong Kong media. We were unable to archive the original post, which has also been deleted.
Qian Gang’s original post follows:

香港媒体对王立军的报道

The following post from Sina Weibo user and blogger Zuo Yeben (作业本), a pen name that means “Homework Book,” was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime after 1:31pm Hong Kong time, Febuary 8, 2012. Zuo Yeben currently has more than 178,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

You cannot expect me, who from birth to death cannot expect to know what a ballot looks like, who lives in a country that has been top-ranked on a global national satisfaction [survey], to look on as you: sleep night after night in luxury villas, drink tea and read the paper every day in sumptuous public buildings, escort your mistresses around in sedans of privilege, eat and drink from your own special supply, send your sons and daughters overseas, pocket huge welfare funds and cheat people left and right, bribe and embezzle and hide the money away overseas, and fall asleep as soon as any meeting begins . . . And me, even to open a miserable Weibo account I have to use my real name.

Zuo Yeben’s original post follows:

你不能让一个从生到死没见过选票长什么样的我，在一个全球国家满意率排名第一的国家，看着你们：夜夜睡在豪宅里，天天在豪华办公楼里喝茶看报，开着特权车包着二奶，吃喝着特供把子女送到国外，拿着高额福利到处欺负人，受贿行贿把钱存到海外，一开会就睡觉……而我，上个破微博还要实名制？

The following post from veteran journalist Luo Changping (罗昌平), the chief editor of Caijing magazine, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime after 2pm Hong Kong time, Febuary 7, 2012. Luo currently has more than 84,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

An urgent notice sent out [from the leadership] on Tibet says that in this critical time of stability preservation (维稳关键时刻), anyone without exception who is absent without leave or shrinks from responsibility, with serious consequences [for stability], will be dismissed from his official post and then subjected to discipline, regardless of who it is or what level of cadre. http://t.cn/zO7BfSt

Luo’s post is in fact a summary of a news article from Tibet Daily, the region’s official Party newspaper. The shortened link at the end of Luo’s post takes readers to the Tibet Daily notice, which was still available as of 3:19pm February 8, 2012.
Luo’s original post follows:

西藏紧急通知，对维稳关键时刻擅离职守、临阵退缩，造成严重后果的，无论什么人，无论哪一级干部，一律先就地免职，再纪律处分http://t.cn/zO7BfSt

The following post from veteran investigative reporter and CMP fellow Yang Haipeng (杨海鹏) was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime after 2pm Hong Kong time, Febuary 7, 2012. Yang currently has more than 161,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

Caijing magazine editor Ding Buzhi (丁补之) revealed today: [250 million in cash] In a villa located in Beijing’s Huilongguan (回龙观) area, investigators opened up a door and discovered that about half of the room, measuring about 40 square meters, was concealed with a sheet. As soon as they pulled it back, they found the whole thing was cash stacked up like a mountain. One source says the owner of the house is a certain district substation head of the Beijing Public Security Bureau who has already fallen for corruption, and who previously served in substations of the Beijing Public Security Bureau in many districts.

Yang’s original post follows:

《财经》的编辑丁补之今天爆料：【2.5亿，现金】在位于北京回龙观的一套别墅内，调查人员拉开一扇门，发现这个40多平方米的房间中，半个房间为遮掩物覆盖。扯开一看，原来堆积成小山的，全是现金。消息源称，别墅主人为已落马的北京市公安局某区分局前局长，曾在北京市公安局某处及多个分局任职。

Popular tensions have been on the rise between mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in recent weeks. What began as a spat between Hong Kongers and visiting mainland Chinese over the eating of noodles on Hong Kong’s MTR subway system back in January has escalated into hateful name-calling.
The barbed exchanges began in mid-January after a mainland mother traveling with her child on Hong Kong’s metro transit system, or MTR, dropped noodles on the floor of a subway car. A local man demanded an apology for this breach of Hong Kong regulations and propriety, to which the mainland woman responded that it was “no big deal.” After the train was stopped and MTR representatives called to the scene, a shouting match ensued, caught on video and later posted to the internet.
Here is video of the scene in January. At the end, a Hong Kong man can be heard to shout: “There’s no sense in arguing with them. Mainlanders are all like this! Get off the train!”

As the incident drew attention on the internet and became a media frenzy in Hong Kong, Kong Qingdong (孔庆东), a well-known professor at China’s Peking University, escalated tensions by called Hong Kongers “dogs of British colonialists.”
On February 1, Hong Kongers crowd-sourced funding on the internet to pay for a full-page ad in the local Apple Daily newspaper which likened mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to an invasion of locusts.
The Apple Daily ad fomented against the social pressures they said mainland visitors were placing on Hong Kong. The black headline at the top of the ad read: “Are you willing to pay one million HK dollars every 18 minutes to take care of mainland children born in Hong Kong?” A second bold yellow headline below read: “Hong Kongers have had enough!”

Hong Kong and the Mainland Should Treat Their Differences Leniently
People’s Daily
February 6, 2012
Of course there are differences between Hong Kong and the mainland — historical, cultural, economic, legal and lifestyle differences . . . There are differences big and small, including such things as whether food can be eaten on the subway. But who would have guessed that a mainland girl eating noodles on the Hong Kong MTR would become a major story, that a video of the incident feverishly shared on the web during the Chinese New Year holiday would spark debate and even a crossfire of insults?
Differences have long been the focus of rapid integration and common interests between [Hong Kong and the mainland]. At the start of reform and opening thirty years ago, for example, differences in economic development drove Hong Kong’s manufacturing sector to shift production across to Guangdong almost overnight. The “three plus one trading mix” (三来一补), [custom manufacturing with designs, materials or samples supplied], which for a long time was the way of doing things, is already outmoded. But the model set down the first stage of economic reforms. Investment in the mainland from Hong Kong tops [that from all other territories and countries outside the mainland], and our brethren in Hong Kong can be written into the history books for their contributions to opening and reform.
It’s also difference that has, since opening and reform, driven mainlanders from all provinces and cities to travel to Hong Kong, . . . enriching the territory’s economy by strength of numbers and strength of spending. Today, while many people in Hong Kong voice anger over the way travelers from the mainland have upset their peaceful lives, they will no doubt recognize the contribution these travelers have made to the Hong Kong economy.
Difference is a double-edged sword. Difference can attract, and difference can divide.
Hong Kong has clear regulations against eating on the subway, and Hong Kong people generally don’t see people digging into a meal on the subway — so seeing a young girl from outside [the territory] eating noodles [on the MTR] was an offense to the eye. In mainland China there are no such rules, and the question of whether or not one can eat [on the subway] is a grey area. [The thinking on the mainland is that] children are precious, and not a moment is to be lost when they are hungry, so how can eating a little something cause people to fume with rage? . . . So the bad blood boiled over the noodle issue, words flying, and this became the focus of attention in both Hong Kong and the mainland.
This isn’t actually such a big deal. Surely, it’s not just about Hong Kong and the mainland, and between Hong Kongese and Hong Kongese, between Beijinger and Beijinger, you can also find differences that are the cause of tension. Put-off onlookers can say, with a slight smile: “Little Sister, in the Hong Kong subway eating is not permitted. You’ll be fined.” And being cautioned, the other can say, before putting the food away: “I’m sorry, my child is really hungry.” With a degree of leniency over differences, [tensions] can pass with a smile.
But if the response to seeing a girl eating noodles is sharp denunciation of how “mainlanders” are, and the person attacked fires back about how “you Hong Kongers” are, the tables are turned quickly and issues become serious. A bowl of noodles can kick up animosities old and new. And how do we clear our heads of the tensions and misunderstandings from the differences between our two regions that then come to the surface?
Escalating differences to an even higher plane, one person in mainland China used extreme speech to label those who objected to the eating of noodles [on the MTR] as “colonial dogs” (殖民地的走狗) . . . And in Hong Kong, some likened the eating of noodles [by mainlanders on the subway] to “locusts”, something that is, if not a case of whipping up hatred with ulterior motives, certainly itself an uncultured act. This is a cruel logic of death to those who resist (逆我者亡) — [in other words, a form of intolerant extremism] — itself not too far off from the abyss of fascism.
Fortunately, I have noted many moderate and reasonable voices amid the sea of commentary. Internet user “Deep-Mountain Wizard” (深山之巫) wrote: “I am a Hong Konger, born and raised, and I can say that Hong Kongese do not discriminate against their [mainland] brethren. The war of words has stemmed from differences in values. Some from the mainland aren’t familiar with the rules in Hong Kong. In the eyes of the Hong Kong people they’ve broken the law, and that’s why the reaction has been so strong. Actually, all they need to do is admit when they’re in the wrong, saying they didn’t know the rules, and that will be the end of it. There are good people and bad in both Hong Kong and the mainland, and I hope this isn’t the cause of bad feeling.”
A domestic media in mainland China wrote: “Piling on more abuse won’t cause Hong Kong to change its regulations because of criticism from the mainland. It will only cause others to laugh at us. When you go out, please just respect the local laws and regulations . . . ”
Treating differences with leniency demands a show of understanding on the part of the home team and respect from the visiting team. Understanding and respect are both cultured responses. The world isn’t a fairy tale, of course, but when understanding and respect are lacking, ready-made channels, like administrative offices, can be turned to for complaint resolution. . . Today, as Hong Kong and the mainland grow ever closer, the differences aren’t limited to “eating noodles” [on the subway]. How administrative offices in the two regions face up to differences, how they encourage tolerance toward differences (引导善待差异), and how the people on both sides learn to treat differences, this is a test of the wisdom and character of both regions.

By all accounts, a vote on February 1 to constitute an independent election committee in the village of Wukan in China’s southern Guangdong province was a success. Around 7,700 eligible voters in the village are reported to have cast their ballots to form the 11-member committee, which will organize and oversee elections in March for a new village committee.
For those who are not familiar with the saga of Wukan, we recommend a read-through of this report from The Telegraph by Malcolm Moore, the first foreign journalist on the scene back in December when Wukan villagers were locked in a standoff with local authorities stemming from disputes over land use, corruption and the death of a protest leader in police custody.

Villager Lin Yongqiu (林永秋), 43, said that in his recollection, Wukan has never before held a selection process of this kind.

The report continued with this dialogue:

Reporter: Is this the first time you’ve ever held a ballot?
Villager: Yeah, my first time.
Reporter: How old are you?
Villager: Not far from 30. Forty.
Reporter: How many elections have you seen before?
Villager: This is the first time. The first time.
Reporter: What are you feeling right now about this election?
Villager: It’s great.

Posting on Sina Weibo on February 3, VIP user Zhang Nong (张农), a company boss in Beijing with more than 24,000 followers, wrote:

Wukan is not Beijing or Shanghai. It is not Guangzhou or Tianjin. Not Chongqing or Shenyang. It is not a major city where we might say that those of culture are numerous and few are illiterate. It is a tiny fishing village. But in such a little village as this, the villagers have begun to vote in elections, governing and taking care of themselves. Does this not tell us that Chinese in other areas can do this too? If Chinese in other areas cannot, then I want to ask everyone why they can’t.

Other voices were less enthusiastic.
True to its typically surly take on “foreign” views on China, the Global Times newspaper suggested, despite the presence of numerous Chinese voices like the above, that the glow over Wukan was being built up by “Western media” and that the level of freedom found in rural elections in China is already “extremely high”:

Over the past two days, Western media have highly praised the election in Wukan, and some have even said that it ‘sets a precedent for’ the process of democracy in China . . .
Perhaps it’s that Western journalists based in China do not understand the real situation in the countryside, and believe mistakenly that they have discovered “a new mainland” of grassroots democracy. For example, The Wall Street Journal wrote that while other villages do have elections, they have all been “strictly controlled by the Communist Party.” Perhaps this journalist has never before noticed village elections in China, or they have intentionally sought to accommodate the tastes of Western readers.
In fact, the level of freedom of elections in the countryside in China is extremely high, and they are not controlled by higher-level institutions. . .
Some Western media have raised the question of whether elections in Wukan will “spark further democratization” in other areas of China. This is even more interesting. If all villages fairly elect their village committees in this way, the whole country would eagerly look to this. But the precondition is that we cannot send armed police to ensure order at every village election, and have the whole society watching and monitoring, because our society clearly cannot consume resources to such an extent.

One of the strongest voices reading events in Wukan as an important precedent on February 3 was The Beijing News, which made Wukan the subject of its lead editorial.
The following is a translation of the lead editorial in the February 3, 2012, edition of The Beijing News

“Open and Transparent Elections Open New Chapter for Wukan”
February 3, 2012
A smooth process of selection of the village election committee in Wukan [this week] is a declaration that Wukan is now on the path to legitimate elections, self-governance and a return to normal life; from this we can see that the people of Wukan are willing and able to voice their demands within the framework of the law, and to adequately exercise their rights.
On February 1, Wukan Village in Guangdong’s Lufeng City welcomed the excitement of election day. For many villagers, this was the first time they had voted in an election. Villagers intending to leave [the village] for jobs made a point of staying on in order to cast their ballots. Villagers who were motion challenged were pushed to the polling station in wheelchairs by their relatives. And ultimately, an 11-member village election committee was chosen, which will now be responsible for organizing new elections for the village committee.
From the original mass incident [involving villagers] to the resumption of self-governing elections, from the intervention of the provincial Party and government leadership to the formation of the village election committee, the evolutionary process of the Wukan incident has been a focus all along of outside attention. Without a doubt, the emphasis on “supremacy of the law” (法律至上) on the part of the Party and government since they intervened in the situation played an important role in making possible a favorable transition in this case. Now, the emergence of the village election committee is a declaration that Wukan is now on the path to legitimate elections, self-governance and a return to normal life. This is something people from all walks of society are happy to see, not just the villagers of Wukan.
After the Wukan incident occurred, the outside world turned its attention [on Wukan], and there were many different readings [of the situation]. Some even tacked various labels on to this incident. Now, the people of Wukan have shown through transparent and open elections that all along they were voicing their legitimate interests and pursuing their own rights. But looking back on this incident, this entire process has provided so much that calls on us to draw out its lessons, and it has shown us the path toward achieving grassroots democracy in the countryside.
The root of the Wukan incident lay in the resentment some villagers felt over how village cadres had handled such issues as land, [village] finances and elections. This resentment was ultimately about the rights and interests of the villagers. In dealing with interest disputes, what attitude should the local government take? If the local government is able to correctly assess interest conflicts and provide the people with legitimate channels for seeking effective mediation, then various interests can be balanced at a much lower cost and conflict avoided before the incident can develop [into something more serious].
The efficient, transparent and orderly selection of the election committee in Wukan village stands as a reminder to some government officials that they must trust that the people at the grassroots, including the villagers of Wukan, are willing and able to voice their demands within the framework of the law, and to adequately exercise their rights. In the words of Wukan Party branch chief Lin Zuluan (林祖銮): “So long as things are done according to policies and relevant laws and regulations, the ordinary people [of Wukan] support them. And the elections to come will continue in this spirit.”
In this process, the most important thing for the government is to maintain “supremacy of the law”. Particularly in facing real situations of conflict, the government must not only deal according to the law with illegal conduct, but must more importantly protect the legitimate rights of the people according to the law. Everything that has so far happened in Wukan has been within the framework of policies and laws. And this illustrates that so long as the system is respected, and the rights of the people are respected, many conflicts are entirely avoidable. This message has significance not just to Wukan alone.
One month from now, Wukan will hold elections for the village committee. So long as the principles of transparency and openness continue to hold, with full respect for the rights of the villagers of Wukan, the people of Wukan will be able to elect the village chief (能办事) they feel in their hearts is most “capable and can get things done.” And these normalized elections will also ensure that Wukan steps forward toward a better future.

The following post from Liu Zhiming (刘志明), an investigative reporter for China’s Economic Observer newspaper who writes under the pen name Liu Xiangnan (刘向南), was deleted from Sina Weibo on February 3, 2012. It was accompanied with the photo included below, a map of the Tibetan region of China’s western Sichuan province. Zhang currently has more than 36,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

Xinhua News Agency information: On the afternoon of January 23, in Luhuo County (炉霍县) of the Garze Autonomous Prefecture (甘孜州) of Sichuan, under incitement by illegal elements [or “lawbreakers”] who spread the rumor that “three monks had committed self-immolation and their bodies could not be given over to the government to handle”, more than 100 Tibetan laypeople gathered in the county seat, some bearing knives. They threw stones at police on duty and at armed police, and attacked the police substation. The incident resulted in the injury of five police officers, and one death and four injuries among the lawbreakers.

新华网的消息：1月23日下午，四川甘孜州炉霍县发生聚集、打砸事件，在有不法分子“将有3名僧人自焚，不能把遗体交给政府处理”造谣煽动下，上百名藏族僧俗群众在县城聚集，部分人员手持刀具，并向值勤民警和武警投掷石块，冲击公安派出所。事件造成5名公安民警受伤，不法分子1死4伤。

The following post from Zhang Hongjie (张宏杰), a Chinese writer and historian, was deleted from Sina Weibo on February 2, 2012. It was accompanied with the photo included below. Zhang currently has more than 63,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

Various areas of Tibet have launched a “thankfulness education” program for Tibetans, and taking images of [Chinese Communist Party] leaders and “entering villages and homes” is the primary means of carrying out this thankfulness education. Rural households receiving [the posters] expressed their limitless gratitude to the Party and the government, saying they will not abuse the hopes and expectations of the Party and the government, and will resolutely preserve national integrity, solidarity among the nationalities, opposing separatism, conscientiously criticize the Dalai Lama clique, steadfastly moving with the Party.”

西藏各地对藏民开展“感恩教育”，把领导人画像“进村落户”活动做为开展感恩教育的重要形式。受赠农户纷纷表达了对党和政府的无限感恩之情，表示一定不辜负党和政府的期望，坚决维护祖国统一、民族团结，反对分裂，自觉揭批达赖集团，坚定不移地跟党走。

The following post from Tian Weihua (田炜华), a magazine editor in Beijing, was deleted from Sina Weibo on February 2, 2012. It is a re-post of another post by Qiu Yueshou (邱岳首). Tian Weihua currently has more than 120,000 followers on Weibo, according to Sina’s numbers. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

//@QiuYueshou Remembering Guo Quan of Nanjing Normal University.

NOTE: The post refers to the case of former Nanjing Normal University professor and political activist Guo Quan (郭泉), who was detained by police in 2008 and charged with “subversion of state power.” Guo is the founder of the New People’s Party (or New Democracy Party of China), an unauthorized political Party whose platform is to represent the interests of people petitioning for justice on social issues. Guo’s wife, Li Jing, and son arrived in the United States this month after fleeing China.
Tian’s (or Qiu Yueshou’s) original post follows:

//@邱岳首: 想念南京师范大学郭泉。