The following is a translation of a portion of an interview by the Chinese-language Global Times newspaper with veteran diplomat and former Ambassador to France Wu Jianmin (吴建民). In the interview, which the paper is publishing in installments, Wu addresses a range of issues, from tensions in the South China Sea to twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union.
In this portion, Wu discusses the importance of basic communication skills — which he says many Chinese youth and diplomats alike have in short supply — and urges a cool-headed approach to international affairs.

Global Times Editor’s Note: Since he withdrew from the front lines of diplomacy, veteran diplomat and former Ambassador to France Wu Jianmin (吴建民) has been as energetic as ever, and he is still a prominent figure in foreign diplomacy circles . . . On August 12, our Global Times journalist interviewed Wu Jianmin on the South China Sea issue, questions of Chinese foreign policy, current Chinese social problems, the U.S. and European debt crises, the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union and other issues. Wu Jianmin offered open and detailed responses to these issues. Recently, we have been continuously offering content from this interview, today being a selection of latter portions. We invite you to stay tuned!
Global Times: In the various political contexts of different countries, foreign diplomats generally have their own individual characters. You are very well know both inside and outside China, but many Chinese diplomats are quite unknown. Well, is this you think because, as they say, “There is no such thing as a minor matter in foreign affairs,” or because they don’t dare to speak out or don’t wish to, or is it some other reason?
Wu Jianmin: This problem does exist. Today, many of our leaders and cadres who go on visits to foreign countries don’t wish to see reporters and think that the more they talk the more they stand to lose. But the world really has a hunger to understand China. I believe the problem is that Chinese elites really lack the ability to engage in communication and dialogue, and there is a need for improvement. And so, I went to the Foreign Affairs University and started a communication studies class (交流学), which I teach myself. Now Zhao Qizheng (赵启正) and I are writing a book called Communication Makes Life Richer (交流使人生更美好). It is written for young people, many of whom don’t understand [the art of] communication. If you don’t understand communication many opportunities will be lost to you. So we need to grasp this [problem] from the roots, nurturing [these skills] in our universities. . . .
Global Times: Is this a situation that has to change?
Wu Jianmin: Actually, this situation is already changing. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already raised its requirements for foreign diplomats. Every year now you must make a report home about how many journalists you met with, how many public addresses you gave. There is an expectation that they make more public appearances and interact more with the media.
Global Times: You once said that if you had a second life you would still choose a life in foreign diplomacy, and media have said before that the stage of foreign relations is richer and more active because of the influence of Wu Jianmin. Ever since you withdrew from the front lines you’ve been involved with foreign relations activities. So, how do you explain your feelings to your friends in foreign diplomacy?
Wu Jianmin: After I graduated from university in 1959 I was engaged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. By the time I retired in 2009 it had been 50 years [in this line of work]. I really hope that our youth, and Internet users, have the capacity to think for themselves. The world is changing, and there are all sorts of different agitations and incitations (煽动). Those driving these incitations would like to push our youth along in one direction [of their choosing] in order to achieve their own objectives. And so our young people need to be very mindful of this sort of inflammatory language (煽动的言论).
What is the standard on which determinations should be made? Experience. For example, you say we should go to war (你说打好). Well, in your view what would the result be if we went to war with America? Is this the result China really wants? When calamity comes to the country and its people, who will bear responsibility for that? Of course those who whipped things up in the first place also bear responsibility. Experience is the best teacher.

According to a news report in Guangming Daily in September 2011, China has now said goodbye to the era of severe research and development funding shortages. But a new problem is rearing it’s head: research corruption. The article said, citing a report from the Ministry of Science and Technology, that while research and development funding has been increasing at a rate of around 20 percent a year, only about 40 percent of total funding is actually applied to research and development. That means about 60 percent of funding is wasted, embezzlement and misappropriation being the main forms of abuse. In this cartoon, posted by Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, lazy white-coated lab rats (representing research scientists, of course), drink wantonly from a flask labeled “research and development funding.”

Responding directly to a report by China’s official Xinhua News Agency on the charity scandal surrounding billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿), the special legal team for Lu’s World Eminent Chinese Business Association issued another “notice” this afternoon insisting no laws or regulations have been violated by Lu or any of his charity organizations.
A full translation of the notice, the 13th issued by the WECBA’s legal team since the scandal broke last month, follows:

World Eminent Chinese Business Association
China-Africa Project Hope Incident Special Legal Team
Notice
(2011, No. 13)
1. Up to this point, no office of authority has determined that the World Eminent Chinese Business Association is an “illegal organization,” and public opinion cannot replace the law.
2. The World Eminent Chinese Business Association is a legal organization registered in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and it has violated no prohibitive regulations in carrying out activities in mainland China.
3. The illegal organizations according to the Ministry of Civil Affair’s “Provisional Measures on Stamping Out Illegal Non-government Organizations” referred to by the Xinhua News Agency reporters [in the report dated September 8, 2011] is about mainland Chinese organizations that have not gone through registration with the Ministry of Civil Affairs but make bold to carry out activities in the name of associations. Concerning organizations legally registered in Hong Kong carrying out activities in mainland China, there are no prohibitive regulations.
4. Concerning legal issues involving the World Eminent Chinese Business Association, this legal team has already made a clear declaration in Notice No. 3. This legal team clearly stated in that notice that: “The World Eminent Chinese Business Association is acting within the law in carrying out public charity and other related activities in mainland China.” We advise everyone to refer to [that notice].
5. For all large-scale activities carried out by the World Eminent Chinese Business Association jointly with relevant organizations in mainland China, relevant mainland organizations are responsible for seeking the approval of relevant departments and for obtaining permits.
6. Will media and the public please not misread the report today from the Xinhua News Agency reporters, and we ask that various major media as they re-run the Xinhua release they respect the original and do not play with the headline. We hope that everyone objectively interpret the important information conveyed by the report: 1. Lu Junqing and Lu Xingyu have already truly donated 11 million yuan to China-Africa Project Hope (agreeing to donate 100 million), and the World Eminent Chinese Business Association, the Tianjiu Confucian Business Investment Group, Lu Junqing, Lu Xingyu, none have withdrawn management fees, Lu Junqing having even paid more than 5 million yuan to maintain an unprofitable enterprise. They have not sought personal gain in the name of charity; 2. China-Africa Project Hope has not in its entire operating process violated any relevant regulation of the country.
World Eminent Chinese Business Association “China-Africa Project Hope Incident Special Legal Team”
Chairman of Legal Team: Gao Zicheng (高子程)
Vice-chairman of Legal Team: Zhang Yong (张勇)
Legal Team Members: Gao Zicheng (高子程), Zhang Yong (张勇), Sun Hongli (孙宏礼), Ji Aiping (戢爱平), (兴英杰), Qi Xiaohong (戚晓红), Zhou Shifeng (周世峰), Ren Feifan (任飞帆).
September 9, 2011

Following initial reports on social media, Chinese media reported widely yesterday that a couple in Beijing were attacked on September 6 by the 15-year-old son of famous Chinese singer Li Shuangjiang (李双江) after a simple traffic accident. According to eyewitnesses, Li’s son, who was driving a BMW without a driver’s license, attacked the couple with another man within minutes allegedly rear-ending their car, beating them and shouting, “Who dares dial 110!”
For many Chinese, this incident bore eerie echoes of the “Li Gang case” of October 2010, in which the son of an influential police official in Hebei Province struck two university students with his car, killing one, while driving on campus. When finally stopped, the young man threatened others saying, “My father is Li Gang!” These words became a slogan in China summing up the problem of corruption, abuse of power and disproportionate privilege among government leaders and other elites and their family members.
The broader issue of privilege among China’s second-generation political and business elites is encompassed in two terms now widely used, the “power progeny” or “second-generation [of] officials” (官二代) and the “second-generation rich” (富二代). Li Shuangjiang’s son would be considered a prime example of the latter, as would Lu Xingyu (卢星宇), the daughter of billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) who is now embroiled, along with her father, in a scandal of her own.
In the lead editorial in today’s edition of The Beijing News, the term “second-generation rich” is not used explicitly. But the editorial deals generally with the issue of privilege and inequality of opportunity in China and what they mean for society.
These are issues that will no doubt be played out in many more cases to come.
A translation of the lead editorial in The Beijing News follows:

“Why Does a 15-year-old Dare to ‘Pick Fights and Make Trouble’?”
September 9, 2011
According to a report in The Beijing News, the son of vocalist Li Shuangjiang (李双江), who is suspected of driving without a license and attacking others, has already been arrested according to the law. There is nothing greatly suspenseful about the case, which in due time will be investigated and handled according to the law. But the repercussions of this suspected case of “troublemaking” certainly do not end here.
In all fairness, this dispute itself was quite plain and ordinary, and was not something awful. The direct damage resulting from it was also minimal. But the social impact is ugly. Not only the parents of those involved, but all society is perhaps asking: Why did a 15-year-old youth not even capable of bearing full legal responsibility for his actions act in such an aggressive manner? And how did the ideas and problem-solving impulses behind these actions take shape?
In the media and public appearances, Li Shuangjiang and his wife have often praised their son’s talents and abilities, and have allowed him to appear onstage in numerous public forums. At the age of 5, he became the “youngest ambassador for [China’s] Olympic big”, appearing onstage numerous times with his father to sing . . .
It’s not difficult to see that many of these opportunities and much of this limelight were not so much about the child’s talent, effort or professional skill so much as his being steeped in the light of being “Li Shuangjiang’s son.” And as for these undeserved opportunities for limelight, all sides gave them and received them in without the least unease, the famous Li Shuangjiang and his wife not only making them possible but clearly having no qualms whatsoever about it.
Everyone loves their children, but it is precisely this teaching by precept and example that might exercise a subtle influence, allowing the child to heap up the sense of relying on, trusting in and even reveling in the halo bestowed by their parents — believing that all of the conveniences and privileges enjoyed by “Li Shuangjiang’s son” are normal, and that just by raising the “great flag” of his parents he can live without restrictions and have whatever he pleases. Each time father and son took the stage, each instance of vaunting before the public, imperceptibly strengthened the son’s sense that he enjoyed special privileges.
Perhaps as a father Li Shuangjiang would not have hoped to instill in his son this sense [of superiority], but objectively speaking the possession of privilege and convenience itself is the best breeding ground for this sense of special rights and privileges.
Media have reported that Li Shuangjiang noticed from his sons keen interest and aptitude for cars from a young age, that when his son was young he would teach him hand-on-hand [how to drive] in the open space of their courtyard, and that he would compare driving cars to melodies and symphonies. The BMW without tags [involved in the recent incident] had previously been worked on, and the refitting was quite expensive, clearly not the kind of work that can be done by a youth on his own. A 15-year-old is unable to apply for a driver’s license under the law, and Li Shuangjiang and his wife must know this. They should also know that giving a motor vehicle to someone who does not possess a driver’s license is a violation of traffic laws. What is regrettable, though, is that they gave tacit consent, or even encouraged this symphony their son should not have played [ie, this recent incident]. . .
Parents are the first teachers of their own children, and while they may be proud of their kids they must not allow their kids to be puffed with pride. They must not allow their sons to wield special privileges that are not rightfully theirs, and act with [reckless] “courage,” because of [the parent’s] own status and name.
This incident has drawn a wave of public attention most of all because this is not an isolated case, and that to varying degrees [in different cases] these examples of youth misusing the resources of their parents and see public order and the public good as something to be spurned.
After this incident, Li Shuangjiang and his wife went to the hospital to visit the the woman who was beaten [by their son], and they apologized on behalf of their son saying that, “I didn’t teach my son properly,” that he would willingly submit to the victim “using a club to give me a good beating” and that he “would not indulge the errors committed by his own child.” This is proper behavior, and it might to some degree restore [Li Shuangjiang’s] image. But should we not as a society think deeply about why we had to wait for this kind of thing to happen before we confessed in this way?

Over the past few weeks, as commercial newspapers in China — most notably, Guangzhou’s hard-punching Southern Metropolis Daily — have been relentless in their pressure on billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) and his World Eminent Chinese Business Association, alleging improprieties with its charity activities, state media have remained quiet. All that changed late last night as China’s official Xinhua News Agency ran a lengthy “investigative” report called, “Raising the Curtain on Three Major Questions About ‘China-Africa Project Hope’.”
The Xinhua report is essentially a compilation of remarks from various sides of this story, including the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council — which is very critical of these “so-called ‘global'” events by ostensible overseas Chinese associations — billionaire Lu Junqing (as the official representative of all of the associations facing scrutiny), and other state offices and independent experts.
Comments reported from others are interspersed with “reporters’ investigation” sections in which the writers of the story insert other facts that help clarify the case or put remarks in perspective.
The following is a partial translation of the Xinhua report. We strongly encourage readers to have a look at the full version as well.

“Xinhua Viewpoint: Raising the Curtain on Three Major Problems at ‘China-Africa Project Hope’”
September 8, 2011
Reporters Zhou Ning (周宁), Li Dexin (李德欣) and Zhang Yu (张宇)
Recently, 24-year-old Lu Xingyu has drawn fierce attention from society because she posted on her microblog that she was the “executive chairman of ‘China-Africa Project Hope'” and “managed two billion yuan in project funds.” As the incident continued to ferment, the group behind “China-Africa Project Hope”, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA), suffered relentless questioning by the public. Was it legal for an outside association like the WECBA to hold events inside China? Was “China-Africa Project Hope” in violation of regulations? Was the fund in compliance by taking a 10 percent management fee from donations?
Concerning these three major questions, the [Lu Junqing] affair and the lessons it holds, Xinhua News Agency interviewed government authorities, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and parties to the “China-Africa Project Hope” affair for their responses.
Is it illegal for an overseas association like the WECBA to conduct activities inside [China]?
[Reporters’ Investigation] The State Council’s “Regulations on the Management of Registration of Social Associations” and the Ministry of Civil Affair’s “Provisional Measures on Stamping Out Illegal Non-government Organizations” stipulate that [associations] that have not registered and taking the liberty to carry out activities in the name of an association are regarded as illegal non-government organizations, and they should be suppressed and their illegal assets confiscated. The Ministry of Civil Affairs General Database on National Social Organizations does not include any registration information concerned the World Eminent Chinese Business Association.
[WECBA Chairman Lu Junqing] Our association is a global organization of Chinese businesspeople with a core comprising top-500 Chinese businesspeople and mainly composed of Chinese billionaires. It was formed in Hong Kong, with dual registrations as an association and a business, with registration names given as the “World Eminent Chinese Business Association” (legal representative Lu Junqing) and the “World Eminent Chinese Business Association Company Limited” (legal representative Lu Junqing) and Beijing representative office registration number (北京代表处注册号) 110000400160767.
Our association carries out charity activities inside [China] in the name of an association (以社团名义), and if we hold events jointly with other institutions, the association is only responsible for services on the public welfare side, and the market side of things (市场化部分) is entrusted to the Tianjiu Confucian Business Investment Group (legal representative Lu Junqing) which provides services to clients, collects relevant service fees and bears all business and legal responsibility.
The Tianjiu Confucian Business Investment Group supported the WECBA in jointly launching China-Africa Project Hope with the China Youth Development Fund [of the Chinese Communist Youth League], and committed to contributing ten million yuan every year to the China Youth Development Fund from 2011 to 2020, to be used in implementing Project Hope in various African countries.
[Overseas Chinese Affairs Office] Our office has never received any application for examination and approval for events concerning overseas Chinese from the WECBA. Our office has discovered that since 1990, a number of associations or organizations purporting to be “global” Chinese or overseas Chinese organizations, flying banners of “global,” “world” or “international” to carry out various overseas Chinese events, and these have internally impacted the normal operation of our own overseas Chinese work, doing damage to social stability in a number of local areas and to overseas cooperation . . .
Our office believes that these organizations have four principal characteristics: 1. they have names that do not reflect their real roles, and they exaggerate their membership rolls; 2. they are registered overseas, but carry out activities inside [China]; 3. they are full of bravado, often using the Great Hall of the People, the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse and other important national event sites to hold their events, and they falsely claim that they have close connections with our state leaders, and they abuse or illegally misuse the names of famous people in a bid for financial gain; 4. they accumulate wealth by dishonest means, and take the liberty of holding so-called “global” overseas Chinese activities with a clear financial motive within our borders.
For this reason, our office released a relevant document with the Ministry of Civil Affairs and other offices on January 2010 emphasizing that we would resolutely employ harsh measures to prevent so-called “global” overseas Chinese associations or organizations from holding activities in China and the abominable impact they have.
Is ‘China-Africa Project Hope’ in Violation of Regulations?
1. Is the “China-Africa Project Hope” for public good or private gain?
[Reporters’ Investigation] The official website of the China Youth Development Fund says that this fund is a public welfare fund. According to the sixth clause of the “Charter of China-Africa Project Hope” (“中非希望工程”基金章程) released by the China Youth Development Fund, the income for this fund comes not only from members of the World Eminent Chinese Business Association but also includes “donations from various corners of society.” Further, the donation hotline on the official website of “China-Africa Project Hope” give the phone number not of the China Youth Development Fund but of the WECBA, and the address given is for the Daheng New Epoch Technology Building (大恒科技大厦), which in fact is the office place of the WECBA in Beijing.
[China Youth Development Foundation Secretary Tu Meng (涂猛)] “China-Africa Project Hope” does not turn to the public for support, the source of the fund being the solicitation of members for donations by the WECBA. Donors sign a contribution agreement (捐赠协议) with the China Youth Development Fund, and at the same time directly deposit funds into the account of the China Youth Development Fund. Right now “China-Africa Project Hope” has already collected donations totaling 30.32 million yuan. The fund will take on the costs of construction of 20 schools in a total of five countries, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Namibia and Burundi, with each school receiving around 1.5 million RMB. Of these, Tanzania’s “Mosuoga” (摩唆嘎) Primary School has already started construction, with one installment of construction funds having already been given to contractors and the project slated to be finished by year’s end.
[Zhang Bufeng (张步峰), professor of administrative law at China University of Natioanalities] The biggest difference between public [welfare] funds and private funds (私募基金会) lies in the fact that the former is required in its annual report to make a public statement of where funds have been allocated, while the latter is required to make a report to its benefactors of how donations have been spent. However, any [organization] that “seeks donations from different sectors of society” (向社会各界捐赠) most certainly belongs to the category of a public fund (公募基金) and therefore has a responsibility to provide the public with information about its activities.

We wrote yesterday about the ongoing standoff between Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper and the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA), a private organization run by Chinese billionaire Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) whose charity activities have in recent weeks come under scrutiny. In a letter to Southern Metropolis Daily dated September 7, the WECBA said it would take legal action against the paper if it continued along its “path of errors,” running reports alleging the organization is guilty of deception. The newspaper has stood by its series of reports on Lu Junqing and the WECBA, and yesterday added another investigative piece to the mix, suggesting the stand-off is unlikely to mitigate.
But as the WECBA threatens legal action against Southern Metropolis Daily, it is now also facing a potential legal challenge of its own.
Zhou Xiaoyun (周筱赟), a well-known “Internet user” (知名网友) with a record as a professional journalist, issued a video statement yesterday through Chinese social media saying that he is in the process of filing a case against Lu Junqing (卢俊卿) and his lawyer, Zhang Yong (张勇), for allegedly damaging his reputation.
Here is the video on Tudou, one of China’s domestic Youtube clones:

In the video, Zhou Xiaoyun makes a statement of three points:

1. He is being represented by Beijing Cailiang Law Firm
2. The firm is working to file the case with the relevant court having jurisdiction
3. Evidence has already been preserved with a notary agency regarding the [alleged] violation of Zhou’s right of reputation (名誉侵权).

Chinese media have already reported on Zhou Xiaoyun’s action against Lu Junqing, which apparently stems from remarks made on August 30 by Zhang Yong, the head of the WECBA legal team.
The basic story is that on August 27, as questions swirled in the media and online about China-Africa Project Hope, a project administered by the WECBA in cooperation apparently with the China Youth Development Foundation of the Chinese Communist Youth League, the WECBA issued a notice offering a reward of one million yuan for the “black hand working behind the scenes” in the scandal — their assumption being that a particular competitor was trying to blacken Lu Junqing’s reputation.
The very same day the WECBA issued the notice, Zhou Xiaoyun, who was one of the earliest to post on the internet about China-Africa Project Hope, wrote on his microblog that he “surrendered himself,” and encouraged other web users to quickly inform on him and collection the one million yuan reward.
In a media interview on August 30, Zhang Yong, the lawyer, apparently called Zhou Xiaoyun’s confession was “a claptrap ploy to please the crowd, entirely with a mind to promoting himself.” These words prompted Zhou Xiaoyun’s accusation that the WECBA was impugning his reputation.
On September 1, lawyer Wang Cailiang (王才亮) issued a statement on Zhou Xiaoyun’s behalf, demanding that Zhang Yong apologize publicly.
Reports in the Chinese media on Zhou Xiaoyun’s action against the WECBA can be found at China Youth Daily here, at the Economic Observer here and at the New Business Daily here.

Back on August 18 we ran our first review of the then developing scandal surrounding China-Africa Project Hope — a Chinese charity initiative that says it plans to build hundreds of schools in Africa — and its founding charity organization, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association (WECBA). We followed up with a media interview by Lu Xingyu (卢星宇), 24, executive chairman and secretary-general of China-Africa Project Hope and the daughter of Chinese billionaire and WECBA chairman Lu Junqing (卢俊卿).
Already confused?
Certainly, this is a complicated story, and aside from our coverage at CMP, a brief story by China Daily back on August 19 and a good mini-summary at CSR Asia virtually nothing has appeared outside the Chinese-language press — that despite Lu Junqing’s star power in the Chinese business world. It bears noting that the WECBA is allegedly a private company formed in Hong Kong, is allegedly not registered (as required) with the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and that its partner in launching China-Africa Project Hope is apparently the China Youth Development Fund of the Chinese Communist Youth League (whose China Project Hope was enveloped in scandal years back).
For a quick rundown of some of the initial (and ongoing) doubts and questions surrounding the WECBA and its charity work, you can see our August 22 translation of an August 20 piece in Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily called, “Eight Big Lies of Lu Junqing and the World Chinese Eminent Business Association.”
The “Eight Big Lies” piece, in fact, is now front and center as the row between the WECBA and Southern Metropolis Daily intensifies this week, with the association alleging libel and threatening legal action and the newspaper digging in for a fight.
In response to a “Lawyer’s Letter” on August 30 spelling out the WECBA’s grievances, Southern Metropolis Daily circulated a letter yesterday in which it said it stood by its series of reports on China-Africa Project Hope and welcomed the resolution of this issue through legal means.
The WECBA quickly volleyed back with a letter dated today in which it accuses the paper of acting “utterly without sincerity.” The WECBA notes prematurely that it is pleased to see the the Southern Metropolis Daily has not issued another report on the association since August: “[T]his is a positive attitude that we welcome,” today’s letter says.
Lu Junqing must therefore be steaming from his ears at the report in Southern Metropolis Daily‘s “In-Depth Weekend” section today.

The “In-Depth Weekend” report, a hefty piece of investigative work, probes into another of Lu Junqing’s organizations.
We’ll work on this latest Southern Metropolis Daily investigative report when we can get to it. For now, we offer translations of yesterday’s letter from the newspaper on the stand-off, and of the WECBA response immediate following.

“Statement Concerning Our Series of Reports on the World Eminent Chinese Business Association”
On August 30, the World Eminent Chinese Business Association issued a “lawyer’s letter” (律师函) saying that this newspaper’s report “Eight Big Lies of Lu Junqing and the World Chinese Eminent Business Association,” published on page A32 on August 20, was an infringement, demanding that this newspaper clarify all of its inaccurate reports, canceling out their negative impact, and that it issue a public apology. Moreover, [the paper] must [said the “Letter”] issue a written response by September 4, and if a response was not issued in time, or these conditions were not agreed, then necessary legal steps would be taken; On September 5, the association issued a “Letter to Media Friends and Online Friends” (致媒体朋友与网友书), saying that “since the association made serious representations concerning Southern Metropolis Daily‘s gravely inaccurate and misguided report, [it has] already received positive feedback. Through reliable channels [it said], the two sides delivered positive information, expressing the will to resolve these disagreements and ensure tensions do not escalate . . .”
Concerning this matter, this newspaper makes the following statement:
(1) The series of reports on the World Eminent Chinese Business Association by this newspaper constitute basic work in the exercise of the media’s supervision by public opinion function, and [the paper] was not “misguided” by any person or any organization;
(2) This newspaper has never, through either verbal or written means, confirmed that this series of reports or any particular report therein is “untrue,” “partially untrue,” “seriously untrue” or any other statement of this kind;
(3) This newspaper does not consider itself to be in “disagreement” (矛盾) with the World Eminent Chinese Business Association. Any private interest or institution engaging in charity or other public welfare undertakings has an obligation to submit to monitoring and scrutiny by public opinion [or “media monitoring”]. This newspaper expresses its support for any genuine charity undertaking.
(4) This newspaper welcomes at any time the resolution of this dispute through legal channels.
This statement is hereby given.
Southern Metropolis Daily
September 6, 2011

The following is a translation of the WECBA’s response to the Southern Metropolis Daily letter posted above. This letter was posted on the WECBA website today.

Notice from the World Eminent Chinese Business Association
(Notice 12, 2011)
Letter of Negotiation Concerning the ‘Statement’ Issued by Southern Metropolis Daily
Southern Metropolis Daily Publishing House:
The “Statement” issued today by your honorable paper is utterly without sincerity, and our side expresses its firm refusal!
Supervision by public opinion (舆论监督) is a cleaning mechanism for social progress (社会进步的净化器), and the media sets the bottom line of social morals. Promoting truth-seeking and whipping back falseness, ugliness and evil is the media’s first duty. In the midst of the China-Africa Project Hope incident, the honorable newspaper’s reports about our association have been seriously in error. Not only has it failed to offer commendation for the enormous good done by the international charitable endeavor of China-Africa Project Hope, but it has without cause slandered the project’s operating unit, its founders and donors, losing sight of the most basic position to be held by a responsible media organization, crossing the basic moral line of media and causing immense damage to the international image of this association and its chairman, Mr. Lu Junqing (卢俊卿).
Even as we feel righteous indignation at this, we have decided through cool consideration to take a rational approach, trying fairer means before sterner ones, first opting to resolve this issue through discussion. First, we discovered there were “black hands” at work behind this matter, and we though you too might be victims (though it seems now we were too simple in thinking this). We did not wish to give these “black hands” an opportunity to profit form the quarrels of others. Second, we considered that the honorable paper’s initial intention was to uncover corruption in the charity sector, not to attack us out of enmity. Third, we hoped to achieve tolerance and understanding by facing the media and the public, rather than dealing ruthlessly [with this matter] from the outset. In this regard, our association has already shown the largest measure of goodwill, the largest measure of sincerity, the largest measure of conciliation and the largest measure of patience. We hope that you do not misread our goodwill.
As you on your end transmitted some information through an intermediary to the effect that you were preparing an internal reference document (内参), were preparing to go to Africa to investigate the Project, that you did not fear a lawsuit, that through a lawsuit you could raise your level of fame and continue to cut deep [in your reporting], etcetera, it is clear that the basic conditions for negotiation are not there. We have nothing to hide, and we know that the truth will ultimately prevail over lies. If you on your end insist on trusting things to chance, refuse to come to your senses, and continue along this path of errors, then you can only in the end drop a brick on your own feet.
In a large media organization, with many employees and complexity of task, it is difficult to avoid incorrect reporting for various reasons — this is something we can understand. But once a mistake has been made, bearing the necessary responsibility is an unquestionable moral duty, and it is also in the basic professional character of a responsible media. While we admire the honorable newspaper for its backbone, this “backbone” in no way implies that it can refuse to bear responsibility in cases of wrongdoing!
We have noted that from September 1 to September 6, the honorable paper has stopped its mean-spirited attacks on us, and this is a positive attitude that we welcome. Before, we have been forced to respond to error after error committed against us by your paper. Now, as you have desisted from your mean-spirited attacks, we for our part naturally see no further need to respond. Owing to the positive result of your side ceasing your mean-spirited attacks, we for our part preserve the face of your honorable paper before the public, giving the paper a suitable step offstage. This represents on our side the greatest expression of goodwill owing to the aforementioned reasons [ie, not further reports being published], but we hope this not be mistaken for a sign that we can be easily bullied!
The demands our side made in the “Lawyer’s Letter” [of August 30] were reasonable, not harsh, and we hope that you for your side deal with them seriously and offer a positive response. Our side is willing to wait with the utmost patience for the arousal of your conscience and your concrete action. If your side ignores our solemn and just stand and continues to add error upon error, our side will resolutely maintain the use of the law to protect our just rights and interests.
                                              
World Eminent Chinese Business Association
September 7, 2011

According to a September 2011 report in the Legal Mirror (据法制晚), “school choice” leapt to the top of the list of education-related concerns facing Chinese in a survey taken this year, with more than 80 percent of parents surveyed saying that school choice in their cities was a major problem, meaning they felt the options available to their kids were poor. Difficult admissions requirements and high fees moved down from the top of the list from last year. Difficulties in school choice were reportedly resulting in a host of other burdens for families as they changed household registrations (户口), paid massive “school selection fees” (巨额择校费) or sought well-placed connections to get their kids in schools of their choice. In this cartoon, posted by Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, concerned parents, bearing their children on their backs, try against all odds to scale the cliff that separates their children from the excellent school of their choice.

According to a report by the official Xinhua News Agency, “many” experts at the 2011 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in the Chinese city of Chengdu said that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China faced “a situation seriously threatening their survival,” with investment capital hard to find, costs high and labor scarce. Experts suggested employing various measures to assist SMEs in navigating the tough environment. In this cartoon, posted by Kunming-based studio Yuan Jiao Man’s Space (圆觉漫时空) to QQ.com, a long trail of travelers representing small and medium-sized enterprises in China cross through a bleak desert landscape littered with the bones of the dead as the sun blazes down.

Over a range of stories and concerns in recent months, from the bungled handling of the July 23 train collision in Wenzhou to the nagging topic of government departments opening up their records of the “three public expenses” — use of public vehicles, “public” trips overseas and “public” expenses for entertaining guests — the issue of open government information has moved front and center.
On August 3, top leaders released an official notice calling for more open release of information about the unfolding of sudden-breaking incidents in China and their handling by authorities.
An editorial in today’s People’s Daily again deals with the issue of open government information (OGI), arguing that while OGI faces many challenges in China, it is the way forward for both the public and the Party.
A translation of the editorial follows:

“Open Government Information is a Basic Drill for Democracy”
People’s Daily
September 2, 2011
The public cry for open government information has been loud, and expectations are high. In the midst of these expectations, it’s difficult for the government to avoid being sized up by ever more discriminating eyes. For this reason, as central departments release [information about] the “three public expenses” (三公经费), concrete issues like numbers not squaring up at some departments will be rapidly ferreted out by internet users.
Along with the continued development of socialist democratic politics (社会主义民主政治), as the appetite for public participation rises and the capacity for participation daily matures, a powerful force has already gathered. The “chief who enjoyed exorbitant cigarettes” [Zhou Jiugeng, former director of a property management bureau in the city of Nanjing] fell from office under [a wave of] online scrutiny, and reforms to personal income tax attracted 230,000 opinions [online]. This is not just a reality of the times that open government information must face — it also adds pressure to other areas of reform.
If we count from the implementation of the Ordinance on Open Government Information [in May 2008], open government information has only gone for three years. In the short space of these three years, whether in terms of institutional support and the building of platforms, or in terms of personnel or evaluation and assessment [of implementation], all areas are in the process of improving. The constant “thawing” of [outmoded] concepts and “ice breaking” in terms of practice have broken through the traditional idea that “the people must be used, but must not be aware” (民可使由之，不可使知之), and this is a mark of major progress.
We should also note that against the expectations of the people, [our gains on] open government information still fall far short. In Western countries, open government information already has a history of a half-century, but we were only just out of the starting gate as we came upon the turbulence of the information age. In China, open government information is not just a self limitation of powers carried out by the government, but it is in a foot race with the expectations of the public. It’s as though we’ve just come into the world with wails and are expected to get up and run. Certainly, this is both urgent and difficult.
Recognizing the difficulty of this endeavor, some local governments have wavered back and forth, full of reservations. In an era of dramatic social transition, when we are at a turning point in which [social] stability is under pressure and demands are high, when we face a fervor for participation among the masses the likes of which we have never before seen, and as we face cautionary warnings in reform in certain quarters that “[white-fisted] control spells death, and letting go brings chaos,” it’s clear what challenges face the robust promotion of open government information. But for our leaders this is an issue of urgency, not a question of choice. The demands of the central party, the trends of the times, the demands of modern politics, the hopes of the people, all together constitute a wave [pushing us in the direction] of reform of government affairs. As to the logic behind this, it is exactly as central party leaders have said, that there is risk in reform, but without reform the party will itself face hazards.
At this time, what is needed urgently above all else is a new governance framework (新型治理框架) that can promote orderly public participation and drive a virtuous circle of society. How to handle order and chaos, how to strike a balance between trust and skepticism, these are test questions such a framework must answer as we open up budgets and expenditures for official business, and even the personal assets of state officials, allowing the public to participate in policy making, administration and oversight. Employed properly, the force of public participation can be a force of progress. Used incorrectly, it can be a force of destruction. Leaders must have sufficient wisdom and capacity to harness the “innumerable flowing streams” of public participation through institutionalized channels. The level and quality of open government information will determine whether or not we will make the gains of progress that participation must bring, and whether we avoid the chaos that can come with participation.
In our present experience of open government affairs, subjectivity and ad hoc decision-making are still very much in evidence. A number of local [governments] are still accustomed to using specious justifications to avoid public demands for information. As to some information made openly available, the public isn’t interested, or can’t understand it [NOTE: meaning that a lot of information released by the government is overly technical or does not address the issues they want to know about]. In a definite sense, this has resulted in an antagonism between “power” (权力) and “rights” (权利), which can quite easily do damage to the zest for participation [or allowing participation]. Only by expanding the “institutional supply” (制度供给) of open [information], actively improving execution, feedback and monitoring of information openness and the standards such as responsibility [by government officials] that govern the process, further clarifying the standards, methods and responsibilities in terms of information openness, steadily unblocking the channels for remedy of the public’s right to know, can we ensure that the zeal for openness moves forward through completely “orderly” and “stable” channels.
Whether for the government or for citizens, open government information is a kind of basic drill for democracy (民主训练). Helping each other forward, active participation by the public and the government’s institutional supply (政府的制度供给) will steadily raise [our people’s] democratic disposition (民主素质), and social harmony and progress will exist not only as an ideal in our hearts.

[Frontpage photo by Marcin Wichary available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.]