In 2009, the Google Books Project was collectively condemned by Chinese writers for the unauthorized scanning of Chinese works. Representing the “victimized” writers, the China Written Works Copyright Society held three separate discussions with Google. Google issued a formal apology and proposed a mediation scheme in which it would pay 60 dollars per work, and provide writers with 63 percent of revenues from online readings of the works.
This whole affair prompted an uproar in Chinese literary circles. Many pointed fingers at Google’s “Do no evil” policy, asking whether breaching copyright was good or evil. But at the time, no one applied the same logic or gave any thought to the greater evil at work behind this question. That’s right. I’m talking of course about China’s leading search engine, which vanquished Google on the domestic market. I’m talking about Baidu.
On World Consumer Right Day earlier this month, March 15, Baidu’s “evil” finally detonated among copyright holders in China. The China Recording Industry Committee of the China Audio-Video Association and a group of prominent artists independently issued two letter lodging their protests — “Open Letter of Opposition to Baidu” (抗议百度公开信) and “March 15 Letter by Chinese Writers Opposing Baidu” (三一五中国作家讨百度书).
Both documents pointed fingers at Baidu Books, the search engine’s library service, accusing it of violating the rights of musicians and writers. The “March 15 Letter by Chinese Writers,” written by the hand of author Murong Xuecun (慕容雪村), said: “They [Baidu] have stolen our works away. They have stolen our rights away. They have stolen our property. Baidu Books has become a market for stolen goods.”
What is Baidu Books? According to its official introduction, it is a platform built and operated by Baidu.com Inc, allowing web users to browse and download documents and other materials from a variety of sources. By uploading files, you can accumulate points that you can then apply for the downloading of materials you need yourself. Owing to this feature, Baidu Books has developed rapidly, and there are now close to 200 million different books and other materials available. A great many of these are materials whose distribution through the platform is not authorized by authors or publishing houses.
The China Written Works Copyright Society now recognizes that Baidu’s evil surpasses that of Google by a factor of one-hundred. “After rights violations by Baidu Books occurred, they might at least have come out with a proposal to resolve the issue, actively negotiating with Chinese copyright holders, but Baidu’s attitude throughout has been cold and indifferent. Baidu has seized on the weakness that while China’s copyright laws are in place, they are imperfect and incomplete. They are playing a game of words, but have a weak sense of social responsibility. They have also seized on this psychology among Chinese web users that it’s great for everything to be free.”
Since last year, there have been many rights actions taken against Baidu Books. But Baidu has invariably applied the “haven principle” in cases of copyright, saying it has no obligation to examine materials uploaded by web users and has no responsibility for rights violations that might occur. The origin of the online “haven principle” lies with the Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance (信息网络传播权保护条例), which took effect on July 1, 2006, and stipulates that when database and search engine providers receive notification of violations by right holders they can avoid the legal obligation of compensating the rights holder simply by disconnecting the online link.
This is clearly a deliberate shifting of responsibility on Baidu’s part. When web users upload mass amounts of materials, can Baidu really claim this is not a situation in which it is “fully aware or should be aware” that copyright violations are happening? Copyright lawyer You Yunting (游云庭) has said, “Baidu Books and Baidu MP3 have both established clear categories or lists for copyrighted materials, which demonstrates that Baidu is cognizant of its violations. Moreover, Baidu is profiting by advertising sold into pages where copyrighted materials are being provided, so this isn’t just about gratuitously providing information.”
Article 36 of China’s Tort Liability Law (侵权责任法) stipulates very clearly that: “Where a network service provider knows that a network user is infringing upon a civil right or interest of another person through its network services, and fails to take necessary measures, it shall be jointly and severally liable for any additional harm with the network user.”
China’s internet industry is guilty of original sin when it comes to copyright violations, and this extends to major web portals like Sina in their development phase as well as to the damages incurred more recently by the music industry as a result of Baidu MP3. Even while web portals in China are becoming more conscious and attuned to copyright issues, Baidu has ultimately resisted dealing with copyright violations through its MP3 search service, even in the face of repeated legal action. Progressively, Baidu has extended this sort of piracy to other sectors, such as books and online literature.
Use the Google search engine to search “Baidu” and “right violations” in Chinese (百度+侵权) and you are returned more than 10 million search results. Of course, one important reason why Baidu has acted so recklessly in its copyright violations is that a massive population has already emerged in China that has accepted and approved of the idea that content should be free. One factor is rooted in a very factual problem, which is that right holders who have seen their rights violated find it difficult to unite in action against these violations. If they are unable to engage in collective bargaining, then the likelihood of victory against Baidu is small.
Baidu’s arrogance is a direct result of its majority control of the industry. At the same time, the government has been remiss in its supervision. Finally, our society as a whole has failed to respect the work that goes into intellectual property, and has failed to respect the value of the creative act. This has helped to fan the fires of copyright violation online.
Copyright violation is a long-standing problem, not limited to the internet. The internet has only made piracy more convenient and cost-effective.
Voices within the industry have finally begun airing their views on Baidu’s monopolization of the industry and copyright violation practices. Li Guoqing (李国庆), the CEO of online retailer Dangdang, announced recently that the site would pull millions of dollars in advertising on Baidu beginning April 1 this year. Baidu is drawing criticism internationally as well. The Japan Book Publisher’s Association has voiced its displeasure with copyright violations, and the U.S. Trade Representatives Office put Baidu on its list of international services that aid piracy.
Addressing this problem at its source, however, will require the awakening of Chinese users to the problem of copyright violation. Chinese internet users have to understand that the failure to protect rights of any kind is a net loss for Chinese society.
A version of this editorial appeared in Chinese at Southern Metropolis Daily.

The devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan has drawn the attention and sympathy of the world. In the midst of the story, Japanese media have been showered with praise for their professional, sober and even-handed approach to reporting the disaster.
Japan’s national public broadcaster, NHK, also known as the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, was swiftly on top of the story with direct broadcast, offering information about the situation in the disaster area and providing regular follow-ups on which most media large and small around the world have depended for their own treatments. NHK footage has appeared on CNN, BBC Al-Jazeera, China Central Television and Hong Kong’s RTHK, to name just a few.
Soon after disaster struck, more than 200 journalists from central Party media in China as well as commercial media were sent to Japan to report the story. What seemed a good start, however, quickly suffered an about-face, as reporters were recalled just a few days later under fears of possible radioactive fallout.
In an important sense, this disaster has been a test of international media — a trial, you might say, of their soft capacities. Japanese media, and particularly NHK, have garnered praise for their reporting of the disaster, and as Chinese media have fared less well, cultural differences between the Chinese and Japanese have been a hot topic of much discussion among Chinese. It bears emphasizing, however, that systems and structures account for the biggest differences, and the strength shown by the Japanese people is not a simple matter of national or cultural character. In fact, underlying this so-called national identity are a host of historical, cultural, social and political systems and factors.
There is no need for Chinese to belittle themselves with generalizations. Instead, on the media question, they must address the differences between Chinese and Japanese media in terms of institutional readiness, drawing lessons that benefit future development.
Formerly Tokyo Radio, NHK has a history going back more than 80 years. The national broadcaster does not run advertisements, and its operations are financed by the government and through audience donations. Japan’s Law Concerning Broadcasts stipulates that Japanese citizens having radios or television sets receiving NHK broadcasts should voluntarily offer financial support.
NHK is the only news organization in Japan authorized by law to provide information on major disasters, and it therefore has an obligation to provide information to the public about disaster preparation and relief. Japan is especially prone to natural disasters, and NHK is braced for disaster reporting, with comprehensive plans in place and material and personnel at the ready. In last year’s October edition of Chinese Journalist, one of the principal official publications in China dealing with journalism, published by Xinhua News Agency, two Chinese correspondents posted to Tokyo, He Degong (何德功) and Liu Haoyuan (刘浩远) introduced NHK’s contingency plans for disaster reporting.
NHK, for example, shares information with the Japan Meteorological Agency and the Ministry of Transport, the latter being the national agency that handles infrastructure construction, transportation and land management. The Japan Meteorological Agency has seismometers set up all over Japan, which can instantly measure earthquake intensity and magnitude. In addition, NHK has developed its own equipment combining seismometers, cameras and recording capabilities. With the use of this equipment, NHK can reproduce conditions at the scene of a quake or other disaster.
NHK has also situated its own automated video cameras in certain areas — train stations, airports, downtown areas, high-altitude areas and areas prone to tsunamis. Employing this network, NHK is able to quickly obtain images of disaster situations. The broadcaster has also worked with Japan’s Ministry of Transport to set up cameras along principal river courses, which are networked to publicly release video.
NHK even has its own research division, developing high-tech broadcasting equipment and capabilities. The filming of the recent tsunami relied on precisely these technologies.
Naturally, we have to take care not to idealize NHK and Japanese media. Every year, about a quarter of NHK’s programs are broadcast at the behest of the Japanese government. Many of these programs are meant to disseminate the government’s view on international issues or “important national policies.” In reporting on the earthquake and tsunami, NHK has distinguished itself with its rapid relay of facts. But there has at the same time been a woeful shortage of tough questioning of the Japanese authorities.
As it continues with its reporting of the disaster, NHK faces real questions and challenges over whether it can maintain its independence, fully disclose information and properly monitor the government. The Wall Street Journal revealed recently, for example, that the company operating the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), put off using seawater to cool one of its six reactors because it did not want to risk damaging its assets. It has also emerged that Japan’s Self-Defense Forces needlessly delayed relief efforts at power stations affected by the disaster.
Distinguished among Chinese language media, journalists for the Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television continued to report from the front lines after most mainland reporters were recalled. Huang Haibo (黄海波), assistant station director at Phoenix TV, has been one of the few non-Japanese journalists on the front lines to speak Japanese. Equipped with protective gear, radiation detection equipment and a cameraman, he has been making reports from just outside the 20 kilometer exclusion zone surrounding the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
Mainland Chinese media made a promising start, but quickly pulled back as fears of radiation loomed. China Central Television did report word of the Japan quake 20 minutes after it occurred, and afterward broadcast live footage from NHK several times. On the evening of the day of the quake, CCTV began live broadcasts and began transferring reporters to the scene. But that night, CCTV’s Nightly News (新闻联播) continued to focus its coverage on the “two meetings” of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Congress. Subsequent reports were all phone links with reporters.
Media from all over China did their best to get to the scene of the disaster as soon as possible, but they were unprepared, rushing into battle in haste, if you will. But conditions in the area devastated by the quake and tsunami were grave. Some Chinese reporters on the front lines were sending out calls through their microblogs looking for Japanese-speaking Chinese who could serve as interpreters, and they explained that they were stuck in Tokyo because their cars were low on fuel.
Reporting from the scene is the heart of good news reporting and a mark of professionalism. By being on the scene, Chinese journalists might provide a unique perspective on the story and deal with other questions of immediate concern to Chinese, such as the whereabouts of Chinese citizens in the disaster area. But in the age of new information technologies, news audiences are also potential news producers, and so-called “citizen journalists” can also broadcast information from the scene, including video.
Given these changes, traditional media face an immense challenges. They must respond by going beyond the scene of the story to offer in-depth and multi-dimensional facts and views.
Dan Chung, a photographer for Britain’s Guardian newspaper, went to the scene of the disaster with a colleague and released a wonderful series of photographs. The Associated Press, the BBC and The New York Times were not able to outdo NHK in terms of on-the-scene reporting, but they used computer programming to produce illuminating infographics to help interpret and understand the disaster and its scale.
For Chinese news media, transferring personnel and resources to the scene of the disaster is just breaking the ice. The most immediate challenge is to build the systems and supporting infrastructure necessary to get on top of disaster stories. Even under an atmosphere of strict media controls inside China, such a system would be a mark of progress.
Most disappointing in the midst of the Japan quake were Hong Kong’s newspapers, which didn’t miss the chance to build up the story, splashing up sensational headlines in a cheap bid to grab readers. Some daily newspapers even manufactured fear with headlines like, “Fallout crisis spreads to Hong Kong” and “Total disaster in eastern Japan.” As the disaster was a genuine source of sympathy and feeling, the sensational opportunism of Hong Kong media was a regrettable contrast.

In January this year, Chang Ping (长平), a former CMP fellow and one of China’s most outspoken columnists, was forced to resign from the Southern Daily Group, where he had long been a permanent fixture, writing for Southern Weekend, Southern Metropolis Daily and other publications.
Last week’s edition of Sunday Life, a supplement of Hong Kong’s Ming Pao newspaper, ran an interview with Chang Ping by Pei-fen Li (黎佩芬) at Hong Kong Baptist University, where Chang is currently serving as a research fellow.
In the interview, Chang discusses censorship (and self-censorship) in China, the changes Chinese media have undergone, and the challenges they continue to face.

Q:
Do you all actually know where the line is? As we see it, you are very brave. For example, Time Weekly editor Peng Xiaoyun (彭晓云) doing [a special feature on] “100 People of the Times” and selecting Zhao Lianhai (赵连海), which was later ‘shelved’ [under pressure]. These are the kinds of things we routinely do at Sunday Life. But we don’t have to worry about running into trouble. In your case, though, it’s courageous.
Chang Ping:
And so she has to pay the price. Before you do it you’re never quite sure of the price. You know you’re taking some measure of risk, but sometimes you just want to try, because if you don’t try you’ll never know for sure. We don’t have a press law [in mainland China], and the lines are very unclear. If you don’t test them you have no way of knowing where they are . . . In a large sense, they rely for [effective controls] your own self-censorship and grasp, on your self-discipline and phone calls from leaders [delivering directives]. But the words of leaders are not sufficiently clear either, so we talk about grasping the spirit [or sense] of our leaders. Your leaders are the ones you answer to, or those above them.
Q:
Self-censorship cannot be avoided?
Chang Ping:
It cannot be avoided.
Q:
It’s a part of life?
Chang Ping:
Yes.
Q:
This is not how it works in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a basic foundation of free speech. If a report shirks or conceals [certain facts] it will be criticized as a case of self-censorship.
Chang Ping:
For us [criticism comes when] we’ve said too much of what we shouldn’t. For you it’s when you’ve not said enough.
Q:
You’re trying. And perhaps the authorities are trying to, loosening their grip to see where you’ll go, and tightening back up when there’s a problem.
Chang Ping:
Sometimes this [tightening] happens because of some temporary thing, such as the Beijing Olympic Games, or the Asian Games. We are asked to reign ourselves in . . .
Q:
It’s the public that loses out, right? They should have a right to know. Do ordinary people have any conviction about this?
Chang Ping:
In recent years some media have told the public when they have an opportunity that they should have the right to know. But the official view is that if the media say too much this will cause social chaos and messy thinking. [They] say media report false information, create rumors or mislead [the public]. In the case of SARS, for example, if no one is told anything, everyone can go on living well, but as soon as you tell everyone they will live in terror.
Q:
So SARS in 2003 was a turning point?
Chang Ping:
It began before 2003, but 2003 further emphasized this fact. The Ministry of Health and the mayor of Beijing had to step down because they reported it too late.
But in fact, when officials delayed reporting [of other cases] later on, they did not have to step down, and so there was no real and substantive change. Stepping down is just a break. They still get paid, their treatment does not change. When our leaders are caught up in political infighting, it’s all about face, and the only impact is a matter of face. [Former top Shanghai leader] Chen Liangyu (陈良宇) is comfortable in prison, and it’s all half open. None of the perks really change, for example vice-ministerial status, sitting up front on airplanes, having one’s own driver, access to special foods (they won’t worry about eating poisonous foods), how much money they get, having police escorts.
Q:
Southern Metropolis Daily was launched in 1997, and it was seen as serving a vanguard role in the media. What was the role of media in society at the time?
Chang Ping:
Before Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour, the media were propaganda tools of the Party . . . After the Southern Tour, marketization took root in various corners [of society]. I entered media at that time. At that time if you could get your hands on a publishing license (kanhao) then you could launch a paper, and a kanhao could be sold or rented out. Major newspapers like Nanfang Daily, China Youth Daily, Beijing Youth Daily, all of them applied for licenses so they could launch spin-off papers and make money. Southern Weekend, Southern Metropolis Daily, and eventually Southern People Weekly, are all examples of this [kind of spin-off activity].
The media used marketization to open up more space, making newspapers for the public, and making newspapers for the sake of advertising [revenues]. While Southern Metropolis Daily was not launched until 1997, it was born against this background. After 1992, many metro newspapers [spin-offs relying on advertising] emerged all over the country, and many people with ideals and aspirations for journalism, who had no opportunities [for solid work] at the Party newspapers, also went to the metro newspapers. They used marketization as a weapon on the one hand, and on the other they tried to open a path for their own aspirations . . .
Q:
Recently, have [media in China] gone backwards? Remarks by Premier Wen Jiabao during the recent “two meetings” about human rights and democracy were deleted by Guangzhou media. How is it that even the words of Premier Wen can be deleted?
Chang Ping: Recently things have been very uneasy in the [Chinese] media. Even after the media commercialized [marketized], official controls on the media were not broken through. Also, commercial controls on the media emerged at the same time. Once they’ve made a bit of money, people are less brave. They want to preserve their own interests. They are more inclined toward self-censorship. Lately these two factors are quite serious in the media, and they [commercial interests and power interests] in fact often work together.
Do you know about [guilt by] implication? It’s like in the case of the One-Child Policy, by which if a woman in a village is found to have given birth to too many children, her neighbors are fined, because they neglected to inform on her . . . Within the same media group, if [say] Southern People Weekly, [a spin-off of Southern Metropolis Daily], makes a misstep [in terms of propaganda policy], then Southern Metropolis Daily will be forced to pay. This is their way of managing things.
The internet has opened up some space for expression. Ordinary people whose voices might not be heard can open up their own microblog accounts. But many people fail to realize the other side of this, which is that these web companies and commercial in orientation, and their [business] interests are their first concern. Overseas, Twitter makes no attempt to organize conversations, but Sina [which operates China’s largest domestic Twitter-like weibo platform], invites celebrities to come and join, sets up certain topics of conversation, builds up issues. Sina stock market value last year went up threefold. Out of fear that these things will be shut down, they supervise it themselves, and cooperate with the propaganda department.
Breaking through the control of the media will require pushing for changes to the [political] system.

FURTHER READING:
Chang Ping interview with Danwei.org, March 1, 2011

On March 3, just days ahead of the opening of the annual “two meetings” of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) and Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Jiang Yu (姜瑜) responded to concerns over mistreatment of foreign journalists in China by issuing a warning. “Don’t use the law as a shield,” she said. “The real problem,” Jiang elaborated, “is that there are people who want to see the world in chaos. They want to make trouble in China. For people with these kinds of motives, I think no law can protect them.”
Just one week later, in the midst of the “two meetings,” China’s top legislator, Wu Bangguo (吴邦国), declared that a “socialist system of laws with Chinese characteristics” has already been fully established in China — an achievement he lauded as a “major milestone.”
But for many legal experts in China watching developments in recent months and years, statements like those made by Jiang Yu on March 3 expose a basic disregard for laws among some officials that underscores just how far China has yet to go.
In its latest edition, released last Thursday, Guangdong’s Southern Weekend ran an editorial by Chen Youxi (陈有西) that is clearly a direct response to Jiang Yu’s remark to foreign journalists on behalf of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A partial translation of the editorial follows:

“The Law Should Be Everyone’s Shield”
Southern Weekend
March 17, 2011
Chen Youxi (陈有西)
During the “Cultural Revolution” there was nothing left of the law, and this caused the entire nation to slide into civil strife. Injustice prevailed everywhere, and even the chairman of the republic [Liu Shaoqi] could not be protected. To a large extent it was in drawing lessons from this tragedy that our past 30 years of opening and reform have been not just 30 years of economic reform, but also 30 years of rapid development in building a legal system. Our legal provisions are now more or less complete, and the problem of having no statutes to apply has basically been resolved. And so, during the “two meetings” this year, chairman Wu Bangguo (吴邦国) solemnly declared that a socialist system of laws has been basically established. The general consensus in society now is that the goal in the present era is to move from having relevant laws to ensuring that these are observed and strictly enforced.
The focus in the present era is already on normalizing the [exercise of] authority by means of the law. The crux of ruling the nation according to the law is controlling officials according to the law, and controlling power according to the law. In this particular historical period, clashes in legal thought have become complex, and there are some rather unharmonious strains. During the “two meetings” this year, some officials declared: “The law should not be used as a shield.” This presented a stark contrast with the solemn declaration that our legal system has been basically established. [The remarks] drew some glances, and caused some to realize just how difficult the transition to rule of law is.
“The law should not be used as a shield” is perhaps just a momentary slip of the tongue, but it reveals the hidden thoughts of a number of officials, and it is worrisome. It gives people the impression that China’s legal system is little more than a slogan or an accessory, something that can be used when it suits the purpose. When the government requires the law, the law can serve as a set of mandatory rules the population must respect; when it seems the law restrains one’s hand, it can be set aside. It’s as though the law is one-directional, serving to check the population but not to check power. If the law comes to be used as a tool, then clearly it is seen as something without sacred importance and not deserving of reverence — just as something utilitarian.
. . .
Right now there’s a saying going around in the legal world [in China], that rule of law is in retreat. People may have different views on whether or not rule of law is really retrogressing, but the legal consciousness of some officials in China today is certainly moving backward. This is a fact. This is not just about some people declaring, in defiance of the main theme at the “two meetings” this year that our legal system has basically been built, that “the law should not be used as a shield,” or that, “[For people with these kinds of motives,] I think no law can protect them.” But other shocking remarks frequently pop out of the mouths [of officials]. Things like, “Are you speaking for the Party, or for the people?”Or, “Without forced demolition there would be no New China.” Or, “Going against the government, that’s wicked.” Or, “Self-immolation itself is a violent means of opposing demolition and removal.” These shocking statements seem at first glance to be incidental, but in fact they expose the blind faith these officials have in power, and the contempt they have for rules. [WSJ Blog on MOFA press conference].
The future is bright, but our real situation is severe. If we wish to turn laws on paper into real rule of law in practice, if we want to make a smooth transition to a system of rule of law, the core task facing us right now is to ensure that officials constantly respect the boundaries of the law. It is as delegate Zhou Guangquan (周光权) said, the focus of popularizing the law (普法) must mean a transition from [the law] applying to the ordinary people to officials abiding by the law, and the law serving as an important determining factor in transfers and promotions [for Party and government officials]. Only in this way can the legal system become the order respected by the whole of society. Only in this way can the whole nation operate with order and according to rules. And only in this way can every person [in our society] be free of fear. Only in a country ruled by law, where the law is supreme, can we ensure that the tragedy that faced Chairman Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇) is not replayed.

Watching China Central Television’s Nightly News (新闻联播) on March 10, I was completely taken aback. The 30-minute newscast placed news of the earthquake in Yingjiang, Yunnan province — which happened that very day, with serious loss of life and property — way back at the 27th minute. What’s more, coverage slide by in a flash. The news story was given less attention than a forum on revolutionary heroes and Gaddafi’s victories against Libyan rebels.
The 27 minutes of content prior to the brief spot on Yingjiang was all devoted to National People’s Congress (NPC) delegates, who glorified our building of a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics, and went on about how prosperous our people are, and how democratic the “two meetings” of the NPC and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference have been. What kind of journalism is this? I was truly shocked.
A number of friends have rolled their eyes accusingly, wondering why I bother watching the CCTV Nightly News anymore. Inevitably, I respond that, first of all, my writing focuses criticism on Chinese current affairs. If I don’t watch the CCTV Nightly News, where will I focus my research? When I watch American TV, my purpose is to reflect on America.
Secondly, if you don’t watch CCTV Nightly News, can you just pretend it doesn’t exist? In fact, it permeates every facet of your life, and it also influences your children and grandchildren. Even if you bury your head in the sand, this official news program is still out there, guiding you and everything around you. There’s nothing you can do about it.
Many of my friends say I’m just making a fuss. After all, many important news events in the past, such as the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, and riots in Xinjiang in August 2009, did not make the headlines at CCTV Nightly News. It only makes sense, then, that Yingjiang didn’t have prominent play. But this is wrong, nevertheless. The earthquake is a natural disaster, without any political dimension whatsoever. Such events are generally regarded as the biggest of disasters, and most countries in the world put news about one’s own earthquakes in the headlines, particularly when there are deaths, injuries and loss of property.
The CCTV Nightly News showed NPC chairman Wu Banguo (吴邦国) saying: “Considering China’s national situation, we solemnly make clear that we will not implement [a system of] multi-party rule in turn, [we] will not implement diversity of guiding ideologies, [we] will not implement separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, [we] will not implement federalism, or privatization.” He even announced that a socialist legal system has already emerged [in China]. I suppose with this news the delegates at the NPC could relax — they would have another opportunity next year to travel to Beijing and represent the people of the nation.
How did they represent the people this year?
As the focus turned to welfare issues, one delegate suggested ceasing use of the term “rural worker” (农民工). Another delegate suggested that favoring instead the terms “employee” or “personnel” would help eliminate prejudice and make “rural workers” feel a bit better. Will this kind of superficial change become part of their [project of] “making the people prosperous”?
Call public functionaries “public servants” and they will still be corrupt. I think the only right way is for us all to become full-fledged citizens, whether we are rural workers or public functionaries.
That the label rural worker is felt to be prejudicial is but a reflection of scorn for their status, treatment and occupations. When we say “thief”, it isn’t the word that grates but the conduct it implies. In the United States, farmers proudly identify themselves as farmers. So what we need are changes not in nomenclature but changes in the actual status and treatment of “rural workers.” Once rural workers receive fair and normal treatment, is there really any great difference between employees, rural workers, urban workers or public functionaries?
This piece originally appeared in Chinese on Yang Hengjun’s blog.

Just as China grapples with widespread fears over possible fallout from Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis — with a rush by citizens this week to horde salt in the belief it might help stem the effects of radiation — the country is dealing with yet another food safety crisis as well, this time over pork. Earlier this week, a report on the state-run China Central Television said Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development Co Ltd, China’s largest meat processor, had been selling pork containing high levels of meat-leaning additives identified in the media as ractopamine and/or clenbuterol.
In excessive amounts, these additives can cause serious health issues in humans. Li Zhiqi (李志起), an expert with the University of International Business and Economics, told The Beijing News yesterday that the use of such additives to produce leaner meat was not confined to Henan Shuanghui, and that the problem was common in the industry.
This is not the first time China has been hit with concerns over dangerous additives in pork products. In 2006, 336 people were reportedly sickened in Shanghai by pork containing clenbuterol, which has been used worldwide as a performance-enhancing drug and is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. In 2007, China suspended imports of animal products from the United States, citing the presence of banned additives, including ractopamine. A range of so-called “beta-agonists,” including clenbuterol and ractopamine, are approved for use in the United States. South Africa and Mexico, but banned in China and the European Union.
There may be a more complicated story behind the scenes here about the global use of these and other agents in meat products. But as state media have continued in recent weeks to drum home the point that Chinese are prosperous, secure and content with the performance of the Party and government, this latest food safety scandal has rattled nerves and sparked anger.
Here is a translation of comments under the news report from The Beijing News in the order they appeared earlier today at QQ.com:

腾讯常州市网友 中国人20小时前
Finally I hear a real expert speaking the truth. I’m moved. I’m truly moved. In real life, there are so few experts who have a conscience like this.

腾讯绵阳市网友 马丁——牧师18小时前
God! In the past I was fond of Sanlu, but Sanlu died. Now I’m fond of Shuanghui, but Shuanghui will die soon. All-powerful God, I want to say to you: Who I really like best are our inspectors in various industries!!! Amen . . .

腾讯网友 yfz19小时前
All of you so-called ‘civil servants’, what are you doing most of the time? Why is it that only after something big breaks you come out and give it ‘top priority’, and after the storm has passed let everything go on as it always had. Why do we taxpayers support you at all?

腾讯北京市网友 彼岸花开17小时前
This matter should be pursued all the way to the Bureau of Quality and Supervision. When products come out the first step is to inspect them for quality. I don’t know if everyone saw previous reports. Just by paying money you can get a ‘pass check’. [These inspectors] are eating from the table of the state but doing nothing for the people. It’s abominable!

腾讯江苏省网友 冰糖葫芦18小时前
I just want to know why it is that these problems require uncovering by the media. What are the relevant [government] departments doing? They are supported by the taxpayers!!!

腾讯网友 老百姓17小时前
The Sanlu incident was handled too leniently, and couldn’t serve as a warning. [The people responsible] should be found out and firmly, quickly and severely dealt with with death penalties. It should be like in the early days of Liberation, when dishonest traders who hurt the ordinary people were lined up and shot.

腾讯网友 ~清清山溪~17小时前
It’s a tragedy. There are minefields all around the Chinese people. Ultimately this comes down to a loathsome ruling class playing with power without any scruples whatsoever.

腾讯金华市网友 一杯清水18小时前
I support Wang Lijun (王立军). Those responsible for making harmful products should be shot.

腾讯网友 四夕王一人可53分钟前
‘Finally I hear a real expert speaking the truth. I’m moved. I’m truly moved. In real life, there are so few experts who have a conscience like this.’ Even our true experts are fake! Why is it that we need an expose from China Central Television before the problem of illegal additives in pork gets out and experts show their faces?

腾讯北京市网友 阿呆1小时前
Experts say: This is common . . . I have no words.

腾讯包头市网友 我心飞翔1小时前
When Sanlu ran into trouble that year, the whole industry was dragged in. This year Shuanghui runs into trouble, and are we supposed to believe that its peers are clean?

腾讯徐州市网友 海深天高1小时前
This is criminal behavior, so how can the [government] just ‘sweep up’ and call it a day. This is an irresponsible attitude!

腾讯网友 小树2小时前
Let this company go broke, just like Sanlu.

腾讯济南市网友 知者自知2小时前
So experts finally start to speak like human beings.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
No one should buy any.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
Good.

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
It’s tragic!

腾讯北京市网友 小媛3小时前
We already have a Food Safety Law. When will this be implemented to seek criminal responsibility?!

腾讯网友 3693小时前
There are still experts who speak the truth. How rare.

腾讯网友 如影相随3小时前
And what kind of experts are most common?

腾讯福州市网友 Capricorn3小时前
God! Are we supposed to grow our own food and raise our own pigs now before we can eat with ease?

腾讯网友 蓝色天际3小时前
How is it possibly an isolated case? The meat I bought today is tainted with additives. I don’t think there is pork on the market in Hangzhou that’s free of additives. All of the pork you buy at the market has clenbuterol in it, right? I’m so angry, angry angry!!! No one is keeping an eye out.

腾讯网友 ZDX8783小时前
So Shuanghui, another major national food company, has problems. What can ordinary people still eat?

FRONTPAGE PHOTO: A Chinese dinner table, by FlickrMarcus available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.