By David Bandurski — Following incidents of online violence and breaches of personal privacy, there has been some talk in China about the need to define so-called “human flesh searches” (or “crowdsourcing“) as a criminal offense. But as I remarked when interviewed for a recent news story on the subject, these searches are merely tools, and they can be used to advance any number of agendas. [Frontpage image by Thomas Hawk available under Creative Commons at Flickr.]
In yesterday’s edition of Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post, however, Yang Tao (杨涛), a government prosecutor from Jiangxi province, made the point far more eloquently in explaining why targeting “human flesh searches” through China’s Criminal Law is a slippery distraction.
Yang’s editorial follows:

“’Human Flesh Searches’ Have No Original Sin”
By Yang Tao (杨涛)
Beating attacks had occurred for some time recently at various locations in Jiangxi’s Yichun City, including the Nonghua Center on Yuanshan Avenue and the Sports Center, all involving a middle-aged male targeting unaccompanied woman. These did not involve robbery or sexual assault, but were attacks on the head with an iron hammer. For a time, women [in the city] were very apprehensive. Then a citizen posted a message on the Internet called, “Calling on a Human Flesh Search for the Head-Chopper,” which drew close to a hundred responses and more than 2,000 visits . Included in the responses were descriptions of six similar attacks, and the characteristics of the attacker started to emerge. On September 1, the police centered on a suspect and took him into custody (Jiangnan Metropolis Daily, September 6). If we say that the “Tongxu (铜须) Gate” and “cat mutilation” incidents of 2006 . . . show the negative effects of the so-called “human flesh search”, well then, the “Head-Chopping Case” (敲头案) is a classic case of citizens using the Internet to seek justice. In fact, there have been many cases like the “Head-Chopping Case,” including the “Case of the Kneeling Deputy Mayor” and “Tiger-Gate.”
Not long ago, National People’s Congress Standing Committee member Zhu Zhigang (朱志刚) talked about “online wanted posters” (网上通缉) and “human flesh searches” disclosing the surnames of citizens, personal phone numbers and other basic information. He said this behavior was a serious violation of citizens’ basic rights, that its consequences were even graver than the sale of personal information, and proposed that “human flesh searches” be regulated in the Criminal Law.
I heartily disagree with this suggestion. The rights-violating behavior egged on by various “human flesh searches” is not presently without legal restrictions. If “human flesh searches” involve insult to another person this can fall under civil infringement, and can give rise to a civil suit. Severe cases may incur punishment for “defamation” (侮辱罪) or “slander” (诽谤罪). Cases involving violations of privacy are also cases of civil infringement and can give rise to civil suits. The only matter worth debating is whether if “human flesh searches” involve serious (情节严重) violations of privacy Criminal Law can be applied in determining punishment. Therefore, what makes it hard to punish “human flesh search” cases is not the absence of relevant legal regulation but rather how those harmed can effectively obtain proof [of wrongdoing]. This is because those Web users releasing private information and spreading rumors and insults are hiding on the Internet, and those who suffer at their hands find it difficult to turn up relevant evidence to support protection of their own rights.
If we view “human flesh searches” themselves as having “original sin,” and if we seek to directly regulate such behavior as a crime, well then, I must regrettably point out that this will be a major blow to the efforts of ordinary people to seek justice. Looking again at the “Head-Chopping Case,” we have to wonder if it were not for a “human flesh search” whether a profile of the attacker would have emerged so quickly and whether the case would have been broken in good time. And seeing as we have been unable, even as “human flesh searches” have given rise to rights infringement, to effectively turn up evidence and locate perpetrators, how is it that we think that once we have regulated “human flesh searches” under criminal law it will become easier to get our hands on evidence and find those responsible?
We can see from the “Head-Chopping Case” that “human flesh searches” can be used as tools to seek justice. Making “human flesh searches” a crime should be rejected from a value standpoint. Like the proposed “real-name registration system for the Web” (网络实名制) that met with the disapproval of the vast majority of people, making “human flesh searches” a crime is unrealistic and impracticable. Concerning “human flesh search engines,” these double-edged swords, we can only “choose the lesser of two evils” and remain tolerant of their existence. And of course we should do our utmost after the fact [of wrongdoing] to punish and regulate [such acts as necessary].

Yang’s editorial was featured in the news section at QQ.com, where it drew hundreds of comments from Web users, including:

From Shenyang:
“Human flesh searches” are tools. If you take a cooking knife and put it in the kitchen it can be used to cut up meat and vegetables. But if you kill someone with that knife it becomes a weapon — and the guilt lies not with the knife itself, but with the person.
From Xining City:
We need to be reasonable in making laws. Do you think that just because there are corrupt officials we should sentence anyone who is an official? If you must sentence them then I welcome it.

FURTHER READING:
“Chinese Human Flesh Search Engine Goes Global,” ESWN, April 11, 2008
“The yellow, violent mob culture of a BBS,” Danwei.org, January 16, 2008,
“Letting loose fair game in cyberspace,” China Daily, August 28, 2008
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 9, 2008, 11:02am HK]

By David Bandurski — Much coverage of the Chen Shui-ban graft case in China’s official state media has sought to drive home sobering lessons about the faults and foibles of democracy, and particularly of Taiwanese democracy. But in the commentary section of today’s Southern Metropolis Daily, CMP researcher Joseph Cheng argues that there are more important lessons to be drawn from Taiwan’s experiences.

[ABOVE: “Red Shirts,” a photo by Nomadize licensed at flickr under Creative Commons.]

Even in Southern Metropolis Daily‘s rather expurgated version the editorial is strong. We offer our translation without further ado:

How Should We Read the Chen Shui-bian Graft Case?
By Cheng Jinfu (程金福)
On August 31, Southern Metropolis Daily ran an interview with former New Party chairman Xie Qida (谢启大) in its Commentary Weekly section discussing the impact of the Chen Shui-bian graft scandal on Taiwan. Reading the piece, I found it beneficial, but there are three points I think we must not overlook concerning the case as it has evolved to its present situation.
The first thing we should see is democracy at work. Joseph Schumpeter once argued that the basic nature of democracy is to give citizens the ability to replace one government with another. If only the government can be changed, if only the voters can choose between (at least two) different political platforms, then the threat of tyranny can be prevented. Looking back on Chen Shui-bian’s eight years in office, the dangers of tyranny are astonishing: the “procuratorate” was paralyzed, becoming little more than an empty shell; corruption investigators kept cases under wraps and refused to investigate; Wu Kun-shih (吴淑珍) [the father of Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-chen] used the president’s power to make business deals; and as the graft case cropped up, even with hordes of red-clad protesters [calling for Chen’s resignation], the Chen family still firmly held their ground. Just try to imagine. If the Ma government had not replaced the Chen government, and if the DPP had remained in power despite Chen’s exit, would the corruption of Chen Shui-bian’s family have been aired out and justice served, even with documentary evidence provided by Swiss authorities?
Secondly, we see the power of the judicial system. Taiwan’s judicial system is independent in Taiwan’s political structure. But in the “Chen era,” when, as Xie Qida (谢启大) has put it, there “was a problem with the head assigned by the chief executive” (“由行政长官指派的那个头有问题”), the independent judiciary was rendered incapable in practice of having the effect it should have, and the actions of former Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau Chief Yeh Mao-sheng (叶茂盛) in keeping a lid on the case is a clear illustration of this.
Fortunately, democracy is not only an effective mechanism of staving off the dangers of tyranny, but it also has effective mechanisms allowing it to correct its own errors. The people may have been hoodwinked into electing Chen Shui-bian, but they can also come to their senses and make changes. Xie Qida said: “Taiwan’s judiciary has a history going back 60 years, and there are some pretty good people there. So long as they are around there is still hope.” We can see this process at work in the investigation into Chen and his family that has unfolded since August 14.
Thirdly, we see the efforts of the media. When news of Chen Shui-bian’s alleged money laundering activities was brought to light, Taiwan’s media went to great lengths to keep up with the case. Political commentary programs of all kinds invited a range of people to offer background, comments and information — political figures, media people, well-known commentators, legal experts and professors, people involved in the investigation, and even people with relevant experience from business and financial circles. Of course we could see in the media at times glimpses of pettiness and nastiness and ploys to get the upper hand commercially, and it is not difficult to see how the media can in pursuing the truth slide across the line into slander. But in my view, so long as media do not lose sight of the politics itself in this process, so long as they do not veer from the principle of truth-seeking and fact-seeking, so long as they do not relinquish their responsibility to the public interest, all of this excess noise and temper is a price the public should be willing to accept. There is no such thing in this world as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a perfect media.
Ethnic divisions within Taiwan . . . confrontation between the “green” and the “blue”; all of these issues are about Taiwan’s progress toward “localizing” democracy (民主迈进的”本土”问题). These are also tests facing democracy as a result of historical experience, present frictions, cultural adaptation, etc. But from these I also see a more positive side to democracy, and positive inspiration for our own building of democracy and efforts to fight corruption. Taiwanese democracy has experienced birth pains with Chen Shui-bian. But what is fortunate is that Chen Shui-bian has exposed the worst acts of falsehood and corruption a political figure can muster, and this ultimately serves the judicial pursuit justice, and it serves to encourage and educate the media. Only in this way can the people of Taiwan through time and practice become mature citizens. And this once again reminds us that if our moral expectations of political leaders do not rest on the checks and balances of a democratic system, this is a dangerous thing indeed.

FURTHER READING:
“Wipe off that blood and stand up again,” Taipei Times, August 26, 2008
“Chen Shui-bian denies 31m$ bride accusation,” China Daily, September 4, 2008
“Taiwan graft probe spans four continents,” Reuters, August 30, 2008
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 5, 2008, 4:35pm]

By David Bandurski — Muzzled by propaganda orders in the aftermath of the May 12 Sichuan earthquake — which claimed more than 80,000 lives according to the government’s latest figures — China’s media steered clear of thornier questions about government responsibility and shoddy school construction. But yesterday, as Premier Wen Jiabao returned to the epicenter of the Sichuan quake with words of reassurance, veteran journalist and former CMP fellow Zhai Minglei (翟明磊) broached one of the most sensitive questions through his one-man online “newspaper” Yi Bao.
Can earthquakes be predicted?
The article published yesterday at Yi Bao was written this summer by CMP Director Qian Gang, the author of The Great Tangshan Earthquake. Qian also worked formerly as a journalist at the China Earthquake Administration, where he was chief editor of China Disaster Prevention.
Zhai Minglei explains that in view of the article’s sensitivity it could not be published through mainstream media. His introduction to the piece follows a bold red headline that reads: “Yi Bao Breaks Through Press Restrictions: Exclusive Report.”
The introduction brims with the language of professional obligation. “Blood cannot be shed in vain. We must ask questions. This is where the dignity of our profession lies,” he writes.
The following is a portion of the brief editor’s note that precedes Qian Gang’s article:

Yi Bao Editors Note:
What is printed here is the most important article in the history of Yi Bao to date. In the aftermath of the Wenchuan earthquake, official and other media began hotly hammering home the point that earthquakes cannot be predicted . . . Officials at various levels as well as experts stepped out to say that earthquakes cannot be predicted and that there were no predictions. The Central Publicity Department defined school construction and earthquake prediction as two major areas of reporting that could not be touched. In my view, these two bans are an assault on the vitality of the people and show scorn for their intelligence.
If a people cannot face up to reality and learn from their life experiences, how can they stand in the world?

Zhai Minglei goes on to write that while the ban on coverage of shoddy school construction was to a definite degree broken by mainland media, the question of earthquake prediction was effectively covered up.
The deeper Qian Gang delved into this question, Zhai writes, the more he realized his findings would be difficult to report through mainstream Chinese media.
“Therefore, he entrusted Yi Bao to publish the article on the mainland,” Zhai writes. “Of course, we have already anticipated the risks.”
No stranger to risks, Zhai is certainly taking a calculated one here, and this should be an interesting test of the possibilities of citizen media in China.
A brief portion of Qian Gang’s article follows:

“It is Impossible to Predict a Major Earthquake? No!”
By Qian Gang
The Wenchuan earthquake [on May 12 this year] shook the entire world. This utter destruction coming without warning caused the public to wonder: why couldn’t the Wenchuan earthquake have been forecasted? And why weren’t precautions taken beforehand?
News reports on the Wenchuan earthquake and the degree of information openness was increased [over the past]. But efforts by the media to ask tough questions and reflect back [on the disaster] were choked back, and questions like earthquake prediction were impossible to talk about freely. The public could only watch as language like “earthquake prediction is a tough question worldwide” (or even, “earthquakes cannot be predicted”) became dominant, and they lacked adequate information and the knowledge necessary to work through their doubts and resentment.
And what is the truth?
Today’s talk begins with these two pictures. Can everyone see them clearly? They are maps of the epicenter of the Wenchuan earthquake. Had they been released after the May earthquake in Wenchuan, this would not at all have been strange. But these are maps from 16 years ago, printed in Wenchuan County Journal (汶川县志).

This is an edition of Wenchuan County Journal published in 1992. It already tells us that this area of Wenchuan is vulnerable to earthquake activity, that a fault zone crosses the county and that the geology of the area is very complex.
Wenchuan is still the name of a fault zone. This book is Earthquakes in China, a seminal work in earthquake study by China’s senior seismologist Li Shanbang (李善邦). In this book his mentions the Tianshui-Wenchuan Fault Zone (天水汶川地震带).
And this book, 100 Major 20th Century Disasters in China, is one I edited together with Mr. Geng Qingguo (耿庆国). The book talks about how in 1976 two earthquakes of above magnitude 7 occured at Songpan (松潘) and Pingwu (平武) in Sichuan. Songpan and Pingwu are in the same region as the Wenchuan quake, with Songpan in the Aba (阿坝) region and Pingwu in Mianyang City (绵阳市). This book actually goes so far as to mention that in 1976, before the earthquakes in Songpan and Pingwu, earthquake forecasting workers pinpointed a major quake in the Mt. Longmen area [at the northwest boundary of the Sichuan Basin]. When they determined the earthquake epicenter at the time, one worker sketched a circle on the map and said, “This place is very possibly the epicenter.” That area was Yingxiu (映秀), the epicenter of this year’s Wenchuan earthquake. One cannot help but feel pained by this history and reality. So many years ago, this place, Yingxiu, was determined by our own scientific experts to be the epicenter of a major earthquake.
After the Wenchuan quake struck the public had many questions. Why had this earthquake not been predicted? Why weren’t precautions taken? The following image is of the offices of the earthquake analysis and forecasting division of the Sichuan Provincial Earthquake Administration. So many mysteries are just waiting to see the light of day at those offices . . .

[Posted by David Bandurski, September 3, 2008, 4pm HK]

By David Bandurski — At CMP we have continuously covered China’s national legislation on openness of government information, its promises and challenges. But the flip side of the push to make more of certain types of information public in China is the uphill battle to keep personal data private. [Frontpage image from budgetstockphoto.com].
As news bubbles up once again that China is moving ahead with a new law protecting private information, columnist Chang Ping writes at Southern Weekend about the need to make both priorities – openness and privacy – work hand in hand.

“Public Should be Public, Private Should be Private” (公开该公开的，保密该保密的)
By Chang Ping (长平)
Southern Weekend
August 27, 2008
Just as I was preparing to write this piece I received a letter notifying me that I had won 180,000 yuan in prize money, and I couldn’t help myself, I had to know if this was real or not. Before I’d had a chance to read through it my mobile phone rang. It was a telemarketer selling insurance policies. No sooner had I politely broken off her sweet spiel than I got the ring that signaled that an instant message was coming in. The message urged me not to worry myself over fake receipts (for expense reimbursement purposes) and said I should contact Ms. Liu post haste. This isn’t my problem alone. According to one study by China Central Television, 74 percent of those interviewed reported being harassed after having their personal information leaked . . .
Well, thankfully we’ve learned from various media in recent days that the draft version of the “Law on Protection of Personal Information” (个人信息保护法) has been put to the State Council, and that this draft stipulates that no group (团体) may release personal information to a third party without the consent of the person concerned, except for the purposes of criminal investigation, tax assessment or press supervision (媒体调查).
Along with these good tidings we have had a whole series of editorials expressing praise and eager expectation. These editorials testify once again to the importance of protection of personal information. I feel optimistic that this time it is for real. Why do I say “once again” and “this time”? Because, as people concerned about this issue should know, ever since 2003 many media, including Xinhua News Agency, have come out with reports about a law to protect personal information. This has happened one, two, three times maybe.
According to these reports, it was in 2003 that the State Council charged relevant experts with beginning the drafting process, and an expert proposal had already been completed by 2005 and submitted to the State Council for deliberation, kicking off the law-making process. From the beginning, the news of this process drew universal praise from the public, and media looked into the various methods of developed nations, thoroughly explaining the concept of private information and why it must be protected. Of course, these explanations seemed increasingly redundant, coming as they did amid a worsening climate of personal information leaking. Many people have tasted the bitterness of this problem, which has become a matter of absolute urgency for ordinary people.
Every year at the national “two meetings” there have been People’s Congress delegates speaking out about the problem. In 2006, for example, NPC delegate Zhang Xuedong (张学东) said in an interview with a Xinhua reporter: “The leaking and abuse of the personal information of citizens of our country has already reached urgency, and it has become imperative that we implement a law on protection of private information.” This year NPC delegate Sun Guihua (孙桂华) told a Xinhua reporter: “The leaking of personal information has already become a general social menace and moving quickly toward a law on protection of private information is an urgent task before us.”
What we need to notice in these reports and editorials is that we have not seen any note of opposition whatsoever. According to China’s Legislative Law and on the basis of practical experience, it is possible to limit deliberation in cases where there is relative unanimity over legislation in order to speed up the legislative process, and we long ago reached the point of urgency on this matter. Well then, why is it exactly that with the draft already done that we are still dragging our feet through the deliberation and voting process?
Any act of legislation has a process to go through, and perhaps five years is not a particularly long period of time. But we should let the people know where exactly it stands. Within this time we have had the “Ordinance on Openness of Government Information” take effect. According to this ordinance, this matter [of law-making], which “concerns the vested interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations,” and moreover “reflects the set-up, functions and work procedures of administrative organs,” should be make public. Naturally, legislation is only partly a matter for the government and is more so a matter for the People’s Congress. Government information should be made public, and information about legislative matters should be made public too.
Much information about law-making has already been made public. And recently we also had the good news that in the future, the decision of the Chairman’s Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as well as legislative drafts under deliberation by the NPC Standing Committee will be made public so that feedback can be solicited from society at large. A commonsense understanding of law and politics would suggest that we should not only make public the text of legislation but also make public the legislative process itself, that we should not only make public the law-making process, but also make public the views of all of the various delegates participating in the legislative process.
While information that should not be made public continues to be made available, information that should be made public is not being released in a timely manner. The consensus in society today is that “openness be the rule and secrecy the exception” (公开是原则，保密是例外) in public affairs, and for personal privacy this is reversed, “the rule is secrecy, the exception is release.” Here with us, these two principles have been reversed. Only if they switch positions can we really and truly solve this problem.

[Posted by David Bandurski, August 28, 2008, 4:37pm HK]

By Joseph Cheng and David Bandurski — Former premier Hua Guofeng (华国锋), the party leader eventually outmaneured in the late 1970s by the more charismatic Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), passed away quietly last week. Hua was given scarcely a nod from international media, who were busy, understandably, covering the Games in Beijing.
The response from China’s media was understated too, with a few notable exceptions from more freewheeling commercial media.
In official party papers, Hua was inevitably given a small, namecard-sized treatment last Thursday in the front page space Chinese journalists refer to as the “paper’s rear-end” (报屁股) — that is, usually, the lower right-hand corner. The text was uniformly the official Xinhua News Agency release:

Comrade Hua Guofeng, a distinguished Chinese Communist Party member, a tested and faithful champion of communism, who previously held important posts in the party and government, passed away on August 20, 2008, at 12:50pm in Beijing, due to an illness that did not respond to treatment. He was 87 years old.

Coverage at the official People’s Daily was typical, devoting a small box with a photo of Hua and the Xinhua release.

[ABOVE: August 21 edition of People’s Daily with “rear-end” coverage of Hua Guofeng’s death.]

Not surprisingly, news about Chinese President Hu Jintao dominates the People’s Daily page, the most prominent story (with photos) about Hu’s visit with the Chinese Olympic team.
In contrast, the official website of People’s Daily carried more extensive coverage of Hua’s death, including a message board where users could leave their comments.
Over at Shanghai’s official Liberation Daily, the page was almost identical.

[ABOVE: August 21 edition of Liberation Daily.]

The boldest front page on Hua Guofeng’s death is hardly a surprise.
Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily splashed the official Hua Guofeng news release and a more lively color photo across the left-hand half of its front page last Thursday, sharing at least equal attention with news of Jamaica’s Usain Bolt breaking the world record in the 200 meters.

[ABOVE: Front page of August 21 edition of Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily.]

Some of the boldest coverage of Hua’s death last week came from Shenzhen’s Daily Sunshine, which gave the story a front page nod as well as a full inside spread.
Here is the newspaper’s front page, which is filled with splashier commercial fare (the dominating headine is again about Bolt):

[ABOVE: August 21 edition of Shenzhen’s Daily Sunshine.]

And below is the black-and-white inside spread on Hua Guofeng, which carries the headline: “Hua Guofeng Passes Away in Beijing Due to Untreatable Illness.”
The page offers much more historical information on the former premier, including a fact that Chinese media rarely mention — that Hua opposed and stymied the rehabilitation of Deng Xiaoping.

By David Bandurski — An article in yesterday’s edition of Nanfang Daily, the official party newspaper of Guangdong province, reported that airport security in Guangzhou foiled a pair of terrorists bound for Kunming to carry out a bomb attack. The only problem was that news of the supposed plot came not from security personnel but from “travelers in the airport.” Say what?
The news report follows:

Yesterday morning two men who had packed explosive devices in their luggage with the intention of carrying them onto an airplane were fortunately discovered by security personnel at the Baiyun International Airport and delivered into police custody.
At around 12 noon, security personnel on duty at Baiyun International Airport spotted suspicious devices connected by wiring on an x-ray monitor and quickly intercepted two suspects, including one surnamed Qu, who were in the process of boarding.
Further investigation showed that Qu’s luggage contained explosive devices . . . Security personnel on the scene immediately controlled the two male passengers, and according to travelers in the airport, they were preparing to go to Kunming to carry out a bomb attack.

As the Nanfang Daily story made the rounds on China’s internet, Web users took the reporters responsible for the article to task.

[From Beijing]
How would travelers in the airport know they were planning to go to Kunming to carry out a bomb attack? What a reporter! There’s no doubt this is fake news.
[From Beihai City]
What kind of news is this. I don’t even understand it. What is it trying to say? Is it that security personnel at the Baiyun Airport are really great? Or that these two guys are pigs? Or maybe the reporter is just really bored?
[Chenzhou City]
The reporter just wants to build this up into a story. They write fuzzy intentionally. What a pig!
[From Chaohu City]
What messy news! Just a two-bit reporter trying to scrape together a living!
[From Chongqing]
This reporter definitely didn’t graduate from middle school!!! What the hell is he trying to say? Or perhaps he doesn’t want to say things clearly.
[From 116.55.232.* 2008-08-18 11:47:00]
People need to stop screwing around with Yunnan. Can’t they get Yunnan news straight before they send it out? This is really disturbing.
[From Zhuzhou City]
If you believe anything China’s media comes out with then your IQ’s a bit low ::::::
[From Shanghai]
Oh, these reporters don’t have any character whatsoever. They don’t even know how to be journalists.
[From Kunming]
Is this real or fake?

[Posted by David Bandurski, August 19, 2008, 2:33pm]