By David Bandurski – China’s national ordinance on openness of information, or xinxi gongkai tiaoli (信息公开条例), takes the stage just weeks from now. The document pledges to make government information available to the public in a whole range of areas — from public health and sanitation to education, utilities and urban planning. But what assurance do we have that this document will make any difference at all? None, save words and gestures.
As we’ve said time and again at CMP, the critical issue lurking behind the question of greater openness of information in China is political reform. Without real institutional change there is no way to guarantee officials do not suppress information they regard as unfavorable to their own interests.
We saw clear demonstration of this in Shanghai back in June 2006, when reporter Ma Cheng attempted to sue the local planning bureau for its refusal to provide information that fell under the city’s local openness of information ordinance. Ma was subsequently pressured to drop the lawsuit and quietly removed from his post at Liberation Daily. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Shanghai’s own laws on transparency.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Xinhua News Agency coverage of the drafting of the national information openness ordinance back in December 2006 via ccaj.cn.]

As implementation of the national ordinance looms as a major question mark, we have an interesting bit of news this week from Henan Province, where leaders have pledged to protect the spirit of government transparency through the most effective means short of political reform and an unfettered press — and that is, another document.
According to a report in yesterday’s Beijing Times, Henan province (whose top leader, interestingly, is former SARFT head honcho and vice propaganda chief Xu Guangchun, who once criticized Southern Weekend for being too generous with information) announced in recent days that it has issued new regulations designed to push government compliance with information openness legislation (including the national ordinance).
According to what the official Xinhua News Agency called Henan’s “new system” for dealing with information release, government offices and public enterprises that do not carry out their obligations under openness legislation will receive official rebuke from supervision departments or the next-higher administrative organ, and severe cases will be referred for prosecution.
These “obligations” include regular updating of information available for release, creating guides and indexes for available documents — and of course, protecting information that does not qualify for public release.
Government agencies across China have reportedly been urged to prepare for the national ordinance, which will take effect on May 1, by creating guides and indexes for government information and relevant procedures and making these publicly available.
Like government offices across the country, those in Henan were ordered to have information guides prepared by the end of March 2008.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of government openness of information section “under construction” on the General Administration of Press and Publications’ website. Will this be up and ready by the end of this month, as mandated?]

[Posted by David Bandurski, March 6, 2008, 5pm HK]

By David Bandurski — According to CMP sources, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will issue a report on the government response to recent winter storms in China at the upcoming session of the National People’s Congress.
Meanwhile, Chinese media, emboldened perhaps by whispers of Wen’s report — which, if true, could be read as a green light on “reflection”, or fansi (反思) — have stepped out in recent days with much bolder coverage of the storms and what they reveal about government and society in China.
CMP’s preliminary analysis of coverage in China’s media suggests an increasing number of reports have been devoted to “reflection” on the recent snowstorms since the controversial exchange on February 20 between Guangzhou CPPCC deputy secretary Guo Xiling (郭锡龄) and Ministry of Railways spokesman Wang Yongping (王勇平).

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Southern Weekend online version of February 21, 2008, edition called “Snow Tests China” (雪问中国).]

“Reflection” has been happening across at least 10 broad issue categories over the last week, including:

1. The government’s response to the disaster (政府应急反应)
2. The absence of reflection on the disaster in many local People’s Congress and NPPCC reports （”两会”误事)
3. Management of the electric power grid (电力)
4. Management of the national rail system (铁路)
5. Management and clearing of the national roads network (公路/除雪)
6. The role of civil society (公民社会)
7. Openness of information (信息公开)
8. Social inequalities and the urban-rural divide (城乡二元制度)
9. The role of the Meteorological Administration and preparedness (气象)
10. Secondary disasters (次生灾害) [such as poisoning of drinking water by snow-melting chemicals]

One of the most comprehensive news packages reflecting back on the winter storms came from Guangdong’s Southern Weekly, which devoted four full pages to a series of news features under the title “Snow Tests China.”
The frontpage editor’s note sounded the tone:

Vast human resources were employed to deal with this massive disaster, and some died carrying out their duties. For this, we should all feel thankful. Nevertheless, as the disaster nears its end, we must not suppose reflection and summing up [of the lessons of our experiences] are somehow superfluous, nor should they become taboo.
Points [in need] of summary include: Why were local electrical power networks so weak? How can we ensure our weather warning systems are more timely and offer more guidance? How can the government disaster response system move more quickly? How do we create better synergy between government offices and regions? How can civil society organizations better participate in the relief effort?

The frontpage story, continued on page two, dealt with the trampling death of young migrant worker Li Hongxia (李红霞) in the chaos that ensued at Guangzhou West Railway Station as hundreds of thousands of stranded passengers jostled for places on available trains.
Li’s story is a portrait of telling contrasts. On the one hand, the force of migrant labor fuels the “engine room” of China’s GDP growth. On the other hand, workers like Li are without the most basic protections under China’s two-tiered household registration system.
Joining the Li Hongxia story on page two is an article looking at failed coordination between the China Meteorological Administration and other key agencies like the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC), which oversees the national power grid.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Southern Weekend report via Chinanews.com looking at the problem of poor coordination between the China Meteorological Administration and other key government offices.]

With the snowstorms coming in the midst of many local people’s congress sessions across China, a number of media have explored the issue of whether local congresses adequately tackled the problems winter storms highlighted (category 2 on our list above).
The Beijing News was one of the first national papers to address this question.
In its lead editorial last Wednesday, the newspaper commented on the “shocking” absence of the winter transport crisis in Guangzhou’s annual government work report (政府工作报告):

Passenger transport for the Spring Festival was a major event for Guangzhou this year, but some people’s congress delegates from the city were shocked to discover as they discussed the government work report that this horrifying transport situation was mentioned only at the very end.
Some explained this by saying that the work report was already completed before people started returning home for Spring Festival. But some delegates have still insisted that more material about the transport situation be added to the government work report.

The editorial goes on to argue that it is within the power of people’s congress delegates to veto the government work report if they feel it is inadequate, even though this veto power has apparently never been exercised for government work reports.
“The relationship between people’s congress delegates and government work reports is patently clear,” The Beijing News argued. “If people’s congress delegates are unhappy with the work report, they entirely have the ability and the power to make it more satisfactory.”
The newspaper concluded:

The most direct monitor of government action is the people’s congress. The people’s congresses must not hold back in telling governments what they should do, and they must, through legally designated channels, check the government and make it change actions that are unreasonable. This is within the power of people’s congresses, and it is also their duty.

Returning to the exchange between local Guangzhou NPPCC member Guo Xiling (郭锡龄) and Ministry of Railways spokesman Wang Yongping (王勇平), columnist and former CMP fellow Yan Lieshan (鄢烈山) wrote last Friday that Wang Yongping should be “ordered by the railway ministry to resign without further ado or else be dismissed.”

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Yan Lieshan editorial on China Elections and Governance Website calling for the firing of the Ministry of Railways spokesman who recently attacked Guangzhou CPPCC member Guo Xiling.]

Why should Wang Yongping step aside?
Given the State Council’s recent “Notice on Arrangements for Rebuilding after the Disaster Response”, the Ministry of Railways should have an attitude of submission, earnestly studying the problems exposed by the recent disaster. “This includes listening to the opinions of various levels of society,” Yan wrote.
Yan Lieshan’s editorial was in fact itself a follow-up on a February 21 piece by Su Wenyang which more politely requested Wang’s resignation on the grounds of his “ignorance for our country’s system of democratic politics (民主政治制度) and his lack of basic respect for the right of CPPCC delegates to voice their views.”
Yan Lieshan’s tone was distinctly more impatient than Su’s:

Someone whose thinking is as ossified and outmoded as Wang Yongping’s, who still deals with their monitors by wielding a truncheon, this guy right out of the old playbook — Why not get rid of him? What are we waiting for?

[Posted Monday, February 25, 2008, 5pm HK]

By David Bandurski — CMP wrote back on February 1 that a key test of mainland coverage of the recent snowstorms would be whether and how media were allowed to re-visit the government’s foibles and failures. In recent days, criticism of the disaster response has been scant. But we now have the first real rumblings of contention over government missteps, and the debate has been set off not by bolder media but by a now-embattled small-time official from Guangzhou.
The controversy began several days ago as Guo Xiling (郭锡龄), deputy secretary of Guangzhou’s Political Consultative Conference, openly criticized China’s Ministry of Railways for dealing inadequately with shutdowns in the national rail system earlier this month.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of March 2006 coverage by Yangcheng Evening News via Netease of Guo Xiling’s selection as deputy secretary of Guangzhou’s People’s Political Consultative Conference.]

Addressing the recent CPPCC session in Guangzhou, Guo listed off a series of failures that he said had further contributed to the chaos. He added that “people in the Ministry of Railways should be removed” (铁道部的人要撤职).
Guo’s criticisms were first reported on February 18 in Guangzhou’s New Express (See image below).

Web users across China quickly seized on the New Express story and expressed their disappointment with the failures of the Ministry of Railways.
A spokesman from the ministry issued a response to Guo Xiling’s criticisms yesterday, addressing them point by point.
But the tone of the MOR response was decidedly combative, the spokesman prefacing his remarks by saying he was “astonished by deputy secretary Guo’s remarks and found them hard to understand because they went against the facts and common sense.”

[ABOVE: Screenshot of People’s Daily Online coverage yesterday of the response issued by the Ministry of Railways.]

The spokesman also took a political potshot at Guo in a statement intended for Internet users across the country:

I would like to tell Web users that key leaders and comrades in Guangzhou’s party committee have already said clearly that the frivolous and irresponsible public remarks of isolated comrades do not represent the Guangzhou party committee or the government of Guangzhou, nor do they represent the local people’s congress or CPPCC.

A number of editorials in the mainland press today came to the defense of the Guangzhou CPPCC vice secretary and his right to express his doubts about how the recent disaster was handled.
They also raised the question of information access, pointing out that it was disingenuous for the MOR to criticize Guo Xiling for the inaccuracy of his facts when information on the rail system was carefully guarded by the ministry itself.
The point is a crucial one given the intense pressures facing investigative reporting in recent months and years. It is also relevant to China’s national ordinance on information openness, set to take the stage later this year.
In its lead editorial today, Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily spoke of the need to “reflect back, make improvements and move forward (反思、改正和进步) and criticized the Ministry of Railways for its aggressive attitude in fending off the questions raised by Guo.
“The spokesman from the Ministry of Railways said the vice-secretary Guo’s allegations went against the facts and against common sense,” the newspaper wrote. “This kind of statement, if it arises from rational debate (科学辩论), is OK. But as a response to the raising of doubts by citizens, it is extremely unwise.”

As the sole government office responsible for the management and operation of China’s rail system, the Ministry of Railways holds in its hands all available information about the rail system, and this is something an ordinary citizen like Guo Xiling cannot possibly have. This asymmetry of information access, and more importantly asymmetry between public organs and individual persons means raising doubts is a natural right (天然权利) of citizens, and this right is not confined to statements of absolute accuracy.

[Posted February 20, 2008, 12:43pm HK]

By David Bandurski — Liu Weiqiang (刘为强), the journalist implicated in the latest fake photo scandal to rock China, was fired from his newspaper in northern China, which also issued a public apology for the incident, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.
In a public statement deflecting responsibility for the incident from China Central Television and Xinhua, the editorial committee (编委会) of the Daqing Evening News (大庆晚报) said in a public statement issued via the Web Monday that the paper “apologized to China Central Television, Xinhua Online, other media that had run the photo, and to readers” for the photo’s “negative influence.”

[ABOVE: Screenshot of QQ.com coverage of the firing of journalist Liu Weiqiang and the apology from his employer.]

The newspaper, a commercial spin-off of the official Daqing Daily newspaper in northern China’s Heilongjiang Province, said a thorough review had confirmed that the photograph was a composite created with Photoshop software.
Daqing Evening News said in its apology that although Liu Weiqiang had spent 300 days of hard work in the field and “achieved notable results in protecting the Tibetan antelope”, his news photo was a violation of journalistic ethics and integrity.
The use of technology to modify the photo, the paper said, had had a “very bad influence.”
While the paper had not encouraged Liu’s participation in the CCTV awards, a spokesperson for Daqing Evening News said, the editorial committee nevertheless recognized its responsibility.
The decision to fire Liu Weiqiang was reportedly made in an editorial committee meeting on February 17.
Liu was formerly vice-head of the photography department at Daqing Evening News.
[Posted February 19, 2008, 11:53pm HK]

By David Bandurski — China’s leaders say the long-awaited national ordinance on openness of information, due to take the stage in May this year, will usher in an era of “sunshine” governance in which government affairs are marked with clarity and transparency. Don’t count your chickens. The ordinance is hardly a panacea, and there are major questions about how effectively it will be enforced. But some government leaders ARE taking transparency seriously — or making a show of it anyway.
Since the weekend the Web has buzzed in China with the news that Kunming Daily, the mouthpiece of top leaders in Kunming, the capital of Yunnan Province, printed a list of the names of city officials, their contact numbers and their specific areas of responsibility.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Xinhua Online coverage of official name and contact list published in Kunming Daily.]

The February 16 edition of Kunming Daily included a four-page spread with information on local government officials. An online copy of the list, which ran on the Kunming news site www.clzg.cn, was feverishly downloaded by Web users, according to a report in today’s China Youth Daily.
While postings by Web users were generally enthusiastic about the list, initial response from officials was mixed. Kunming CPPCC member Wu Tinggen (吴庭根), quoted in China Youth Daily, was supportive. “Publicizing these phone numbers not only benefits the people in directly relating their problems, it also benefits the work of monitoring lower-level offices by superiors,” Wu said.

“Doing this might make some officials really uncomfortable, but as it stands officials are too comfortable and the people are too uncomfortable, so how you see this really depends on where you’re standing.”

Another local official told the newspaper, however, that the publishing of the list could carry a lot of negatives, overwhelming government offices with “fussy phonecalls” (骚扰电话) and impacting normal operations.
Kunming’s top leader, party secretary Ying Yongsheng (应永生), told China Youth Daily that all official numbers, including his own, would be made public “so that if they need the people can reach us.”
Ying Yongshen also said the city had plans to release a special manual including eight documents on Kunming’s soft environment (policies and laws, etc.), with the goal of making it easier for ordinary people and investors to navigate.
[Posted February 18, 2008, 12:08pm HK]

By David Bandurski — In the latest effort to push a “clean up” the country’s cultural sector ahead of this summer’s Olympic Games, China’s censors aimed their lances today at films containing scenes of horror and supersition, citing the need to “protect the mental and physical well-being of minors.”

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Sina.com coverage of of GAPP’s release on horror and the supernatural.]

In a notice released early this morning, regulators from China’s General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) said “rigorous checks” would be carried out on audio and video materials produced in 2006 and 2007. Anything dealing with “horror or the supernatural” (恐怖灵异类) and found to be in violation would be “pulled from shelves, sealed up, confiscated and handled according to relevant regulations.”
The notice, which spoke of a “resurgence” (回潮趋势) of horror and supersititon on the domestic market, added that production of such materials planned for 2008 release must be ceased immediately. [Reuters report via The Guardian].
In a commentary that topped Sina.com’s list of editorials today, Tao Duanfang (陶短房) suggested GAPP’s net was far too wide.
While “the goal is to control and remove the negative effect this kind of material has on society”, Tao wrote, “it should be pointed out that the measure of a policy is not just its original intention but its operability (可操作性) and intelligibility (可理解性).”
Sure, we should think about the health of our children, wrote the author. But before the authorities rush in to enforce this notice, they should be clear about what exactly they mean.
After all, people are bound to ask, said Tao: “Can we still watch Harry Potter?”
[Posted Thursday, February 14, 2008, 1:45pm]