Author: David Bandurski

Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project’s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).

Meeting between Hillary Clinton and AIDS crusader Gao Yaojie makes the front page at Southern Metropolis Daily

southern-metropolis-daily_march-20_2007.pdf
Guangdong’s saucy Southern Metropolis Daily, the lone Chinese newspaper to break news in late February of AIDS activist Gao Yaojie’s (高耀洁) trip to the United States to receive the Vital Voices Global Women’s Leadership Award, threw up chalk again today with a “line-ball” cover-story on Gao Yaojie’s face-to-face meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton. [BELOW: Front page of today’s Southern Metropolis Daily, with prominent photo of Hillary Clinton and Gao Yaojie/PDF: Page A16 interview with Gao Yaojie about meeting with Clinton.]
.

16.jpg


.
CMP noted on February 26 that a Southern Metropolis Daily editorial had mentioned Gao Yaojie’s trip to Beijing in preparation for her departure for the United States, and had offered praise for top officials who visited Gao in her Beijing hotel room. The editorial had not, however, mentioned a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao from Hillary Clinton, a New York senator and 2008 presidential candidate, that some have argued was instrumental in securing Gao Yaojie’s release from house arrest in Hebei Province and enabling her U.S. trip. To have emphasized this point would have been dangerous for any newspaper, suggesting that pressure from a U.S. politician had influenced high-level decision making.
Nevertheless, the Southern Metropolis Daily interview with Gao Yaojie, which occupies the whole of page 16 today, does quote Gao as mentioning Clinton’s letter in the following exchange:
Reporter: Did you express your thanks to her?
Gao Yaojie: I said it right from the very beginning. I said, Thank you for your letter, without which I could not have come here. We talked for half an hour, and she led me out personally.

The bold coverage today on Hillary Clinton and Gao Yaojie shows Southern Metropolis Daily‘s strong professional spirit in making full use of incremental political space available for treatment of a sensitive domestic issue — an opportunity afforded in part by Gao Yaojie’s visit in Beijing with deputy health minister Wang Longde (王陇德) and Hao Yang (郝阳), deputy director of epidemic disease control at the Ministry of Health.
The Gao Yaojie interview was accompanied by a strong page 2 editorial called, “Gao Yaojie: the glory goes to those who speak the truth“.
MORE SOURCES:
Gao Yaojie: the glory goes to those who speak the truth” (Chinese), Southern Metropolis Daily, March 20, 2007
Group Honors Doctor Who Exposed China AIDS Scandal“, Washington Post, March 14, 2007
AIDS Doctor Fears Return to China“, Radio Free Asia, March 15, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 20, 2007, 4:25pm]

China Youth Daily calls for greater mutual respect and tolerance between officials and news media

CMP has commented frequently about the debate in China over the role of the media, particularly its identity vis-a-vis the Party and government. The debate can take a number of forms, as in the controversy surrounding the Lan Chengzhang case concerning the difference between “real” and “fake” reporters, or in the question of whether “watchdog journalism” is a “right” of the media or a “duty” of the media (insofar as it is a function of the state). In the simplest sense, the debate can be seen to arise from a longstanding conflict between the propaganda role of the press under Communist Party rule and strains of “liberal” public interest journalism going back to the Republican Era (1912-1949) and even as far back as the late Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the first independent newspapers in China. [BELOW: Screenshot of Yan Lieshan editorial feature at top of editorial section at Sina.com].
.

17.jpg

.
Questioning of the role of the press can be said to have reached a contemporary apex in the late 1980s, as China reacted against the falsehood of the Cultural Revolution and explored the creation of a press law to protect the work of journalists, an effort that died with the massacre of demonstrators following democracy protests in Beijing in June 1989.
Since the 1990s, commercialization has been the primary impetus for change in China’s media landscape, but the public interest strain of journalism persists, seeking opportunities in an unpredictable political environment.
The latest salvo in this ongoing struggle, an editorial by veteran journalist and former CMP fellow Yan Lieshan (鄢烈山), takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao‘s recent statements on March 16 — that China “must create conditions such as to allow the people to supervise and criticize the government” — to argue strongly for an independent monitoring role for the news media based on mutual respect between officials and journalists. This method, frequently used by Chinese media to address sensitive issues,is called jieti fahui (借题发挥), or, translated roughly, “using a current topic of conversation to put out one’s own ideas”.
The China Youth Daily editorial follows in full:
——————
[Link to editorial on Sina.com]
“Respecting the rights of the media does not mean making it your footservant”
China Youth Daily
March 20, 2007
Yan Lieshan (鄢烈山)
If we want to inch forward, if we want to improve, if we want to work in concert, then we need to have an attitude of tolerance and compromise, we need to have more respect and understanding, and less opposition —
Can officialdom (Party organs and other offices of power, and officials) form a positive interactive relationship with the media? It should be possible. The media and officialdom are not necessarily cat and mouse, in zero-sum opposition (of course, the exceptions are those corrupt officials trying to cover up their crimes). If both sides see impartiality, factuality and the popular will as the basis of their work, then the main goal is the prosperity of the people and the strength of the nation. If in some cases they are divided in their views, this is simply because their roles are different.
In the early days of Guangdong Party Secretary Zhang Dejiang’s (张德江) appointment to the province, many journalists within the Nanfang Daily Group had no idea where they would stand. They had doubts about whether the group could maintain its position at the front of the pack of national media. As the facts have borne out, these fears were unwarranted: the pep of the Nanfang Daily Group has never waned. And just recently we had news reports saying that at the close of the two meetings [of the NPC and CPPCC], Zhang Dejiang sighed with feeling and said, “Guangdong media workers are especially capable,” and stressed that a strong economy also necessitated a strong media. This can be seen as an example of good-faith interaction between the media and officialdom.
It goes without saying that democracy and rule of law are still being established in my country, and the economic sector and the direction of the market are still controlled by the hand of the government. That is to say, we are still a country in a period of transition. Under such social conditions it can be said that insofar as there are tensions between officials and the media, these owe largely to the “official” side. Therefore, if media and officialdom are to build up a favorable cooperative [“interactive”] relationship, the most important thing is mutual respect, which means particularly that officials need to set their own positions straight — in respecting the rights of the media, [officials] cannot use the media as their footservants or tools.
In this regard, Premier Wen Jiabao perspicaciously remarked on March 16 when responding to questions from reporters: “We must understand a principle of truth, and that is that all power vested in the government is endowed by the people … and we must create conditions such as to allow the people to supervise and criticize the government … Regardless of the past, in the present and the future there is no need for us to speak [of our official work] in glowing terms.” If officials have a general knowledge of democracy and rule of law, they won’t act with this ancient attitude that puts officialdom high above the people and deals arrogantly with the media, seeing the criticisms and probing of the media as a great profanity. They will not regard the exposures of investigative reporting as forces of “chaos” upsetting unity and order. They will not demand that the media produce paeans singing high the “accomplishments” [of the government]. The responsibility of the media is ultimately to seek out the facts of our society, to provide a platform and a channel through which the people may express their will. Supporting the media, allowing it the strength to stand in the world on its own legs — this is rooted in the will and public confidence of the people. We have no trouble imagining how the county secretary who conjured up the “Penshui SMS Case” … this kind of old-school official who is the “boss” of the people, treats media under his control [NOTE: underlined phrase just above is a wry play on the word “democracy”, 民主, in which the characters, 民 主, are separated to mean “boss of the people.”]
Hunan Party Secretary Zhang Chunxian (张春贤) said recently in an interview with Southern Weekend: “The Web, this form of new media, is a discussion platform, and by using this method one can rather broadly understand the sentiments of the people. The only thing for those who govern is to understand the will of the people and to gather their knowledge … So if now leaders are not familiar with [the Web], they should get up to speed. And if these postings contain also challenges, then officials should face those challenges head on.” Zhang Chunxian’s comments came, in his own words, “out of respect for and trust of Internet users.” That’s exactly right. Respect and trust are linked intimately. And I especially admire his [Zhang Chunxian’s] comment that leaders should accept challenges. Many leaders have for a long time become accustomed to issuing orders and demanding others step into line with them. They are certainly not accustomed to discussion on terms of equality. To make the transition from a ruling mentality to a service mentality (从管治型转变为服务型), our government needs to begin conversing with the media and the people on terms of equality. For example, Party and government organs definitely need to become accustomed to answering “cunning and strange” questions from journalists and participants at news conferences … For many officials, transitioning from sending orders down to the plebians from on high to conversation with them on terms of equality is a tough and formidable challenge.
Here we come from the topic of mutual respect to mutual understanding. While the role of the media is to serve as the voice of the people, the power of the media, insofar as it arises from public opinion, can exert political pressure on our leaders. But the media needs also to “understand” the “troubles” facing officials: first of all, by not setting their hopes to high, giving them time to change their viewpoints and ways of operating; secondly, by observing our “national state of affairs” (国情), respecting not only the characters of our officials (we all share the same human weaknesses of character), but also to a definite degree respecting their interests. “Without tolerance, there is no freedom” [Chinese philosopher and essayist Hu Shi, 1948/text here]. If we want to inch forward, if we want to improve, if we want to work in concert, then we need to have an attitude of tolerance and compromise, otherwise we’ll look on one another as enemies, and only violence will settle things, precisely the old way of thinking that does nothing for us.
My feelings on this subject arise from two meetings between current Guizhou Governor Lin Shusen (林树森) and reporters. Formerly, as Party secretary of Guangzhou, he [Lin] expressed dissatisfaction with journalists and angrily accused media of “playing up” (炒作) Guangzhou’s public security problems. What “hand-chopping gang“, “speed-racing gang”, “backpack gang”, he said. Did Guangzhou have such gangs? During the most recent two meetings, he met again with journalists from Guangdong. He said disapprovingly, “Some leaders, they have houses of over 200 square meters, and they still say they can’t afford homes — they tell lies unblinkingly.” “High real-estate prices are the result of media playing things up right and left”, he said. A number of people have already pointed out that his [Lin’s] points don’t stand up to scrutiny, but I can understand why he expressed his dissatisfaction.
Truthfully, being the top political player in Guangzhou isn’t easy. In fact, many problems exist just the same in other places, but as Lin Shusen said, “the key is that in other places they are not reported [by the media], so that Guangzhou looks bad [by comparison]” (Southern Weekend, March 12, 2007). I completely trust that these words are true. Bordering Hong Kong and Macao, Guangzhou’s affairs are reported in those quarters as soon as the wind blows and the grass stirs. You couldn’t cover things up if you tried. Perhaps with Guangzhou’s newspaper industry so developed, and competition so fierce, city leaders in Guangzhou face media scrutiny to a degree leaders in other provinces do not.
If officials and the media enjoyed greater mutual understanding and mutual tolerance, and less opposition, this would benefit China’s gradual progress toward democracy and rule of law.
MORE SOURCES:
Southern Metropolis Daily calls for a domestic ‘partnership’ between government and media“, CMP, January 5, 2007
Should watchdog journalism be protected as a ‘right’ or mandated as a ‘duty’?“, CMP, January 10, 2007
Debate on press freedom in China continues as 12-ex-officials and scholars issue open letter“, CMP, February 15, 2006
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 20, 2007, 1:47pm]

The Good of Society Before All Else 社会效益第一

In the 1990s, as China’s media moved steadily into the marketplace, the Propaganda Bureau issued its “key principle” of “placing the good of society before all else, and working diligently to bring about the unification of social and economic benefits.” The new principle emphasized the following:
1. Under the conditions of the market economy, cultural products [media, film, the arts] are commodities, but commodities of a special nature. Media professionals must seriously and earnestly consider the social implications of their own work.
2. Under the conditions of the market economy, economic benefit must be emphasized in the creation of cultural and non-material products, and trends must be prevented that do not work toward economic development or promote economic benefits; Neither must [media] products lose sight of the social good through the self-interested pursuit of “saleability” in the marketplace.
3. For those news media important to the Party and the nation, the nation shall continue to provide financial and policy support.
(See “The Marxist View of Journalism and the Guiding Principles of Party Journalism,” in News Line, May 2004)

Three Closenesses 三贴近

At the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in 2002, Hu Jintao (胡锦涛) was appointed General Secretary. Li Changchun (李长春) became the Standing Committee member tasked with coordinating propaganda and ideology. In China, where ideological formulations are of supreme importance, the new leadership under Hu Jintao needed a concise formula to deliver their policy on media control.

The result was the “Three Closenesses,” a phrase meant to encompass both the CCP notion of the imperative of media control, and at the same time the need to commercialize the media and make media products broadly more attractive to ever more savvy audiences.

In January 2003, Li Changchun announced top leadership would take a “Three Closenesses” approach to the control of mass media: “Closeness to reality, closeness to the masses and closeness to real life” (贴近实际,贴近群众, 贴近生活). Li said the emphasis of propaganda work should be uniting the “spirit” of the Party with public opinion. This was an elaboration of Jiang Zemin’s notion of “guidance of public opinion,” or yulun daoxiang (舆论导向), the idea being that people should be both guided and given media they found more attractive, interesting and relevant (in other words, could actually consume). The concept of the “Three Closenesses” was also seen as a key component of the so-called “Marxist View of Journalism” (马克思主义新闻观), the CCP’s vision of the purpose and practice of the media.

Li Changchun also called for “enlarging and strengthening” (做强做大), the idea being that “cultural” organizations (media, arts, etcetera) should push actively to become full-fledged businesses, forming an industry made up of powerful Chinese conglomerates (“aircraft carriers” they were actually called) equipped to do battle with foreign media groups like News Corp (China’s WTO accession had come in December 2001).

Two Newspapers and One Magazine

“Two Newspapers and One Magazine”, a media term inseparable from China’s newspaper culture before reform and opening, refers to the three most influential publications in China during the Cultural Revolution: People’s Daily, People’s Liberation Daily and Hongqi Magazine (renamed Qiushi Magazine in 1988). These three publications were used to deliver the latest ideological messages from Chairman Mao Zedong (毛泽东). The editorials appearing in the publications (which were all identical!) were regarded as the loftiest guides for Communist Party behavior and the unification of public opinion.
On May 31, 1966, the leader of Central Cultural Revolution Division, Mao supporter Chen Boda (陈伯达) took control of People’s Daily and refashioned it as a tool for Cultural Revolution propaganda. On June 1, People’s Daily printed an editorial called “Destroy all Evils” (横扫一切牛鬼蛇神), which sought to rally the support of the whole nation in carrying out a Cultural Revolution and the moving against “rightist” elements (those opposed to the policies of Mao Zedong). Chen’s team later gained control of People’s Liberation Daily and Hongqi Magazine, completing the so-called “Two Newspapers, One Magazine” propaganda machine, which became the principal force guiding all mass media in China.
By the end of 1966, after the publication of tirade called “Complete the Revolution on the Frontlines of Journalism” (把新闻战线的革命进行到底), a great number of newspapers had been shut down and those remaining fashioned into tools for promoting the Party ideology.
Aside from issuing the latest policies and messages about official movements, the editorials and comments issued by the “Two Newspapers and One Magazine” reinforced the cult of Chairman Mao. They includes slogans like “Long live the People’s Republic!” and sayings from Mao’s red book. Other newspapers sheepishly followed these three, mimicking not only their content but also their size, fonts and layout.
After the death of Mao on Sept 9, 1976, the Gang of Four ran the Chairman’s “dying words” – “Stay the course” (按既定方针办事) — in the editorials of the “Two Newspapers and One Magazine”. This was an attempt by the gang to further legitimize their powers in Mao’s absence.
When the Gang of Four fell on October 25, 1976, it was once again the “Two Newspapers and One Magazine” that announced “A Great and Historic Victory” (伟大的历史性胜利) and defined the new direction of the Party and the nation.
People’s Daily remains the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It is still regarded as the principle mouthpiece of China’s top leaders.
People’s Liberation Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Military Commission, released its first issue on January 1, 1956.
Hongqi Magazine began publication as a central theoretical magazine during the Great Leap Forward in 1958. Its last issue was released on June 15, 1988. Less than one month later, the magazine was re-launched as Qiushi Magazine.
Additional Resources:
Hu Xingrong (胡兴荣), “The Era of Great Newspapers” (大报纸时代)

Social Benefit First 社会效益第一

Chinese media have gradually moved into the marketplace since the 1990s, even as the Communist Party continues to exercise controls over that market (specifying, for example, the scope of coverage for particular magazines and controlling appointments to top editorial positions). Under these new conditions, publicity departments (the Central Propaganda Department, GAPP, SARFT) put forward the “key principle” of “placing social benefit at the forefront, working to realize the unification of social benefit and economic benefit” (“把社会效益放在首位,努力实现社会效益和经济效益的统一”). This new principle, more about the interests of the Party than the public, emphasized the following:
Under the conditions of the market economy non-material cultural products (精神文化产品) are also commodities, but they are a special kind of commodity (特殊的商品). Journalists (or news workers/新闻工作者) must “earnestly and strictly” consider the social consequences of their own works.
Under the conditions of the market economy, attention must be paid to economic benefit in the production of non-material cultural products, and trends that do not take economic benefits into consideration or do not envision economic development must be avoided; the trend of superficial pursuit of the “selling point” that overlooks social benefit must also be opposed.
For those media which are important to the Party and nation, the country will provide policy and fiscal support.
(Source: “马克思主义新闻观和党的新闻工作方针原则”, “新闻战线”/News Frontline, May 2004)

Green Ratings 绿色收视率

This term was first used by China Central Television in 2006 in response to criticisms that an overemphasis on audience ratings was driving down the quality of programming. The idea of “green ratings” was to create a happy marriage between the pursuit of higher ratings and avoidance of content deemed sensational or damaging to the media’s overall credibility. [SOURCE: “Ten keywords in Chinese broadcasting research 2006”, Chen Lidan ]. [CMP: “Beijing Youth Daily editorial appeals for balance of public and commercial interests in Chinese media”].

Hitting line balls 打擦边球

Roughly analogous with the English term “push the envelope, this phrase (built, clearly, on a sports metaphor) is used to refer to media reports that take calculated political risks, staying roughly within the bounds of what is permissible.

New rules in Sichuanese city to discipline officials on the basis of “mainstream” media reports

Chinese commercial media and more independent-minded strains within Party media often staunchly defend the media’s “right” to conduct “supervision by public opinion” (舆论监督), which might otherwise be translated “watchdog journalism”. But any and all legislation touching on the news media is suspect, even when it seems on the surface to uphold and promote the media’s monitoring role. Today, a handful of commercial newspapers and Websites launched editorial attacks against new rules in the Sichuanese city of Chongzhou (崇州), which appear to tacitly protect official wrongdoing by making reporting by “mainstream media” a precondition for local discipline for leadership failures and mishaps. [BELOW: March 18 Legal Daily coverage of new rules in Chongzhou City via YNET.com].
.

18.jpg


.
The Chongzhou rules, released by the official Xinhua News Agency on March 17, specify, according to Chinese media, that officials will be suspended or removed “if a major safety accident, epidemic or [other] negative incident occurs in their jurisdiction and is reported by mainstream media” (Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post).
The Xinhua News Agency release on the rules said they targeted township and village cadres in the city and specified that officials would be suspended or removed “in instances where major cases of violation of law or [Party] discipline occur, [or] major safety accidents, [or] large-scale natural disasters, [or] major epidemics, severely damaging the soft environment for investment, or exposed by mainstream media, or causing major losses to [local] enterprises.”
The last three phrases (underlined above) seemed to be presented as conditions for action in cases of official negligence or abuse of duty.
Chinese media today pointed out a number of gaps and inconsistencies in the Chongzhou rules, including the ambiguity of “mainstream media.” The term is sometimes used in Chinese to denote Party media, such as the official People’s Daily and China Central Television. As Chinese media rapidly commercialize, however, it has come to encompass, at other times, commercially driven mass media.
The following editorial, from Contemporary Life newspaper, was featured today at People’s Daily Online. It asks whether serious cases that are not reported by “mainstream media”, do not cause corporate losses, etcetera, will be irrelevant so far as the new Chongzhou rules are concerned:
… However, carefully poring over this news, I am really at a loss [as to what these rules mean]. First of all, if something is reported by “non-mainstream media” lying outside the “mainstream media” encompassed by these provisional rules, do these rules not apply? And will the responsibility of the official in question not be looked into? Secondly, if a severe case violating law and discipline occurs in some township of this city [of Chongzhou], but does not result in substantial corporate losses, rather severely harming the interests of ordinary people, and moreover is not reported by “mainstream media”, will [this case] not qualify for disciplinary action under the rules? Can the official involved simply go on in a high-minded fashion as though nothing happened whatsoever? If this is the case the “severe” repurcussions [these rules talk about] are just an empty line I’m afraid. This kind of systematic protection [of official abuse] is truly the most frightening thing of all!
“I staunchely believe that in coming out with a document like this the relevant [government] offices failed to think it through,” the editorial continued, but said the ramifications were all too clear:
Whatever the reason [for their creation], [the rules] have the effect of systematic protection for officials who committ errors. So if a case happens that does serious harm to the lives and interests of ordinary people, and is neither reported by mainstream media nor does serious harm to corporate interests, then there’s no need to make leaders responsible? Is this what we mean by “ruling for the people”? Is this kind of system creating yet another protection (保护伞) for those officials who lapse in their duties and should be held strictly responsible?
An editorial in Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post called it “inappropriate” to use media exposure as a basis for pursuing official responsibility:
First of all, media exposure cannot be used as a precondition for looking into official wrongdoing. Judging official responsibility is a task of discipline inspection authorities, and media exposure is merely a presentation to the public of facts in the case. Whether these facts merit official action, and how that action should be carried out, must be decided by discipline inspection authorities after thorough investigation. Even in the absence of media exposure, the presence of a problem and the existence of [bureaucratic] responsibility should merit investigation of cadres by the relevant authorities.
The editorial said the requirement that cases already exposed by “mainstream media” be followed up raised suspicions of official “theatrics” (有作秀的嫌疑):
Actually … exposing problems is the duty of the media … and determining official responsibility is the duty of discipline inspection authorities. These two do not overlap, and there is no necessary cause and effect relationship between them. Whether to investigate and how [are issues that] must proceed in accordance with the law — they have no relationship to whether or not the media have exposed [a case]. Linking discipline for official conduct with media exposure can only lead people to assume government offices are putting on a performance, and are not necessarily resolving the problems in question.
A page-four editorial in The Beijing News called the Chongzhou rules the latest case in the “insoluble contradition” of “ever more detailed rules yielding ever more chaos” at the local and regional level in China. “Lately not a few local governments … have come out with detailed rules or measures that seek to straighten out age-old problems. But as the clauses become more and more ‘thorough’ their effectiveness remains elusive.”
The reason for this, said The Beijing News editorial, was simple — the fact that the very process of discipline monitoring was controlled by the bureaucracy. Because power, it said, was “concentrated in the hands of a few ‘monitors'” this opened up room for “special power cliques” (特权群体)” to monopolize and control the process of discipline inspection, serving as both “players and referrees.” These officials could use their power, and rules like those in Chongzhou, to attack political opponents.
The Beijing News noted ironically that the Chongzhou rules (and other local measures) could potentially become “systems for transferring responsibility” (责任转移制):
It’s a good thing that news about the importance of supervision by public opinion [or watchdog journalism] has lately been on the rise. But whether it’s about some local government putting out [rules] saying officials must accompany reporters on their interviews, or these rules this time about officials “stepping down” when mainstream media have exposed them, all of these depart in my opinion from the proper aim of watchdog journalism, and could potentially become “systems for transferring responsibility.”
MORE SOURCES:
It is terrifying to offer ‘systematic protection’ for [official] errors“, Contemporary Life (当代生活报), March 19, 2007
Xinhua News Agency announcement on Chongzhou City rules, March 17, 2007
Should watchdog journalism be protected as a ‘right’ or mandated as a ‘duty’?“, CMP, January 10, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 19, 2007, 2:44pm]

Li Yan Case sparks nationwide debate in China over “peaceful death” and euthanasia

southern-metropolis-daily_march-14_2007.pdf
The story of a 28 year-old woman from China’s northern Ningxia Autonomous Region suffering from terminal cancer has sparked a nationwide debate in China over death and euthanasia, in a case that recalls but bears marked differences with the 2005 case of Terry Schiavo in the United States. Chinese media have followed the case closely over the last two days, and the topic became a Web sensation yesterday after popular CCTV investigative news anchor Chai Jing (柴静) posted a message from the cancer patient, Li Yan (李燕), on her personal Weblog conveying Li Yan’s wish that the NPC consider drafting a proposal on “peaceful dying” (安乐死), or euthanasia. [BELOW: Page 11 of Southern Metropolis Daily lays out the pros and cons of the euthanasia debate/See also PDF above.]
.

110.jpg


.
According to Chinese news reports, Li Yan was diagnosed with cancer at the age of six, has “lost motor function in her whole body” and is incapable of performing basic bodily functions unassisted.
Li Yan’s request to submit a proposal to the NPC for the drafting of a law on euthanasia was made via “News Probe” anchor Chai Jing’s personal Weblog. Li Yan wrote: “I treasure life, but I don’t wish to live.” The message on Chai Jing’s Weblog recalled how Li Yan had been visited by a reporter from Ningxia Daily, who reportedly asked Li Yan whether she didn’t feel it was irresponsible to her parents to wish for a “peaceful death”. Li Yan replied by telling the reporter to try lying down in bed for 24 hours without moving, Hong Kong’s Ta Kung Pao reported today, then said: “People have the right to live, and they also have the right to die.”
An editorial on Eastday.com expressed sympathy for Li Yan’s situation, but said a proposal by NPC or CPPCC representatives would be an “abuse of rights”: “I deeply understand the pain that illness has brought to this 28 year-old woman. I also respect her right to express her innermost feelings. But this is merely sympathy, an involuntary sympathy. If we really have NPC representatives or CPPCC committee members making a proposal on euthanasia in China today, this is clearly an inopportune abuse of rights.”
MORE SOURCES:
It is not time for a law on peaceful dying” (Chinese), Eastday.com, March 14, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 14, 2007, 12:57pm]