Guangdong’s provincial office in charge of product pricing announced in a new statute on price supervision that the media have a “right to carry out press supervision” on the issue of fair pricing. [BELOW: Screenshot of Guangdong government site offering pricing information on goods and services].

The statute, “Guangdong Province Statute on Price Supervision (Draft Soliciting Comment)”, covers a wide range of goods and services and defines the legal responsibility of various points in the supply chain regarding fair pricing. It outlines maximum penalties of 50,000 yuan (US$6,500) for parties failing to provide information on pricing or cooperate with oversight procedures. The draft was made available on the Web starting February 14, and will seek public comment through April 1. [Chinese coverage at Sohu.com].
Officials in Guangdong said the goal of the statute was to better regulate and stabilize price levels to protect the “legal rights and interests of consumers and business operators, and the public interest”.
According to the statute, released by Guangdong’s Product Pricing Bureau (广东省物价局), “any company or individual has the right to inform or conduct supervision in cases harmful to the legal rights of consumers or business operators in regard to pricing (损害消费者、经营者合法价格权益的行为).”
Concerning the role of the media and release of information, the statute said: “The news media have the right to conduct supervision by public opinion [“watchdog journalism”] on pricing. All pricing departments at people’s governments at the county level and above must establish working information release systems for prices and pricing policies and take the initiative in notifying the public about major readjustments in pricing policy.”
Unfair pricing of goods and services in China has been a source of irritation for consumers in recent years, with continued media coverage of such stories as unreasonable road repair fees levied on motorists. The Guangdong statute directly tackles three areas in particular, mandating that prices must be lowered for toll roads, fixed-line television and telecoms services “when service quality goes down”.
In recent years a number of local or targeted measures to address various economic, social or environmental problems in China have included statements on the media’s role in conducting “supervision by public opinion”, or “watchdog journalism”. These regulations, which seem to empower media on circumscribed issues within certain jurisdictional scopes, have cropped up amidst a general worsening of the overall atmosphere for media in China. Many journalists say conducting watchdog journalism has become increasingly difficult since 2003.
Domestic debates on media freedom and the role of the media have also cropped up from time to time around these localized laws and regulations mentioning media supervision.
When Henan’s capital city of Zhengzhou singled media out as a key form of monitoring in local legislation to combat official corruption late last year, China’s official People’s Daily praised the move. On January 6, however, The Beijing News offered a moderate dissent in an editorial by a prominent legal scholar, saying the language “should” in the media-related portion was ill-chosen and that such legislation should emphasize the right rather than the duty of media to perform a watchdog role. The editorial advised Chinese leaders to take the lead in protecting the media’s right to conduct watchdog journalism, rather than surrender the issue to local governments.
Unlike the controversial Zhengzhou legislation, Guangdong’s fair pricing statute specifies that media have a “right” (有权) to carry out watchdog journalism.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 21, 2007, 12:00pm]

February 12 — Chinese lawyers circulated an open letter on the Internet protesting the deletion of their comments posted on personal Weblogs. [Complete translation available at ESWN].
February 14 — Chinese media turned again to the issue of free speech after reports that renowned sexologist Li Yinhe alleged on her Weblog that she had been pressured by officials to “shut up” and avoid contact with the media. In a February 8 posting on her personal blog, Li Yinhe, a scholar with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), wrote that leaders were pressuring her to “shut up”. In the near future, she said, she would “accept fewer interviews with reporters” and “make fewer comments about sex”. “Right now”, Li wrote, “I am faced with this decision: I am under pressure from officials ‘who are not ordinary people’. [They say] they hope I will keep my mouth shut”. A commentary in Southern Metropolis Daily, and excerpted in other papers, said the silencing of Li Yinhe posed a threat to the speech freedoms of all those who criticized her views, not to mention those who supported them. [Coverage from CMP].
February 15 — An editorial in Dahe Daily, a commercial newspaper in Henan Province, praised a speech by a top Guangdong propaganda official, who said on February 8 that propaganda officials would have to move away from a model of arbitrary censorship bowing to demands from local party officials. Dahe Daily said “smearing the media has become a tool” used by officials use to stave off monitoring from the press.
GAPP official: China’s Web economy will surpass Western countries due to cultural uniqueness
February 16 — A top official from China’s official agency in charge of press and publishing suggested in an interview with the overseas edition of China’s official People’s Daily that China’s unique cultural character made it particularly suited to the development of a Web-based economy, and that he expected the country’s Web economy to surpass that of many Western countries.
February 16 — Kou Shaowei (寇晓伟), a top official in China’s General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) in charge of audiovisual content and Web publishing, said China’s Web-based economy would surpass those of Western countries because of China’s unique cultural characteristics. China’s Web economy was growing rapidly, said Kou, particularly in the areas of SMS messaging and online games. China’s online game industry was worth 6.5 billion yuan (US$830 million) in 2006, he said, up 73.5 percent on the previous year and substantially surpassing estimates. Resorting to broad cultural generalizations (China versus “the West”) rather than demographic or market research data, the deputy minister said that when “compared with countries in the West, China’s situation is rather particular”. “When assessing the development of China’s Web, we cannot use viewpoints inherent to the West. I believe China’s Web-based economy will surpass those of many Western countries in both scale and speed”, Kou said.
February 16 — Urban myth cooked up by attention-seeking commercial media or news story in the public interest? … Law enforcement authorities in Guangzhou said at a press conference that a “thorough investigation” had found no evidence to support rumors that criminals might be using an anesthetic solution, or “daze drug”, to disarm victims in the city. Nevertheless, Guangzhou media persisted in reporting the “daze drug” story, and it continued to gain national attention through popular Web portals like Sina.com.

February 16 — Is it an urban myth cooked up by attention-seeking commercial media or a news story in the public interest? … Two days ago law enforcement authorities in Guangzhou said at a press conference that a “thorough investigation” had found no evidence to support rumors that criminals might be using an anesthetic solution, or “daze drug”, to disarm victims in the city. Nevertheless, Guangzhou media persisted in reporting the “daze drug” story today, and it continued to gain national attention through popular Web portals like Sina.com. [BELOW: Screenshot of special coverage of the “daze drug” story at Sina.com, beneath today’s story from Guangzhou’s New Express].

It was the latest installment in an ongoing war of words between Guangzhou law enforcement authorities and local media, who have faced numerous accusations lately of building up stories to drive up circulation. Back in January, Guangzhou’s top law-enforcement official, Zhang Guifang (张桂芳), blamed media for the worsening sense of public safety in the city.
News reports alleging attacks using “daze drugs” began surfacing in Guangzhou in September last year, creating concern among city residents, according to a report yesterday in Guangdong’s official Nanfang Daily.
One of the most controversial news reports at the time came from Guangzhou’s New Express, a popular commercial newspaper, which sent reporters out on the street to purchase “daze drugs”. According to their story, the reporters conducted an experiment with a white rat on site after purchasing a spray solution. The rat reportedly went unconscious as a result. The news report generated considerable interest in Guangzhou.
Nanfang Daily reported yesterday that police had carried out laboratory analysis of samples of an alleged “daze drug” and found ingredients ranging from ammonia water and menthol to camphor, but had found no chemicals capable of “controlling human thought or movement”.
The New Express was not convinced. In a report today, the paper re-visited the question and defended local media reports, speaking with Guangzhou residents and the reporters responsible for the above-mentioned story.
Mrs. Wang, a reader [of the New Express] who lives on Chebo Road called into the newsroom and said that in the last two years the public safety situation in Guangzhou has turned around a bit. The hard work of the police is to credit for this, but the investigations of the media are also inseparable. It’s because of media reports that a number of terrible cases and new types of cases have gotten widespread attention, causing the police to apply their strength. The “daze drug” issue is one example, and [she] hoped our newspaper would continue to report on crime problems.
The paper also offered testimony from a Ms. Luo, who claimed to have been the victim of a “daze drug” attack:
She said yesterday to this reporter that the last time she spoke to police was when they paid her a visit on September 6 [last year], and that no-one has sought her out since. Nor had she received any final word or response from the police. “I’ve never once changed my story. What I told the police was the same thing I told the press,” said Ms. Luo. “I am not lying. But no one has been reasonable with me”.
The article quoted one of the New Express reporters on the original “daze drug” story, curiously choosing to protect their identity:
“Now the police are saying ‘daze drugs’ don’t exist. As one of the original reporters on the undercover story, I can say we’re really happy. Because our intention in doing the report was to call police attention to this problem. We achieved our objective in looking into the so-called ‘daze drugs’ bandied about on the Web … But we’re also not convinced. Why were the explanations of criminals in the [police] case so different from the facts we uncovered in our investigation?”
MORE SOURCES (Chinese):
[Special page on “daze drugs” at Sohu.com]
[“Do ‘daze drugs’ daze you? Not true!“, Guangzhou Daily, February 15, 2007]
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 16, 2007, 6:55pm]

A top official from China’s official agency in charge of press and publishing suggested in an interview with the overseas edition of China’s official People’s Daily that China’s unique cultural character made it particularly suited to the development of a Web-based economy, and that he expected the country’s Web economy to surpass that of many Western countries. [BELOW: Screenshot of coverage of GAPP officials statements via Sohu.com].

Kou Shaowei (寇晓伟), a top official in China’s General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) in charge of audiovisual content and Web publishing, said China’s Web-based economy was growing rapidly, particularly in the areas of SMS messaging and online games. China’s online game industry was worth 6.5 billion yuan (US$830 million) in 2006, he said, up 73.5 percent on the previous year and substantially surpassing estimates. “In terms of software development, we still lag behind other countries, but when you talk about the new levels of business at online game companies in China, many Western colleagues voice their admiration,” said Kou.
But some of the deputy minister’s statements concerning the reasons for China’s success bore overtones of cultural nationalism, or what has in China been termed “cultural subjectivity” (文化主题性).
The debate over cultural nationalism has found some limited following in China in recent years, and was evidenced in 2006 by an open letter issued by 10 Chinese graduate students on the Internet urging action to limit Christmas celebrations in China on the grounds that these endangered China’s “cultural subjectivity”。 [Zhao Mu blog on students open letter]. [Leeman, Lee and Xu lawfirm blog on open letter]. [Washington Post coverage of open letter].
Resorting to broad cultural generalizations (China versus “the West”) rather than demographic or market research data, the deputy minister said that when “compared with countries in the West, China’s situation is rather particular”:
When assessing the development of China’s Web, we cannot use viewpoints inherent to the West. I believe China’s Web-based economy will surpass those of many Western countries in both scale and speed. This owes to the particulars of the Web and the consumption habits of Chinese. The characteristics of the Web are rapid transmission, strong interactivity, and massive information capacity. In an increasingly open world, the Web’s utility is major. The Chinese people, moreover, enjoy public discourse and are eager to join in the excitement. With this kind of cultural background, the Web industry will develop as the Web suits the consumption habits of the Chinese.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 16, 2007, 11:20am]

Responding to a recent speech by Hu Guohua, Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, in which the official talked about news control and the role of mass media, Dahe Daily, a commercial newspaper in Henan Province, said in a commentary last week that “smearing the media has become a tool” some officials use to stave off monitoring from the press.
Prior to Hu Guohua’s speech last week, in which he intimated propaganda officials would have to move away from a model of arbitrary censorship bowing to demands from local party officials, the media, particularly in Guangdong province, had been targeted on several occasions. In mid-January a top law-enforcement official in Guangzhou blamed media for a worsening sense of public safety. Just days before Hu’s speech, officials in Guangdong said media shared responsibility for public concerns about food safety.
The Dahe Daily commentary follows:
Someone in Guangdong’s Ministry of Public Security said [recently] that the serious public safety situation in Guangdong was related to negative reports by the media. But Hu Guohua, deputy to the People’s Congress and the vice minister of the propaganda department in Guangdong, said [in a speech several days ago] that the rise in the number of criminal cases is natural [given economic growth] and should be related [instead] to economic and social development, and not to journalists. From the point of view of management of the media, [Hu said, media should be treated well, used well and managed well. Managing media does not mean not allowing them to report anything (February 7, Southern Metropolis Daily).
These words by Hu Guohua are probably the most touching I have ever heard in my five years working as a journalist.
When I was choosing my undergraduate major, my father told me the only way to avoid being insulted and bullied was to become a government official, a journalist or a lawyer. Although this advice may not accurately sum up the real situation in contemporary Chinese society, it does accurately express the social situation as seen through the eyes of one peasant. Four years later I was a reporter. The first news story I did was to make records of ]the life of] people who survived by scavenging at two large dumps. They lived there with their children and even naturally formed social groups. I spent about two weeks going to the dumping grounds and spending the days with them. Sometimes I helped them out to break down the hostility they felt toward me.
In that period, I lived the life of a beggar … But I noticed the smearing of journalists was becoming more and more common. Public security takes a turn for the worse and reporters are blamed. Explosions cause deaths at coalmines, and while the issue of illegal mining is glossed over, journalists are defamed for their intention to extort money.
Out of self-defense, smearing the image of reporters has become a tool for some departments and professions that are sensitive [to investigation]. These actions [to smear the media] seek to limit the media’s monitoring function so [these people] can cover up their dereliction of duty. They think that by shutting the mouths of reporters they can shirk their responsibility. Clearly, faced with intelligent and open-minded officials like Li Yizhong, Zhu Xiaodan and Hu Guohua, their attempts can’t have quite the effect they desired.
[Posted by Brian Chan, February 15, 2007, 11:35am]

February 14 — China’s most controversial expert on human sexuality, Li Yinhe (李银河), is once again the focus of news and commentary in China following allegations on her personal Weblog last week that officials have warned her to keep quiet. [BELOW: Screenshot of February 8 entry from Li Yinhe’s Weblog alleging pressure from officials to “shut up”].

In a February 8 posting on her personal blog, Li Yinhe, a scholar with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), wrote that leaders were pressuring her to “shut up”. In the near future, she said, she would “accept fewer interviews with reporters” and “make fewer comments about sex”. “Right now”, Li wrote, “I am faced with this decision: I am under pressure from officials ‘who are not ordinary people’. [They say] they hope I will keep my mouth shut”.
A commentary in Monday’s Southern Metropolis Daily, and excerpted in today’s Chongqing Morning Post, said the silencing of Li Yinhe posed a threat to the speech freedoms of all those who criticize her views, not to mention those who support them:
Clearly, if Li Yinhe’s voice can be so easily suppressed then the interests and right to speak of all those who curse her [for her views] will be difficult to safeguard, and the voices they wish to hear might suffer similarly.
Protecting freedom of expression necessarily means we will have to hear some voices we don’t particularly like. This is a necessary price to be paid for freedom. If we must choose between “hearing both those voices we like and those we don’t” and “hearing absolutely nothing”, we should opt for the former.
An editorial from Li Rui (李辉) in yesterday’s Southern Metropolis Daily offered a slightly different view to the spirited defense of speech freedoms voiced the day before. Countering Li Yinhe’s point that her statements about sex were not political, and therefore not threatening, the editorial expressed intellectual sympathy with officials who might find Li Yinhe’s views politically provocative:
Surely, Li Yinhe’s sex topics are not [overtly] political topics. But this does not mean they do not have political significance. As a disciple of [Michel] Foucault, Li Yinhe most certainly understands the political significance of “sex”. For her to say such a thing is naturally a deceit with which to protect her freedom to express her views … So, for those [officials] “who are not ordinary people”, they cannot possibly tolerate tolerance toward Li Yinhe and her freedom to express herself.
An editorial in yesterday’s Information Times firmly defended Li Yinhe’s right to speak her mind, and said a multiplicity of voices was a sign of a “healthy, scientific and rational” society of citizens:
In the eyes of some, Li Yinhe is the epitome of “different”. Particularly concerning some of her statements about sex, there are some people who simply find her shocking and hard to accept. But regardless of whether you understand Li Yinhe, or see her as a freak, no one has the right to shut her up. No one can, through whatever means, deny her right to speak.
In a healthy, scientific and rational citizens society and public space, various kinds of advance guard speech should be tolerated. The expression of different voices not only benefits a balanced ‘opinion environment’ but these competing points of view will bring about social debate at all levels and will be beneficial in promoting deliberation in society generally. They will also be beneficial in fostering civic rationalism, helping to build consensus through debate …
A February 12 editorial in Shanghai’s Oriental Daily argued for greater tolerance for diverse voices in Chinese society, including ones many people may find offensive:
The expression of different voices not only benefits the ‘opinion environment’, but these voices and viewpoints and the discussions they prompt are beneficial to clearing up our ideas that seem right but are actually wrong. People at all levels [of society] can reach a common understanding through the sharing of opinions.
The editorial related Li Yinhe’s “right” to speak her mind to the constitutionally guaranteed right [Chapter II, Article 5] of every Chinese citizen to freedom of expression:
Regarding sensitive topics like sex, whether one tends to conservatism or advocates personal free license, so long as it falls within the law, no-one, including myself or Li Yinhe, has the right to ‘give the final word’. You can disagree with Li Yinhe’s viewpoints, but you have to admit that her views have aroused a great number of citizens. Li Yinhe’s right to speak her views are actually the same thing as every citizen’s right to speak his or her views.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 14, 2007, 3:35pm]

February 5 — Southern Metropolis Daily ran the first editorial by Taiwanese intellectual Lung Ying-tai [JMSC faculty page] to appear in mainland media since the shutdown in January 2006 of Freezing Point, a supplement of China Youth Daily. Following the shutdown of Freezing Point, an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao from Lung Ying-tai raised the stakes for top Chinese leaders, as Lung asked Hu Jintao rhetorically how China and Taiwan could consider re-unification when leaders in China still resorted to brazen press control tactics. Lung Ying-tai had also been a recent contributor to Freezing Point, with an essay called “The Taiwan You May Not Know”. The Southern Metropolis Daily essay concerned graft allegations that have damaged the political fortunes of Kuomintang leader Ma Ying-jeou.
February 6 — The South China Morning Post reported that an essay written by a top Chinese religious affairs official and heavily critical of the U.S. war in Iraq was removed from domestic Chinese websites at the order of top officials. ESWN provided a translation of the essay. [Coverage from SCMP via ESWN].
February 6 — In more bad press for China’s news media, on the heels of international coverage of the Lan Chengzhang story and media corruption in China, the ongoing session of
the Guangdong provincial People’s Congress said the media bore partial responsibility for food safety concerns. A news report on Southcn.com quoted one official, Su Yixiang (苏宜香), as saying: “As for news reports on food safety, they must be scientific and show a strict professionalism, otherwise they will mislead consumers and affect the stability of society”. [Coverage from CMP].
February 7 — Responding to a flood of criticism of the role of the media, a top Guangdong propaganda official said media were an “indispensable” form of monitoring, but that there was also a need to “raise the character” of Chinese journalists. The comments from Hu Guohua (胡国华 ), Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, made particular reference to previous statements made by leaders in Guangdong blaming the media for worsening social trends there.
February 9 — According to the South China Morning Post, top Chinese propaganda leaders have established a “points-based penalty system” that will tighten the grip on Chinese news media in the run up to the sensitive 17th party Congress later in 2007. Citing “party sources”, the newspaper said media “will be allocated 12 points each and subject to closure if all their points are deducted.” [SCMP coverage via AsiaMedia].
February 9 — Arguing for greater official tolerance of the news media, China’s top safety inspection official said publicly that news media could not be expected to get their facts it 100% right, and that officials must not place arbitrary limitations on the press. Quoted in China Youth Daily newspaper, Li Yizhong (李毅中), minister of China’s General Administration of Work Safety (GAWS), angrily criticized the actions of local work safety officials in the city of Xinzhou (忻州), who allegedly accepted payments from state-run mines and used the money to purchase an office building and vehicles for the local office of work safety. While the Xinzhou
case formed the crux of Li Yizhong’s comments, the official also expressed his thanks to China Youth Daily for its breaking of the Xinzhou story in December 2006 and China Central Television and other media for their follow-up coverage.
February 10 — Beijing Olympic officials said China would raise quotas on domestic journalists covering the 2008 games, allowing for more print and broadcast journalists to be onsite covering the games. News reports said registration for print journalists covering the games would begin in March 2007.

China announced that it would raise personnel quotas for the domestic media ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, allowing for more print and broadcast journalists to be onsite covering the games.
According to reports in The Beijing News and the Beijing Daily Messenger (北京娱乐信报), the announcement was made yesterday by Sun Weigui (孙维佳), the Beijing Olympic Committee official in charge of press affairs. [Coverage from The Beijing News].
News reports said registration for print journalists covering the games would begin in March this year.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 10, 2007, 3:50pm]

In what seemed a ringing indictment of official manipulation and control of news media, China’s top safety inspection official said officials must not place arbitrary limitations on the press and are duty-bound to take media supervision seriously. News media do not have the luxury of time, do not work in an official capacity and do not enjoy the powers available to party discipline inspections teams, the official said — as such it is unreasonable to expect journalists to meet a standard of 100% accuracy. [BELOW: QQ.com gives major play to comments by China’s top safety official].

Quoted in yesterday’s China Youth Daily newspaper, Li Yizhong (李毅中), minister of China’s General Administration of Work Safety (GAWS), angrily criticized the actions of local work safety officials in the city of Xinzhou (忻州), who allegedly accepted payments from state-run mines and used the money to purchase an office building and vehicles for the local office of work safety. While the Xinzhou case formed the crux of Li Yizhong’s comments, the official also expressed his thanks to China Youth Daily for its breaking of the Xinzhou story last December and China Central Television and other media for their follow-up coverage. [Original China Youth Daily story, December 27, 2006, with photos of Xinzhou office building allegedly purchased by local safety officials with dirty money].
“We [at GAWS] are in the administrative ranks, and we carry out investigation of production safety [in China]. But at the same time we also have to accept supervision [of our conduct],” Li Yizhong was quoted as saying in China Youth Daily.
Li criticized moves to control media supervision on the grounds that news reports lacked perfect accuracy: “The media are not the Central Discipline Inspection Commission”, said Li. “They do not have the power to ‘detain’ suspects, they do not have the power of coercion. Journalists can only rely on their own acumen, on their own strength and that of their departments, to go out an find news sources. When they come across mining accidents and other stories to uncover, they face the danger of being crippled or even killed … The media are not auditing officials, they cannot rely on an army of auditors and accountants and spend a few months or half a year to confirm every shred of evidence … Media are not inspection teams, armed with government power to mobilize major investigative power, openly and boldy ‘questioning” every relevant person, investigating whomever they wish and whatever government office they wish.”
“If you demand that news reports are 100% accurate in every word and every sentence, this is impossible”, Li said.
QQ.com, a popular Chinese Web portal overseen by officials in the southern city of Shenzhen, reorganized Li Yizhong’s comments in a story featured today on the frontpage of its news section. The headline of the story read: “Work Safety Minister Li Yizhong: Media are Not the Central Discipline Inspection Commission”.
MORE SOURCES:
[“Li Yizhong’s War on Recurring Coal Mine Accidents“, China.org.cn, August 2006]
[“Li Yizhong named head of General Administration of Work Safety“, Xinhua, March 2005]
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 9, 2007, 3:15pm]

Guangzhou’s top leader said in a forum with regional media yesterday that party and government leaders in the city encouraged and accepted correct watchdog journalism, or “supervision by public opinion” (舆论监督), and that it was an important test of whether cadres were dedicated to serving the people. [BELOW: Participant on a Chinese message board expresses skepticism about city leaders’ commitment to media supervision.]

Quoted in a report from the official Xinhua News Agency, Zhu Xiaodan (朱小丹), party secretary of Guangzhou and a standing committee member of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, said watchdog journalism would help make leaders more aware of the hopes of the people and the problems facing them. “If there are problems in your own work but you keep shutting the mouths of others, the reason can only be that you are selfishly thinking of your own interests,” Zhu said. “Therefore, whether or not we can take the initiative in accepting watchdog journalism is a test of whether we have the people in our hearts and accept constructive voices”.
Zhu emphasized that quality watchdog journalism included critical news reports and opinions. But the leader’s notion of correct watchdog journalism — a reference to the concept of “correct guidance of public opinion” — also assumed supervision under party press controls.
Web users at Web portal Sina.com responded variously to the news.
“Leaders accepting supervision by public opinion is an important aspect of developing toward democratic governance. I hope Guangzhou can set a good example in this area,” said one netizen.
“Good. This deserves praise!” said another. “Especially in this place [Guangzhou], for leaders to have the courage to open up politics to scrutiny really gives us hope!”
Others were more skeptical: “These words definitely don’t apply to [Zhu Xiaodan] himself!”
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 8, 2007, 10:55am]