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]

Chinese media sharply criticized the Japanese press for what they called the “continuous building up” of a story about a Chinese scientific research vessel sighted just off the disputed Diaoyutai Islands, which the Japanese call the Senkaku Islands. [Chinese coverage also appeared on BBC’s Chinese-language site]. A second Chinese report today, featured on most major Web portals, also criticized Japanese media for “blowing up” (炒作) a story about alleged Chinese theft of Japanese submarine technology. [BELOW: Screen capture from Southcn.com, of Guangdong province, criticizing Japanese media].

The first report of the sighting of the Chinese research vessel appeared in Japan’s Mainichi Shinbun on February 4 and was featured on Yahoo! Japan News. According to that report Japanese coast guard from the city of Naha had discovered the Chinese vessel in the area, but no specific source for the information was cited. However, subsequent news reports from Mainichi Shinbun, Sankei and Yomiuri quoted sources in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Japanese media also referred to statements made by Japan’s cabinet chief and prime minister.
A news release today from China’s official Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman from China’s Foreign Affairs Office as saying China had already expressed its dissatisfaction with “the building up of this affair by the Japanese side”. The spokesman said the Chinese boat was carrying out “normal scientific research” in the area.
The territorial dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands has long been a thorn in the side of Sino-Japanese relations.
[Posted by Brian Chan, February 7, 2007, 4:36pm]

Responding to a flood of recent news raising tough questions about the role of the media, press ethics and propaganda controls, a top Guangdong propaganda official said yesterday that media were an “indispensable” form of monitoring, but that there was also a need to “raise the character” of Chinese journalists. [BELOW: Screen capture from Sina.com of coverage today of Guangdong propaganda official’s statements concerning news media].

The comments from Hu Guohua (胡国华 ), Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, made particular reference to recent comments from leaders in Guangdong blaming the media for worsening social trends there. Media yesterday reported comments from representatives to the ongoing Guangdong provincial People’s Congress, who said the media shared responsibility for public concerns about food safety. Last month, a top law enforcement official in Guangzhou drew criticism after he blamed the media for worsening public safety in the city.
Hu Guohua said Guangdong presently accounts for one-eight of the national economy and the province has entered an era of “golden” development. However, social tensions have also risen to the surface, “a trend I can see clearly from my position”.
The minister painted a picture of exploding social stories and rising concerns among local officials about the impact on their public images: “Right now the propaganda department is at its busiest. We must take care of multiple problems appearing in various media reports. Because social tensions are increasing, the material for news reports is growing hand over fist. Some news reporters do not have a proper hold on guidance [of public opinion],and some content is reported without the proper verification of facts, having a negative social impact. In terms of the timing of reports, the layout of pages, incorrect phraseology, there have been many problems,and everyday we receive phone calls from various government offices demanding that this not be reported or that not be reported. We basically consider their requests, but speaking from a long-term perspective, not reporting this or not reporting that is not a workable control strategy [for the media].”
On the question of HOW media should be controlled, Hu had this to say: “Some people say that the increase in cases [of crime, food safety, etc] has something to do with the media. [But] the rise in the number of cases is related to economic development, and is an objective outcome of the process of social development, having little to do with journalists. From the standpoint of news control, how can we use journalists? [Guangdong Party Secretary] Zhang Dejiang said it well. He said we need to treat the media well, use the media well and manage the media well. Controlling the media does not mean allowing them to report nothing”.
The Zhang Dejiang reference was in fact in line with Hu Jintao’s recent statements about control of the Internet, in which the president said party leaders must seek to “develop it well, use it well and manage it well”(建设好、利用好、管理好).
Hu Guohua emphasized yesterday that media were an “indispensable” part of necessary monitoring and supervision in Chinese society. Without watchdog journalism, or “supervision by public opinion”, he said, “many problems in society could not be solved, and the weaker elements of society would have no voice”.
Hu also called for greater discipline among news media and hinted at the excesses of media commercialization: “In the process of monitoring, we need to raise the character of news workers,” he said. “If news reporters do not raise their character, if they do not have a sense of responsibility to society, or a sense of mission, then the reports they write will be irresponsible and only seek to attract eyeballs”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 7, 2007, 11:35am]

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. [BELOW: Screen capture of yesterday’s Southcn.com coverage of the Guangdong provincial People’s Congress, headline on food safety and media circled in red.]

“‘Food insomnia’: media sensationalism bears some responsibility”, read the headline of a report featured yesterday on the front page of Web portal Southcn.com, and referring to an ailment rumored in the media to be caused by unsafe food products.
The report 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”.
Su reiterated that media bore a definite degree of responsibility for food safety crises in China.
There has been a surge in reporting on food safety in China in recent years, and reports have varied in reliability. But the media’s excesses in reporting on the topic in fact underscore deeper institutional problems facing media in China, which have been contorted by a combination of commercialization and crippling state censorship.
Media commercialization, which has intensified since government funding was progressively pulled in the 1990s, has media scrambling for audiences and advertising revenue. While building up circulation depends on stories with direct relevance to the readership, however, the party’s strangehold on reliable public information slams the door to professional news coverage. Consumer-related stories about such topics as food safety occupy a safe and commercially viable middle-ground between official taboo and official propaganda.
“The media do build these stories up”, said Qian Gang, director of the China Media Project. “But control of the media often leaves them with few other options. Government controls limit the kinds of journalism that can be done”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 6, 2007, 11:17am]

Just over a year ago an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao by Taiwanese intellectual Lung Ying-tai [JMSC faculty page] raised the stakes for top Chinese leaders following the shutdown of the Freezing Point supplement of China Youth Daily. 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” [Lung’s essay mentioned in Li Datong’s open letter, via ESWN].[ABOVE: PDF version of Lung Ying-tai essay in today’s Southern Metropolis Daily].
pdf_article784.pdf
Today Southern Metropolis Daily made bold to run Lung Ying-tai’s most recent essay about the graft allegations that have damaged the political fortunes of Kuomintang leader Ma Ying-jeou. The essay, which also appeared in newspapers in Taiwan and Malaysia, is the first piece by Lung to appear in the mainland press since her Freezing Point contribution in late 2005.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 5, 2007, 3:50pm]

January 30 — Top officials and representatives from major Chinese Web portals met in Beijing to assess progress in the government’s Internet clean-up campaign, launched in March 2006 and marked by such slogans as the “development of a civilized Internet” and the “building of harmonious culture”. A number of top media officials were present at the meeting, including Cai Mingzhao (蔡名照), a deputy director at the State Council Information Office and Hu Qiheng (胡启恒), a key figure behind China’s proposed real-name registration system for the Web, as well as representatives from People.com, Xinhuanet, Sina.com, Sohu.com and other major Chinese Web portals.According to a Xinhua News Agency report on the meeting, representatives reached consensus opinion that the Internet clean-up campaign had “achieved good results, but there were still a number of unharmonious elements on the Internet”.
January 30 – Roughly one year after his essay on Chinese history textbooks caused propaganda officials to order the shutdown of the Freezing Point supplement of China Youth Daily, retired Guangzhou historian Yuan Weishi wrote an editorial for Southern Metropolis Daily praising Deng Xiaoping for his vision in setting China on the path to reform and moving the country beyond ideological diviseness. The editorial, no less gutsy than Yuan’s Freezing Point essay, begged the question: if it had been this essay in Freezing Point in 2006, how would the propaganda department’s News Commentary Group have responded?
January 31 — An official story about President Hu Jintao’s announcement at a recent “collective study” session of the Politburo that leaders must seek to “develop [the Web] well, use it well and manage it well” (建设好、利用好、管理好) lingered for more than a week on the news page at popular Web portal Sina.com — an example itself of the injunction to “use it well”. In the news report, which first appeared on major Web portals on the evening of January 24, Hu Jintao was quoted as saying “we must, with an energetic attitude and a spirit of innovation, strongly develop and propagate a healthy and uplifting Internet culture, practically building the Internet well, using it well and managing it well”.

The democracy protests of 1989, culminating in the massacre of student demonstrators in Beijing on June 4, brought the birth of new supreme buzzword in the Chinese media lexicon — “guidance of public opinion”. There are now indications that the term, synonymous with press control, is gradually retiring to the annals of party censorship. What does this mean? [BELOW: Graph showing use of terms “guidance of public opinion” and “supervision by public opinion”, or watchdog journalism, in a database of 120 Chinese newspapers].

“Guidance of public opinion” arose as the pillar of news control in China in the aftermath of June 4, as the ousted general secretary, Zhao Ziyang, was criticized for letting things get out of hand. Zhao had reportedly told top propaganda officials during the protests to “open things up a bit”. “There’s no big danger in making the news more open”, Zhao had said. “By facing the wishes of the people … we can only make things better” [SOURCE: “A Timetable of Events”, (Da shi ji), Biweely Discussion (Ban Yue Tan), 6 May 1989]. Zhao’s failure to control the press, said an official party magazine following the crackdown, had created widespread public support for the student protests and “guided matters in the wrong direction”. The buzzword was officially introduced by President Jiang Zemin in November 1989.
In its official report released last October, China’s Party Congress signaled that “guidance of public opinion” was still central to party press control. Section Five of that report dealt with Hu Jintao’s newly cast ideology for the cultural sector, the notion of a “harmonious culture” dovetailing with his overarching vision of a “harmonious society“. The third of four aspects of “harmonious culture” was explained as follows:
Adhering to correct guidance [of public opinion], and building an active and healthy public opinion atmosphere. Correct guidance of thought and public opinion is an important factor in promoting social harmony. News and publishing, radio, film and television, and the social sciences, must adhere to correct guidance of public opinion, singing the [party’s] main theme, creating a favorable thought and public opinion climate for development and reform.
But a sharp drop in use of the term “guidance of public opinion” in official party newspapers in 2006 suggests propaganda officials are softening the language of control even as they ratchet up pressure on news media. In other words, while the principle of “guidance” continues to reign supreme, officials are backing away from public use of the term, which smacks openly of government censorship that is increasingly unpopular.
Use of “guidance” fell 68 percent in 2006 (measured by total # of articles using the term at least once), much sharper than the 22 percent decline a year earlier.
Use of the term peaked in 2003 (2,029 total uses), as the leadership sought to restrain the media in the aftermath of a series of embarassing news events, including the SARS epidemic and the beating death of Sun Zhigang. The term has fallen steadily since 2004.
(NOTE: The graph above plots both “guidance” and “supervision by public opinion”, or Chinese watchdog journalism. Use of “supervision” has historically outpaced “guidance” because the term is used by both the party and the commercial press (大报/小报). “Supervision” can refer to party use of the media to combat corruption, and in this sense is an official term. More progressive commercial media, however, tend to use it as a proxy term for press freedom, media serving as an independent check on power. Note the spike in use of “supervision” corresponding to the SARS epidemic in 2003.)
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 2, 2007, 7:30pm]

January 31 — Concerning the Internet in China, President Hu Jintao emphasized at a recent “collective study” session of the Politburo that leaders must seek to “develop it well, use it well and manage it well” (建设好、利用好、管理好). The gist of “use it well” can be glimpsed already at major Chinese Web portals, where coverage of Hu’s injunction has itself lingered for more than a week now, occupying precious space on the news page.

In the news report, which first appeared on major Web portals on the evening of January 24, Hu Jintao was quoted as saying “we must, with an energetic attitude and a spirit of innovation, strongly develop and propagate a healthy and uplifting Internet culture, practically building the Internet well, using it well and managing it well”.
The next day, Sina.com promoted the story to its top spot, giving it a bold headline:

As of 4pm today the story was still featured on the front page of the news section at Sina.com:

As the real news — defined by timeliness, relevance and all the rest — zips by on Sina.com’s main news page, the Hu Jintao story sticks around under an official order to keep it up for a full week.
The lingering presence of the Hu story illustrates how Chinese leaders are seeking to use commercial media in new ways to get their messages out to the public. The need to resort to such methods is particularly keen in light of the poor performance of “party” newspapers (the X Dailies), which focus on dry official goings-on, in an increasingly competitive commercial media environment.
[Posted by David Bandurski, January 31,2007, 5:15pm]

The one-year anniversary of the shutdown of Freezing Point passed in silence last week. Meanwhile, the editorial page team at Southern Metropolis Daily, a commercial spin-off of Guangzhou’s official Nanfang Daily, were putting together the next few installments in their editorial series commemorating the 15th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s “southern tour”, which in 1992 accelerated China on the path of economic reform. Yesterday’s installment in that series was an editorial by retired Guangzhou historian Yuan Weishi, whose essay in Freezing Point last year criticizing Chinese history textbooks was fingered as the cause of the supplement’s misfortunes. Yuan’s latest editorial, no less gutsy, begs the question: if it had been this essay in Freezing Point last year, how would the propaganda department’s News Commentary Group have responded?
pdf_yuan-weishi-article.pdf
The Yuan Weishi editorial, which praises Deng Xiaoping for his vision in setting China on the path to reform and moving the country beyond ideological diviseness, takes an unambiguous crack at leftist elements within the Chinese leadership — the same pack who were behind the attack on Freezing Point last year and issued the recent publishing ban on eight books in China. The editorial is likely to draw sharp opposition from China’s left, and cool protests from more moderate leaders, who might feel Yuan’s arguments — which call for a return to the spirit of Deng’s reforms — are too simplistic for China’s present realities.
Southern Metropolis Daily‘s excellent editorial series comes at a time when authorities seem to be ratcheting up pressure on media ahead of the sensitive 17th Party Congress and the historically important fiftieth anniversary of the crackdown on “rightist” intellectuals in China.
A translation follows of roughly two-thirds of Yuan’s editorial, including his criticism of lingering leftist tendencies in China and his call for deeper political reform:
Southern Metropolis Daily, A2
January 29, 2007
BY Yuan Weishi (袁伟时)
Professor of History, Sun-Yatsen University [retired]

Fifteen years ago, Deng Xiaoping’s southern speeches [during his “southern tour”] set into motion major changes in China. In what direction would China head in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, under the impact of dramatic change in many countries in Eastern Europe, combined with the aftershocks of the 89 storm? Public sentiment was diverse and confused. Xiaoping, with his prestige and wisdom, brought clarity to the ideological chaos, helping leaders grab a historic opportunity …
This important moment in history passed down to us a valuable lesson: historic opportunities are transient; only by taking a broad view of history can we bear our torches into the darkness, only with the minds of strategists can prompt decisions be made, and demands for reform be translated into reality. As for Xiaoping’s specific opinions [of that time], our experience over the past 15 years has possibly already outgrown them. But his method of approaching problems, his vision and intelligence will ever inspire us.
Behind the Controversy Over Globalization and the Market Economy
Participating in the WTO, joining the tide of globalization, “handling affairs in accord with international conventions”, represents a healthy road toward fully building a market economic system and a prosperous nation and people. The resolution of no economic problem should mean retreating from this path. This is a precious lesson Xiaoping passed down to us.
For all the insistence on “not inviting controversy” the 20-plus years of economic reforms [in China] have in fact seen constant controversy. Sum up the issues on either sides and you have nothing more than: are globalization and the market economy monsters, or necessary paths to modernization?
Those who describe globalization and marketization as monsters are troubled primarily by two things. The first is that [China’s] national security could be jeopardized. The second is that China will through this process [of globalization and marketization] become colonized by capital. In accord with these [fears], they strive to make non-peaceful change the core task, or one of the core tasks, of the country. As China’s international influence grows daily in stride with the rapid economic growth that comes with the economic reform process, impartial observers have to admit these two anxieties [about national security and colonization by capital] are phantasms.
Where Do These Mirages Come From?
Firstly, there is the deeply rooted stigma of a philosophy of contention [in China]. [NOTE: This is a reference to Mao Zedong’s notion of progress being rooted in contention and opposition]. Their heads writhe with [the notion of] “victimization at the hands of imperialism” (帝国主义亡我之心不死), and they forget that interaction in the modern world is built on economic foundations. The basic motivating factor of Chinese and foreign corporations is the maximization of profit. The governments and political forces of various countries may in fact strive for involvement in the process of corporate profit-seeking, but this is only local in nature and does not change the fact that the basic character of international economic relations is corporate commercial behavior.
Secondly, there is the failure to break through the shackles of the Soviet model and Western leftist theory. The revolution and building of Soviet Russia is a rare case in human history of a solemn and stirring quest by idealists. But we should not shrink from observing that is was, in its finale, a cruel and drawn-out tragedy, whether in political, economic or cultural and ideological terms. It left those that came after with so many lessons to ponder. A number of those who oppose economic reforms [in China] look on this [Russian experience] without clear heads. Intentionally or unintentionally, they mistake their faulty brush strokes for golden principles that must be followed. In international relations, for example, they oppose “cosmopolitanism” in favor of a parochial brand of nationalism … In the economic arena, [they are in favor of] economic planning and oppose market economics, the government directly running enterprises and monopolizing the market. They rob academic work, thought and speech freedoms. They rashly criticize and rashly deal with people [these oppose] – and they regard these as the foundation of Socialism.
A number of New Leftists who have come back from stints of study overseas are the disciples of American leftists. The criticisms launched by their teachers against politicians in developed countries are marked with a resistance to cavalier political and economic power [the tone here is NOT critical of these Western thinkers in their own contexts]; they bear these theories back to China whole and intact, so they become crude and ridiculous imitations.
Deng Xiaoping’s observations and analysis are of such a stature and perspicuity that they could never hope to match them.
How do we look at the world? The opportunities China has let slip by are so numerous. We won’t speak of the more distant examples. After the Second World War, Japan and Germany rose from the ashes. In the 1960s we set into motion the “destruction of the Four Olds”, “clamored for revolution” [the Cultural Revolution] and “comprehensive civil war”; [meanwhile] the four Asian tigers focused on developing their economies, with achievements that turned the heads of the world. All of these opportunities we missed out on. With the sincerest of wishes, Deng Xiaoping said: “Right now, a number of neighboring countries and regions are developing faster than we are. If we do not develop, or do not develop fast enough, then no matter how the ordinary people [of China] compare themselves, there will be trouble”. [The question of] whether to “seize the opportunity and develop oneself” became once again a serious question facing the Chinese people.
Where is the road out? Answering this question requires using the proper intellectual tools. “This is a different age. No problem can be solved through rigidity of thought or inflexible methods. Inflexibility will bring opposition. Both sides in opposition must consider the interests of the other side. They cannot resort to one-sided wishes” (Chronological Life of Deng Xiaoping, p. 1313-1314). Economic globalization is an indisputable historical trend. “Closing the country to international concourse is not the way … Opening without resolve and determination is not the way”. We must “handle affairs in accord with international conventions”, build a market economic system and integrate China with the world. Looking at the depths of history, this [lesson of Deng Xiaoping’s] is a conclusion to the tragic lesson of Chinese ignorance of global trends ever since the 17th century, its opposition to globalization, its opposition to the market economy, its repeated brushing with and wasting of opportunities…
“Leftist tendencies are still rooted [in our society]. A number of theorists and politicians take up their big hats and intimidate others; they are not on the right, but on the left” … Things that are good and beneficial they do away with in one fell swoop”. (Collected Sayings of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 3, p. 367).
Fifteen years have gone by. Arguments made brazenly and openly against the market economy and integration with the world are rare. But misguided trends in thought are still with us. At the first sign of trouble, those who “take up their big hats and intimidate others” can be found everywhere. Corporate mergers, repairing of rail lines, which country’s technology will be used for a nuclear power station, etc, etc., all are inundated with politics – treachery, patriotism, the hats fly up into the air. Faced with the growing gap between rich and poor, the severity of the Three Rural Problems … what measures should we take to deal with these? The planned economy [the Leftists say], that old road we know so well.
We should affirm without hesitation: participating in the WTO, joining the tide of globalization, “handling affairs in accord with international conventions”, building a market economic system, is a healthy road to a prosperous nation looking after the interests of the people. In resolving any economic problem, we should not veer from this overall path. This is a precious legacy handed down to us from [Deng] Xiaoping.
Rule of Law Demands Strategic Vision, Courage and Resourcefulness
The greatest task Xiaoping left to later generations is the reform of the political system. As early as 1986 he said: “Now each time we take a step forward in our economic reforms, we feel deeply the necessity of reforms to the political system” (Collected Sayings of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 3, p. 176). Twenty years have passed, and this great task is staring us in the face. Official corruption, a market in partial chaos, a growing gap between rich and poor, a poor capacity for innovation – how we solve these four major questions will determine the complexion of China’s future. These problems cannot be solved simply be piling on the internal measures of the original system. Reform calls for studying the vision and courage of Deng Xiaoping in those years. The heart of reforms is pushing forward with a system of constitutional governance.
One major point of progress in this area over the last 15 years has been that the concepts of constitutional governance and constitutional law have been elevated to the mainstream. [The ideas of] “a nation of laws”, “a country that respects and protects human rights”, “protects the legal rights and interests of personal economic activity, private enterprise and other non-state economic entities”, and protects private property, etc, etc., have been written into the constitution. One after another, national leaders have spoken about the importance of constitutional governance and constitutional law. [President] Hu Jintao said: “Ruling the nation by law means first ruling the nation by the constitution, and governing according to the law means first governing according to the constitution”. [Premier] Wen Jiabao said: “Those who govern the nation must govern according to the law”. One must feel great admiration for the clarity and accuracy of such expressions.
The Roots of Constitutional Governance Are Now Developing in China
The core of constitutional governance is protecting the rights and freedom of citizens; rule of law is the basic path toward protecting the rights and interests of citizens. The knowledge of citizen rights and interests is awakening, and the avenues for safeguarding one’s own rights and interests are gradually opening. Cases of rights violations can be found everywhere. But the victims are no longer silent. They seek out lawyers. They seek out the media. They seek out the courts, the people’s congresses, Political Consultative Congress [representatives] and government offices. The criticisms, revelatory speech and petitions show us a game of strategies (博弈) between rule of law and unlawful governance.
A citizen society – civic organizations are indispensable domains in which citizens may voice their wishes. Fifteen years ago, they were still places where scholars could discuss the classics and talk about things that were taboo in their actual lives. Today they are developing uninhibited in many areas [of society].
Without systems in place to check violations of the constitution there can be no true constitutional governance. If constitutional law cannot be realized in the legal system, then violations of the constitution cannot be dealt with in a regularized fashion. Calls for a system to dissolve conflict and protect the rights and interests of the people are echoing and reechoing, and the emergence of such a system cannot again be pushed off.
It has already been 100 years since the Qing Dynasty declared in 1906 that it was “preparing to implement constitutionalism”. The establishment and improvement of a system of constitutional governance is, in any nation, a two-sided process of interaction between leaders and the people. To move ahead [with building a constitutional system] we need people who care about the fate of their nation and who will each do their part, working diligently. We also need historic vision and minds like that of Deng Xiaoping …

[Posted by David Bandurski, January 30, 2007, 2:30pm]

Top officials and representatives from major Chinese Web portals met yesterday in Beijing to assess progress in the government’s Internet clean-up campaign, launched in March 2006 and marked by such slogans as the “development of a civilized Internet” and the “building of harmonious culture”.
A number of top media officials were present at the meeting, including Cai Mingzhao (蔡名照), a deputy director at the State Council Information Office and Hu Qiheng (胡启恒), a key figure behind China’s proposed real-name registration system for the Web, as well as representatives from People.com, Xinhuanet, Sina.com, Sohu.com and other major Chinese Web portals.
According to a Xinhua News Agency report on the meeting, representatives reached consensus opinion that the Internet clean-up campaign had “achieved good results, but there were still a number of unharmonious elements on the Internet”.
A joint proposal issued last April by major Web portals operating in China called on Websites to operate with the goal of creating a “healthy and civilized online culture”. The campaign sought to target indecent, violent and fraudulent online content by calling for rigorous self-censorship, standardizing of content production, and strengthening professional ethics among Web employees.
The campaign was closely linked with Hu Jintao’s “Socialist View of Honor and Shame”, a project of moral rectification in Chinese society.
[Posted by David Bandurski, January 30, 2006, 11:26am]