Author: David Bandurski

Now director of the CMP, leading the project’s research and partnerships, David joined the team in 2004 after completing his master’s degree at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. He is currently an honorary lecturer at the Journalism and Media Studies Centre. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin/Melville House), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).

A few Chinese media tease out the problems lurking behind Liu Zhihua’s “pleasure palace”

In China, where corruption cases are regarded as potentially dangerous sources of social instability, there is a tendency toward ritual demonization in much corruption-related news coverage. Government prosecutors release a dossier of sins and indiscretions and Chinese media feed on the ugly details. How much money was taken? How many mistresses did he have? [PHOTO: Liu Zhihua meets with workers in January 2006, The Beijing News].
When an official from Hebei was charged with corruption in 2001, the media even detailed an episode of road rage to show what a nasty fellow he was:
Li Zhen paid no mind to traffic signals, but roared straight through whether the light was red or green. More experienced traffic cops, who knew his car by sight, never dared stop him. A fresh recruit, not knowing better, once pulled Li over, but the official rolled his window down, spat directly in his face and peeled off down the road. (Legal Daily, June 14, 2003)
If you’ve been reading up on the most recent case, the firing of Beijing Vice-Mayor Liu Zhihua (刘志华) for his “decadent” lifestyle (we are told by media inside and outside China that he had a “pleasure palace” full of concubines), this kind of treatment will sound familiar.
[Coverage from The Guardian]
[Click here for China Daily’s take]
[Coverage from Reuters]
[Coverage from The Globe and Mail]
From the standpoint of the Chinese leadership, the wonderful thing about such coverage is that boat-rocking questions about endemic corruption are drowned out by the media circus. So how are Chinese media doing this time? Is anyone teasing out the deeper issues? Given the trickle of available information, and most likely a ban on reporting (under which media are ordered to use only official Xinhua News Agency coverage), one must turn once again to the editorials.
To start us off with the predictable, Lanzhou Chen Bao, a commercial spin-off of the official Gansu Daily, focused, like most everyone else, on the story’s moral aspects and thought it was a good time to revisit the “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces”, President Hu Jintao’s new campaign of national moral cleansing:
This [action against Liu Zhihua] signals another success in our Party’s anti-corruption campaign, and a reminder of the urgent need for the Socialist Honor and Shame Ideology.
In light contrast, a June 13 commentary in Hebei’s Dahe Daily hinted at soft enforcement of discipline and argued for a bit more “common sense” on the part of inspection officials:
Common sense would suggest that when an official holding substantial power is dissolute in his lifestyle, he is guilty also of graft and corruption, exchanging his position for profit or sex. So it is odd that for so many years, discipline inspection authorities have apparently not exercised such common sense.
An editorial posted the same day on People.com and called “Thoughts on the Removal of Beijing Vice-Mayor Liu Jianhua” said:
At the very least, these kinds of problems should cause us to think very deeply. Whether control has been lost over the supervision of those like Liu Jianhua, whether the power of those like Liu Jianhua is indeed being monitored at all, whether the problem of these Liu Jianhua’s has been adequately addressed by the relevant government offices.
Following up at the relatively outspoken Southern Metropolis Daily, commentator and former CMP fellow Yan Lieshan said the people should have a right to monitor their leaders on the basis of “unverified information or whispers” (捕风捉影), the clear implication being that people, and not just inspection officials, should have a greater role in scrutinizing leaders. While the historical use of this term, bu feng zhuo ying, is negative, Yan intentionally adapted it, saying the concept could play a positive role in allowing people to participate in checking the power of their leaders:
On the basis of evidence disclosed so far [in the official Xinhua release] its impossible for people outside the government to say whether Liu Jianhua’s so-called “decadence” occurred before or after he served as vice-mayor …
Now, according to China’s constitution, people have the right to participate in the management of public affairs and the affairs of the country, and the right to monitor government officials in accordance with the law. The “sanction of the masses” is also a basic principle in the ruling Party’s selection of cadres. Well then, the people have a right to monitor their leaders at whatever level on the basis of ‘unverified information or whispers’ – the only condition being that they do so within the scope allowed by the law and not by putting up big Propaganda Posters and setting off fireworks …
A commentary by China Business Times, available online via this personal blog, explored the “real intention” and “professed position” of the People’s Congress in dealing with Liu Zhihua, and expressed its doubts succinctly:
Vice-mayor Liu was fired because of his decadent lifestyle … But I find it hard to entirely believe this official explanation.

[Posted by Brian Chan and David Bandurski, June 16, 2006, 6:20pm]

China accuses U.S. media of violating their own news values and playing up Chinese espionage cases

China’s manipulation and control of its media is of course well documented. But one topic of some interest in the Chinese media lately has been so-called “media manipulation” by the U.S. government. The pot, obviously, is calling the kettle black, but the occasion is provided by a case that does beg real questions for U.S. media: the out-of-court settlement between major U.S. media and nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee on June 3. [Washington Post coverage here]. Coverage by Chinese media is particularly interesting because it drags in the issue of bilateral relations and the “China Threat” current in U.S. politics. And of course there are now new espionage cases pending against the Mak family in the United States. [China’s response via Xinhua in English].
Chinese media, including the central government’s People’s Daily, have criticized U.S. media for inadequate soul-searching in the aftermath of the Wen Ho Lee settlement. In the simplest sense, they have a point – not much has been written since the June 3 settlement about the media’s role in blowing Lee’s case out of proportion while it was still under investigation. It should be pointed out, though, that there was discussion after Lee’s release from detention in September 2000. The New York Times issued a page-two mea culpa that received a lot of press at the time, and media and j-schools have kept the topic alive [Click here for PBS News Hour on “sensational reporting” 2000 and here for a 2004 discussion of Wen Ho Lee and other stories at PressThink].
Anyhow, without in any way endorsing their views, we’ll let the Chinese media speak for themselves, beginning with People’s Daily, which is predictably snide about the West’s “so-called” news values and makes no pretensions, obviously, to the “impartiality” it ridicules:
A Lesson for American Media
People’s Daily, June 6, 2006

In recent days, nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee has once again become a news topic. On June 2, two U.S. government offices, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy, and five news media groups reached a settlement with Wen Ho Lee, agreeing to pay 1.64 million dollars in compensation for intruding on [Lee’s] right to privacy. This included payments totaling 750 thousand dollars from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, ABC and the Associated Press. These payments, however, were not made willingly, and [these media] said that although they had agreed to pay compensation, this was to avoid the jailing of their reporters for protecting their sources. It seems that these mainstream American media do not wish to learn the necessary lessons from this event.

 

Seven years ago, the so-called “Wen Ho Lee Spy Case” was whipped into a frenzy by American media. Wen Ho Lee was accused of passing nuclear secrets to China while working at the Los Alamos National Labs, and for this he was detained for nine months. But the results of the investigation showed that Wen Ho Lee had merely mishandled computer data, and had not in fact been engaged in espionage. What is most surprising is that during the year the case was under investigation, the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were too impatient to wait and exposed the case to the news media, a serious violation of Wen Ho Lee’s right to privacy and an attack on his reputation.

This case shows people once again the willingness of the U.S. government to manipulate the media. According to reason and the law, these government offices should not have, and had no right to, expose the case to the outside world. But what should not have happened did happen, and clearly these people [in the U.S. government] wished to use the media to whip up the “China Threat” for political ends. This case also lets us once again see clearly the sham of the so-called “independence”, “objectivity” and “impartiality” of the American media. Certainly, on internal questions, American media serve a definite role in checking and examining the power of government. But on international questions, they often toss away and disregard their own “principles”. As soon as the U.S. government points its lance to antagonize some country or leader, the American media rush to the story, add their own condemnation, characterizing this country as the “root of all evil” and its leaders as unpardonable monsters.


In recent years, American media have been singing in harmony with the “China Threat Theory” of the Pentagon. They sing about the “military threat”, the “economic threat”, the “scientific and technological threat”. Upbraiding China has already become a daily routine for many media and politicians – not hearing such vilifications, now that would be news. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently at a speech to the Asian leaders in Singapore
[Link at Center for Strategic Studies] did not peddle the “China Threat” theory with his usual vehemence … When a reporter asked about this, Rumsfeld answered that had his views and policy on China had not changed. Actually, Rumsfeld’s not harping on the same string was entirely due to the fact that the “China Threat” theory he pitches does not garner interest in Southeast Asia …This is about twisting the facts through ideological prejudice, confusing black and white, and deviating from the professional methods news media should have. In the Wen Ho Lee case American media lost not only American dollars, but also the reputation that is so critical to news media. Does this not deserve a bit of soul-searching from the American media?
And this article comes from Jiangnan City Daily, a commercial newspaper in Jiangxi Province. It is written by Guo Shaobin, a scholar at the China Institutes for Contemporary International Relations. He says the Wen Ho Lee case shows “once again” the American media blowing up the “Chinese military threat”:
American Media Once Again Play Up “Chinese espionage” Cases
Jiangnan City Daily, June 12, 2006
In 2004, the American right’s Washington Times ran a story saying China’s 094 submarine was a threat. It is the relentless playing up of the issue by conservatives that has resulted in the release of “The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China” reports colored with the notion of a “Chinese military threat [Read the 2006 report here].
[Editor’s Note: The Department of Defense report says: “China’s leaders have yet to adequately explain the purposes or desired end-states of their military expansion. Estimates place Chinese defense expenditure at two to three times officially disclosed figures. The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting PLA modernization. This lack of transparency prompts others to ask, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did in June 2005: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments? Absent greater transparency, international reactions to China’s military growth will understandably hedge against these unknowns”.]
Moreover, the details of the cases have not been [properly] scrutinized. Lately, much of the technology and equipment approved for export to China has been exported to foreign enterprises, so is still actually in American hands. As for so-called silencer technologies [NOTE: The article might be referring to “quiet electric-drive propulsion systems” for submarines, involved in the ongoing espionage case against engineer Chi Mak, a naturalized U.S. citizen], China entirely has the capacity to develop [such technologies] on its own … Ni Shixiong, a professor at Fudan University’s American Studies Center, says these spontaneously generated cases actually point to an inevitable conflict lurking in U.S.-China relations. Since 2001, Los Angeles, the city with the second-largest Chinese population in the western U.S., has become in America’s eyes a breeding ground for “Chinese spies”. First there was the investigation of first-generation overseas Chinese Xiong Delong (熊德龙) by U.S. authorities, which eventually forced him to go into exile. Soon after second-generation overseas Chinese Luo Wenzheng (罗文正) was sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “economic” issues, which forced him to leave his country.
Many Chinese in America believe these are people hostile to Chinese deliberately pushing coverage of “Chinese spies” in order to create the sense of a “China Threat”, or people railroading overseas Chinese into becoming so-called “spies” so they can play up these cases in the media … From the Wen Lee Ho case to the Chen Wenying case, all have been whipped into a froth by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While it looks like there is conclusive evidence, this is just “lightning without rain” and in the end there’s not just no case, there’s a low-key setting free of the accused. Behavior like this from the United States not only puts overseas Chinese under a great deal of pressure, but also impedes regular dialogue and cooperation between the U.S. and China.
[Posted by David Bandurski, June 15, 2006, 3:15pm]

Chinese media continue to cover Cultural Revolution in the wake of the fortieth anniversary

Western media were working with a very narrow news window when they covered the fortieth anniversary of China’s Cultural Revolution last month — the story bounced to the top for a few days before disappearing entirely. Many Western media remarked the “silence” of Chinese media on May 16, the actual day of the anniversary, which CMP showed to be an oversimplification. But in fact Chinese newspapers have continued to run features and profiles about the Cultural Revolution long after their counterparts in the West lost interest. [PHOTO: Mao Zedong greets writer Jin Jingmai in 1967. Jin is jailed less than a year later (see story below). Image from China.com].
Part of the impetus for continued Chinese coverage, arguably, was a press conference statement by China’s cultural minister, Sun Jiazheng, on May 25, in which he said the National Museum of China and the National Library of China had been gathering Cultural Revolution materials that might “assist in research of this period in history”. Some media pounced on this statement as an opportunity for more coverage in defiance of the official ban. But a certain degree of bolder coverage, of course, should naturally be expected as the immediate anniversary fades safely behind.
To give our readers an idea of the kinds of Cultural Revolution coverage we are seeing in the wake of the anniversary, here are excerpts of a June 6 story from Southern Metropolis Daily, the newspaper that urged revolution veterans in a May 26 editorial to tell the “truth about what the Cultural Revolution was”. This story is about a writer named Jin Jingmai (金敬迈) who rose to prominence in the early days of the Cultural Revolution but was later imprisoned for almost a decade. It appeared on page A44, in the “Guangzhou News” section of the paper:
By virtue of his book, “The Story of Ouyang Hai”, writer Jin Jingmai had become popular throughout the whole country. In 1967, he was appointed to take charge of the “Division of Cultural Revolution Literature”. Four months later he was packed off to jail. He returned to Guangzhou after being released from prison in 1976.
In April 1962, The Communist Party approved the Central Propaganda Department’s “Eight Rules for Literature”, which urged [the people to] “let a hundred flowers blooms” [NOTE: This is the “Hundred Flowers Campaign”]. During the Tenth Party Congress in 1962, Mao Zedong reminded the citizens not to forget the class struggle. “The Story of Ouyang Hai” nicely fulfilled this purpose …
“I developed the image of a brave soldier of Communism [in my book]. I wrote a lot about class struggle and the spirit of Communism. The book finally became material for Chairman Mao in the education of younger generations [of Chinese]”, [Jin Jingmai says]. …
“In 1966 and 1967, my situation was still secure because the Cultural Revolution had not yet engulfed me. Almost all the books of that period were regarded as ‘poisonous weeds’ while my own, ‘The Story of Ouyang Hai’, was still very popular and under no restrictions.” …
“Two members of our team were interrogated by the Central Government, asking who had ordered the gathering of unfavorable materials about [Mao Zedong mistress] Jiang Qing’s darker days in Shanghai in the 1930s [when she was an actress there]. I told them I had given the order and would take full responsibility. That was the reason for my downfall.” …
“On April 11, 1967, I was summoned to Beijing for a meeting with the Chief. In the meeting room of the Jingxi Hotel, Jiang Qing didn’t wait for me to sit down. She shouted, “‘Jin Jingmai, What is this?! You refuse to follow my comments in making your revisions? You assume the airs of a big writer!'”
“Jiang Qing kept saying, ‘I tried to protect you, not informing on your staff to the Red Guards, all because you served in the military. If I had told them, they would already have caught you and burned all your books!'”
[Posted by David Bandurski and Brian Chan, Juen 14, 2006, 11:41am]

Liberation Daily reporter unexpectedly drops lawsuit against Shanghai’s City Planning Bureau

CMP reported last week on an administrative lawsuit brought by Liberation Daily reporter Ma Cheng against Shanghai’s City Planning Bureau for “nondisclosure of government information”. The Legal Daily reported the next day, June 8, that Mr. Ma had suddenly and unexpectedly withdrawn his case. “The plaintiff … suddenly withdrew his lawsuit, citing as a reason that [he had] ‘given up his application for an interview [with the planning bureau]’. Ma Cheng’s mobile phone was switched off, and even his colleagues had no way of reaching him”, the paper reported in a story picked up only by Fujian’s Strait News. We will continue to post information on the case and Ma’s reasons for withdrawal as they become available. For now, the only sign of life surrounding the case, which Southern Metropolis Daily hailed last week as a “historic” test of openness of information in China, was an editorial in today’s Legal Daily by Li Wujun (刘武俊), a legal scholar with the Ministry of Justice and assistant chief editor of Judicature of China magazine:
According to a June 8 report in Legal Daily, plaintiff Ma Cheng suddenly withdrew his lawsuit [against the Shanghai City Planning Bureau] … Still, I don’t believe we are finished with the issue of government disclosure of information, which was raised by this case.
This reporter’s lawsuit against Shanghai’s City Planning Bureau for “government non-disclosure of information” reveals first of all the awakening of ordinary citizens to government affairs and a growing appeal to their right to know. In a very true sense, public administration according to law (依法行政) means employing rights to restrain power. There is an inverse relationship between citizen’s rights and government power, and the abuse of administrative power often goes hand in hand with a weak sense of citizen’s rights. Experience has shown us that once citizens fully exercise their legal rights, they can be an inestimable force in checking government power. For citizens and other organizations standing on the opposite side from government bureaucracy, administration according to law goes hand in hand with using the law to protect one’s rights. Let’s take government disclosure of information as an example. For a long time, files, documents, regulations and other forms of government information were closed or semi-closed, and were generally not made available to ordinary people. This convention of government non-disclosure is linked, in fact, to a lack of public awareness about government affairs. It can be said that government non-disclosure and the mysterious rules of government secrecy [in China] have been fostered and helped along by a persistent popular mindset that holds that government secrecy is an unalterable principle. Today, as we talk about administration according to law, breaking through the mysterious rules of government secrecy demands government offices act with the law in mind. It requires also that the people become conscious of government affairs as quickly as possible, acting on their right to know.
There is a clear “asymmetry of information” between the government and the citizenry [in China]. The government has a wealth of public information on the national economy and other issues relevant to the popular livelihood, but the citizens themselves find this information impossible to obtain. This “asymmetry of information” means it is imperative the government put disclosure into practice.
When we talk about openness of government affairs, we have to mean also that government information should be disclosed [to the public]. This requirement is implicit in the very idea of administration according to law. Generally speaking, aside from [matters] touching on state secrecy, commercial secrecy or personal privacy, government information should in principle by open to the whole society. Disclosure of information is a task and responsibility administrative organs should bear themselves. Shanghai was first among provincial-level governments in China to set down rules on disclosure. According to “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information”, all government information about the administration of society, the economy and public services should be make public, excepting information belonging to one of six categories of state secrecy. Citizens, legal persons and other organizations may request such information, demanding government offices make it available. Information not to be disclosed includes that which is classified as state secrets; commercial secrets or cases where disclosure might results in the leaking of commercial secrets; personal privacy or cases where disclosure might cause undue harm to a person’s privacy; cases under investigation, or being discussed or otherwise handled; cases involving execution of the law where disclosure might affect the exercise of law or endanger personal safety; other cases where laws or regulations prevent disclosure. I understand that a national “Ordinance on Government Information Release” is now being framed and has made it into this year’s legislative calendar of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
In an important sense “nondisclosure of government information” is about specific instances of nonfeasance on the part of government offices. The most effective way of dealing with such nonfeasance is, like this courageous reporter [in Shanghai], to take up the weapon of administrative procedure law, saying ‘No’ to this form of administrative nonfeasance by suing the government as citizens and making government offices with no reason not to disclose information accept the examination and sanction of the law.
The problem of government non-disclosure cannot be solved once and for all simply by enacting laws. We have to exercise the power of the law to ensure information is disclosed. We have to exercise the law to protect the just and legal right of citizens to be informed about the affairs of government. I hope this case in Shanghai of a reporter suing the city planning office for “nondisclosure of government information” will serve as a judicial reference promoting government disclosure of information.
[Posted by David Bandurski, June 12, 2006, 5:30]

Media sources: national ban on coverage of “The Da Vinci Code” came 10 days before the film was pulled

Media sources told the China Media Project national media were ordered against coverage of the blockbuster film “The Da Vinci Code” on May 28, ten days before a June 7 order from the state film and broadcast regulator for the film to be pulled from more than 400 theaters nationwide. A missive from censors told media not to write news or editorials about the film or set off factors of instability, sources said.
Theaters across China halted screenings of the film today, and various media outside China cited unrest among the country’s Christian population and protection of domestic films as reasons for the decision. The state-run China Daily English-language newspaper also reported that the film had been yanked from theaters – the newspaper, overseen by the State Council Information Office as opposed to the Propaganda Department, targets a mostly foreign population in China and therefore generally has more leeway in coverage than its Chinese counterparts.

1.jpg

The pulling of the film came without advance warning and surprised many outside China. Many foreign media reports focused on protection of domestic Chinese films as the reason for the change. Reuters, citing China Daily, said the decision to ban the film had come “after calls from several groups representing the Chinese film industry”. So far, China Daily seems to be the only source for that version of the story.
In the only domestic story run in violation of the Propaganda Department ban, however, Shenyang Today (沈阳今报) raised the issue of the film’s sensitivity and said the true reasons for the pulling of the film were not yet clear:
June 8, 2006 – This reporter learned last night that on the 9th of this month that “The Da Vinci Code” will be pulled from theaters.
The reporter contacted the manager of Stars Fantasy Cinema (星辰梦幻影都), Xu Zengbin, by telephone. He learned at 5:30am yesterday that “The Da Vinci Code” would be pulled on the 9th … He said he wasn’t clear about the reasons for pulling the film. With up to 10 domestically produced films due to hit the market soon, he said, one couldn’t help but think dropping a powerful performer like “The Da Vinci Code” was a way of protecting Chinese-made films.
Manager Xu expressed his disappointment that the movie had been pulled, because it had been welcomed by the public with very high attendance … Since premiering at the Cannes Film Festival, “The Da Vinci Code” has been eagerly received. However, due to the film’s sensitivity it has been boycotted in some countries. Some sources here in China also contend that the sudden pulling of the film from theaters is due to the sensitive nature of the film. This report approached a Ms. Zhang of Huaxia Films, domestic distributor of “The Da Vinci Code”, about this question but she was insistent on not addressing it. She would only say: “The pulling of the film came very quickly. We’ve just learned about it, so we’re not sure of the reasons.
[China Pulls “Da Vinci Code” in Wake of Protests (LA Times)]
[China pulls “Da Vinci Code” to help local films (Reuters)]
[Posted by Brian Chan and David Bandurski, June 9, 2006, 6:26pm]

Chinese government newspaper launches ideological training in response to news extortion cases

Last month CMP wrote about an official bulletin from state media minders detailing four news extortion cases in China [article here]. On May 25, nine days after the official statement, China Industry and Commerce News, a newspaper not implicated in the above bulletin and published by the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, announced it would introduce new internal measures to avoid violations of conduct. While the phenomenon of news extortion (and other violations of journalistic ethics) are the product of endemic institutional problems, the supposition in the release is that they can be dealt with by ratcheting up propaganda training for news workers. It provides a taste of how Chinese leaders are in the habit of using hackneyed ideologies to deal with very new problems in the media brought on by rapid commercialization under an autocratic system:
In order to carry out the spirit of the “Provision on Cadre Education Work (draft)” (干部教育工作条例), improve the political behavior and performance of our whole system of news and publicity professionals (新闻宣传工作人员) and raise the quality of publicity reports at China Industry and Commerce News … the paper has decided from 2006 forward to hold training systems for our entire network of correspondents once every five years, endeavoring to build a troupe [of journalists] whose quality and scope are suited to the publicity needs of commerce administration [in China] — whose politics is strong [ie. in line with the Party], whose business dealings are clear [ie. uncorrupt], whose [working] style is upright
Training for 2006 will be as follows:
Guiding ideology:
[Upholding a stream of Party policies, including Deng Xiaoping Theory, etc. in accord with China Industry and Commerce News’ own “Key Points for Commercial Administrative Management News Publicity Work 2006]

Training content:
First is to strengthen training in political theory. We will firmly use Deng Xiaoping Theory and the “Three Represents” [of former President Jiang Zemin], earnestly studying the spirit of 16th Party Congress … firmly grasping correct guidance of public opinion, erecting Socialist Honor and Disgrace Theory [SEE “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces”], conscious of safeguarding news principles [i.e. self-censorship along Party lines] and professional ethics, raising the overall political-theoretical accomplishments of our correspondents

[Posted by David Bandurski, June 9, 2006, 12:27pm]

Chinese media debate information disclosure as reporter sues Shanghai City Planning Bureau

After news late last week that a reporter brought an information non-disclosure lawsuit against a government office in China’s financial center of Shanghai, some media in China asked whether this might push China toward a more open society. The reporter was using “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information”, a local ordinance on government information disclosure passed back in 2004, to support his case. Southern Metropolis Daily, one of the country’s top newspapers, called the pending lawsuit “historic”. “We salute this reporter’s courage, and even more we hope people pay attention to this new topic of discussion”, the paper said. [PDF of Beijing Youth Daily editorial, June 3 here:pdf_article651.pdf]. [PHOTO: The State Council announces release of China environmental report in the spirit of disclosure, June 5, 2006, from Central People’s Government website].
[UPDATE: CMP’s mainland media sources are confirming the reports we cover here are so far the only that have appeared on this case in China, although the original coverage, by China Youth Daily, was picked up by a handful of other papers. There is apparently no national ban or limitation on coverage, but Shanghai media have avoided the story altogether, which may suggest a local ban is in force.]
This has all the hallmarks of a great story — a little guy up against recalcitrant, entrenched leaders, the question of important new legislation this year (the State Council is considering a national mandate for disclosure of government information), the perennial questions of political reform and free speech, etc. There was coverage by Hong Kong’s Ming Pao and Apple Daily, who regurgitated the original China Youth Daily story – and blogger ESWN (of course) picked up the basics from Ming Pao.
The critical question here is what impact cases like Ma Cheng’s, and the attending publicity (should coverage continue to be permitted), could potentially have on A) the public debate over disclosure of government information in China, B) on the effective implementation of local ordinances as well as, possibly, the national one, and C) on the perceived role of journalism in China. The case could provide greater impetus for action in the State Council, which entered a proposed “Ordinance on Government Information Release” (政府信息公开条例) into this year’s legislative calendar.
Hu Shuli, managing editor of Caijing magazine, wrote of the proposed State Council ordinance in April this year that “when looking back again after thousands of years, Chinese people will see that today is another new milestone in their history” [SEE “The Imperative of Information Freedom”, by Hu Shuli, translated Far Eastern Economic Review, May 2006, p. 62-63].
After government suppression of information about the SARS epidemic in 2003, public access to information became a more immediate concern for Chinese. In late 2003, the city of Guangzhou became the first to implement a local ordinance on information disclosure. The municipality of Shanghai came next, followed by Hubei, Jilin and Jiangsu provinces. Responding to public incidents, various government offices, such as the State Food and Drug Administration, issued their own ordinances or regulations on information disclosure.
The problem, as ever in China, is making the government stand by the letter of its own laws and regulations. The Ma Cheng case, which domestic Chinese media are saying is the “first time ever in China a reporter has sued a government office for violating his right to carry out reporting”, is one attempt to press the government to make good on its promises.
Behind this case about public disclosure of government information is a debate about the role of journalism in China. One legal expert quoted by domestic media said that Chinese citizens are the intended target of the disclosure ordinances, and that journalists using the ordinances as journalists per se may find the way blocked legally. Southern Metropolis Daily related the case directly to the question of protections for journalism.
The first report on the Shanghai case came from China Youth Daily, a newspaper published by the Chinese Communist Youth League on June 2. It included comments from a Fudan University professor about the probable success of a lawsuit as either a “citizen” or a “journalist”. Also interesting is Ma Cheng’s claim that his request for a media interview was treated by one Shanghai government office as a petition for redress, which might suggest either confusion as to how media requests should be handled or deliberate abuse of the petitions system to put journalists off:
China Youth Daily, June 2, 2006 – “The final result is not important – the crux is really making sure the relevant [government] departments attach importance to the right of journalists to do reporting.” Today Ma Cheng (马骋), a reporter for the law and politics section of a Shanghai newspaper told this reporter by telephone that he is suing the City Planning Bureau of the Shanghai Municipal Government for not providing access to information, and that the case has already been accepted by Shanghai’s Huangpu District People’s Court. This is the first time ever in China that a reporter has sued a government office for violating his right to report.
Ma Cheng told this reporter he had carried out extensive reporting of a story and on April 18 faxed his interview outline to the Shanghai City Planning Bureau. The bureau had never responded, and on April 23 sent a formal written interview request to the Shanghai City Planning Bureau asking them to provide public records in accordance with “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information” [in Chinese here]. Once again he was ignored.
In filing his case, Ma Cheng asked the court to rule that Shanghai’s City Planning Bureau open up the government information he had requested in accordance with the “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information”.
In a letter addressed to the All-China Journalist’s Association, Ma Cheng said that in recent years as he reported stories he frequently was ignored by various government offices. Some offices [he said] used methods against laws and regulations to limit news reporting, making journalists unable to exercise their right to report (采访权).
On one occasion Ma Cheng abided by the regulations of a particular government office in Shanghai and submitted a written interview request. Little did he know the a few days later he would receive in the post from this office a “Letters and Calls Confirmation Slip” saying his request was being handled as a petition matter and that “according to the ‘Petition Statute’ offices handling petitions must send a written reply [to the petitioner] within 60 days of receiving the request, and in cases of extension notify [the petitioner] of the status of the case”.

The “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information”, implemented in May 2004, says that except in cases where disclosure is prohibited, government information regarding the economy, administration of society and public services should be disclosed or provided in when requested.

One month after the “Provision” took effect, 70 year-old Shanghai resident Dong Ming filed a lawsuit against the Real Estate Bureau of Shanghai’s Xuhui District alleging “government non-disclosure of information” after being denied access to real estate asset records. This case was called “the first government information disclosure case” [in China]. But Dong Ming eventually lost his case.
A proposed “Ordinance on Government Information Release” has made it into the State Council’s legislative calendar for this year. This “Ordinance” would make government disclosure of information mandatory, with disclosure the rule and non-disclosure the exception, changing the secretive prior rule of “secrecy on principle, disclosure on exception”.
Huang Hu, an expert on laws and regulations at Fudan University’s School of Journalism, said Ma Cheng would have no problem bringing his case for government non-disclosure before the court in the capacity of a civilian, because of the “Shanghai Municipal Government Provision on Openness of Information”. But alleging before the court that a government office violated his right to access information as a journalist would have little legal basis. This is because in China, and indeed outside China, there are no specific regulations addressing the journalist’s right to reportage, and government offices were under no legal obligation to accept approaches from news reporters. “The object of [these regulations concerning] information disclosure is the citizen, but do not mean the government is under any obligation to release information to journalists”
In the past, some within the industry have pointed out that the media are not organs representing the will of citizens and are not the legal agents of the people. In the obtaining of information, journalists do not enjoy any special privileges not accorded to citizens. While their profession demands that they must pay attention to the affairs of government, they are not carrying out the work of the state in gathering such government information. Because of this, when being denied information, media cannot take legal action in the capacity of plaintiff. Reporters may only sue in the capacity of citizens. This means that even if a court hands a victory to the reporter, their decision will in no way mean information must be made available to the media in question. Therefore, legal victories for journalists per se lose much of their significance.
… Ma Cheng told this reporter that his suit was filed in accordance with the “Shanghai Municipal Government Provision on Openness of Information” and mainly seeks disclosure of information, not emphasizing his right to reportage as a journalist. Of course, he also submitted a letter explaining his actions to the All-China Journalist’s Association, saying he was seeking to “test the use of civil law for recourse in the rights of journalists to conduct reportage”.
The next day, Beijing Youth Daily, the newspaper of the Beijing Communist Youth League, ran the following piece on its editorial page. The article was written by Yang Shou (杨涛), a prosecuting attorney in Jiangxi Province:
HEADLINE: The ice-breaking significance of the government disclosure case
Beijing Youth Daily, June 3, 2006 — [First paragraph is a summary of case as reported in China Youth Daily… In regards to right to report, the law does not say anything explicit. The general theory holds that the right to report is a right (权利) and not a power (权力). Therefore, the act of reporting by a journalist customarily requires consent of the person being interviewed. Exceptions are made, however, for information concerning the public interest – citizens should have a right to know information, and journalists have a right and duty to report it.
It should be said that Ma Cheng’s lawsuit is reasonable, proper and lawful. The “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information” stipulates that information concerning planning issues, such as city planning and land use, belong to the category of information that should be made available to the public. Well then, if Ma Cheng cannot access the abovementioned information, he has reason to seek information and interviews with the Shanghai City Planning Bureau, and if his requests are denied, he can act in accordance with the provisions, which say: “Citizens, legal persons and other organizations that feel the government has violated the concrete forms of administrative conduct prescribed in this document and violated their legal rights and benefits, may request reconsideration in accordance with the law, and if proper reconsideration is not made may bring legal action; citizens, legal persons and other organizations may file a lawsuit directly with the People’s Court”.
On the one hand, Ma Cheng’s lawsuit strives for the citizen’s right to know. Lately, a number of local governments have come out with statutes on disclosure of government information, but a national “Ordinance on Government Information Release” has never been created. Citizens’ means of obtaining government information are imperfect. Only by going through a succession of concrete lawsuits can we make sure these local initiatives work, in this way bringing the public’s attention [to the issue] and promoting the creation of a national law and making sure the public’s right to know becomes a reality. One the other hand, his lawsuit is strives for the right for journalists to conduct reporting. China does not yet have laws protecting news reporters, and because the law makes no provisions on protection of the rights of journalists to conduct interviews, journalists are denied interviews by government offices and their employees, and sometimes even attacked. Through the use of specific legal cases like [Ma’s] the idea of protecting journalists’ right to report will receive the attention it deserves from society, allowing the media to be more effective in carrying out their watchdog role. I believe that striving after these rights will promote more timely and direct information throughout society, serving the public interest and avoiding harm. It will make news reports more impartial, free, and more importantly, members of society can then more effectively obtain information, and be therefore more equipped to safeguard their legal rights.
On the same day as the Beijing Youth Daily editorial, Southern Metropolis Daily ran its own in page 2. The editorial directly addresses the implications of Ma’s case for the work of journalists and seeks to dissolve distinction between “journalist” and “citizen” in the debate over information disclosure. It also discusses “supervision of public opinion” (舆论监督), the government mandate for the media to supervise lower-level officials, businesses and other aspects of society. The implication is that enforceable laws and regulations on disclosure would better enable reporters to carry out this social duty:
Southern Metropolis Daily, June 3, 2006 – According to a report by Beijing Youth Daily, a Shanghai reporter named Ma Cheng has sued Shanghai’s City Planning Bureau for repeatedly avoiding his requests for an interview for a story he was working on. In his suit, Ma requests that the bureau disclose government information in accord with the “Shanghai Municipal Government Ordinance on Openness of Information”. This case has already been accepted by Shanghai’s Huangpu District People’s Court. This is China’s first case of a reporter suing a government office for violating his right to report – its meaning is no trivial matter and deserves the attention of the nation.
The understand the importance of the case, one first has to be clear about the history and current practice of information disclosure in China. For a long time, we have been taught in our educational curriculum that protecting national secrets is the responsibility of all citizens, and that overlooking or playing down of the information demands of the people was an important function of the government. Along with the opening of society and the global information age, the ordinary understanding is that governments make the transition from a social control orientation to a service orientation and that official business be discussed openly.
[Summary of local ordinances since SARS in 2003 and this year’s possible national ordinance…
In accordance with modern principles of governance, these [local] rules and regulations are a mandate for public disclosure of government information – the idea is to make disclosure the rule and non-disclosure the exception. The scope of disclosure should be the large and cases of government secrecy rare, removing the gap between government disclosure and public demand for information. Using the news media to release government information is without a doubt the first choice in meeting the above-stated needs in today’s society – it’s the same in countries throughout the world. To meet the demands of regulations on government information disclosure, Shanghai and other local governments have already established news spokesperson systems, regularly issuing government information to news media. Also without a doubt, the news media are the first choice for citizens to learn government information.
However, due to the sustained influence of the social control model of governance … the implementation of government disclosure ordinances has not been thorough. In many local areas disclosure of information is a mere formality. The important is avoided and the trivial dwelled upon [in the release of information], empty talk is put out and nothing done, or pockets of interest use [information release] as a political device, so that it has become a tool for misleading the choices of ordinary people. In recent years a whole host of problems, from the real-estate market and fees in the public service industry to price-rigging by monopoly enterprises, all have sown doubt among the people and experts. In such a situation, supervision by public opinion [Chinese “watchdog journalism”] is the most basic protection of disclosure of government information. Because of this [need to resort to enterprising reporting under a state mandate for investigative journalism to ensure disclosure] those officials who are abusing their positions or asleep at the controls avoid contact with news media and even impede media reports. Recent cover-ups of safety accidents, mine disasters, etc. are classic examples of this. We must no overlook the work of journalists who do their jobs with utmost respect and stop at nothing to reveal the truth, getting government offices to make relevant information available to the public.
Although China does not yet have laws or regulations protecting the right to report, but the above facts and analysis confirm what is common sense to the people of our nation, that the government disclosing information to the public is the exact same thing as disclosing information to the news media. Unimpeded reportage by journalists watches and ensures government disclosure of information. This is now the convention in the law and practice of developed countries throughout the world. Although some countries do not have specific laws [concerning the right to report] they incline toward the media in judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving the government offices and the media, so that the former find it difficult to win cases.
The case brought by Shanghai journalist Ma Cheng against the City Planning Bureau has already been officially accepted by the courts. Before the case is heard, it’s impossible to tell what the outcome will be. But no matter what the result, this means opening a new chapter in history, and will lead people to think a great deal more about the question of journalists’ right to reportage and disclosure of government information. Whether this reporter wins or not it not important. What is important is that he has the courage to raise this lawsuit. What is important is that a new chapter in history is now opening. We salute this reporter’s courage, and even more we hope people pay attention to this new topic for discussion.
[BELOW: Flow chart of Shanghai government application procedures for information disclosure. From Shanghai Overseas Chinese Affairs Office website.]

graph.gif

[Posted by David Bandurski, June 7, 2006, 6:15pm]

Chinese media too “desensitized” to cover the Xining Coal Mine disaster

When a flooding disaster occurred at a coal mine in Shanxi Province just over a week ago, there were no obstacles to news coverage outside Shanxi itself – no central government bans, no stipulations about using only official news agency coverage. The story was fair game. But to read Chinese newspapers, you might media had been straight-jacketed into using official releases. Not only was nearly everything from Xinhua News Agency – it was from one very busy Xinhua reporter named Chen Zhonghua (陈忠华). [PHOTO: Rescue workers rest during the rescue operation for a startlingly similar disaster last year, also in Shanxi’s Zuoyun County, The Beijing News].
So what went wrong? Faced with a great story – about human tragedy, about greed and deadly collusion between business and local officials, about a failed national policy of no-tolerance – and given virtual carte blanche to cover it, why did Chinese media sit on their hands and wait for the next Xinhua release?
“We feel desensitized (审丑疲劳) to these mine disaster stories,” one editor at a major Chinese newsmagazine told the China Media Project when asked why they had not sent their own reporters to Shanxi. There had simply been too many mining stories like this in China, he said, and journalists and readers alike had grown tired of them. Given presumed lack of interest, there was no profit in the story, and therefore no reason to mobilize resources to cover it.
The dearth of independent coverage of the Xining Coal Mine accident underscores a new and growing challenge facing the public interest news story in China – commercial considerations. In China political controls have been, and are still, the major stumbling block in the way of journalists. But while government orders and bans continue to place strict controls on what media can and cannot cover, intensifying commercial pressures are leading some to discard even those stories that are fair game.
Official proclamations on the Xining Coal Mine accident have been strong and have come regularly. Just yesterday, newspapers across China reported a speech by the country’s top work safety official, Li Yizhong (李毅中), on the disaster in Shanxi. He spoke directly about the role of corrupt local officials in poor mine safety nationwide. The report of the speech was, not surprisingly, from Xinhua. Here is a portion of the story as it appeared in Sichuan’s Huaxi Dushibao (华西都市报):
(Xinhua) — As the investigation deepens into the severe flooding accident at the Xining Coal Mine in Shanxi’s Zuoyun County, more behind-the-scenes details are now coming to light. During the meeting forming the State Council’s Accident Investigation Group (国务院事故调查组), the head of that group and director of the State Administration of Work Safety, Li Yizhong (李毅中) said the Xining Coal Mine made several legal violations in its management of resources, production, safety, explosives, business and other areas, and actually showed “the five poisons all at once” (五毒俱全). What was most peculiar [said Director Li] was that this coal mine of “five poisons” had managed to have all six of the necessary official stamps (六证齐全) …
The existence of such a phenomenon thoroughly shows the loopholes present in the carrying out of inspection measures and other areas at the local level, and shows that in implementing the State Council’s spirit in such areas as safety inspection and clean-up of coal mines, low-level offices often talk loudly but implement nothing … showing that many cadres at many local governments make a superficial show of “severity”, while stealthily serving as an umbrella of protection [for illegal behavior].

Great stuff. But, again, no one is rushing to cover it. In fact, since the story appeared in the Chinese media on May 21, most newspapers have differentiated their “coverage” in only very minute ways, through headlines, layout and editorials.
As a kind of baseline, here is the May 21 report of the disaster in Beijing Daily, using Chen Zhonghua’s Xinhua report. Notice use of the word “accident”:
According to a May 21 release from Xinhua News Agency (reporter Chen Zhonghua/陈忠华) – According to early assessments by the emergency team on the scene, a flooding accident occurred at the Xinjing Coal Mine in Shanxi’s Zuoyun County, [which is under the jurisdiction of] Datong City, Jiazhang Village, on May 18 at 8:30pm. Up to now an estimated 44 miners are trapped inside. The reported discovered from the emergency team on the scene that when the accident occurred, there were 145 miners in the mine, of which 101 exited the mine on their own, leaving 44 trapped inside. On the afternoon of May 20, the Safety Inspection Bureau and other government offices started receiving calls from informants, who said that when the accident occurred on the 18th there were more than [the reported] 5 people in the mine and that the mine’s owners had kept the situation under wraps. The appropriate offices took the matter very seriously, and State Administration of Work Safety director Li Yizhong (李毅中), Shanxi Party Secretary Zhang Baoxun (张宝顺) and Shanxi Governor Yu Youjun (于幼军) went to the scene to direct the emergency effort. At the same time, they opened an investigation into the cause of the accident. On May 20 the reporter learned in a phone call to the head of the Shanxi Work Safety Office, Gong Anku (巩安库), that after the accident happened, the figure in charge of mining operations fled. According to escaped miners, there were probably more than five workers below, and that after the accident occurred, the mine boss took a taxi from one of the miner’s relatives and headed from Inner Mongolia. Taking all the above factors together, the Shanxi Work Safety Office believes a [criminal] cover-up may be involved. Nine of the mine’s principals have already been detained by public security officers.
On May 22, Beijing Daily ran a second Xinhua release making an adjustment to the number of miners supposed to be trapped:
According to a May 21 release from Xinhua News Agency (reporter Chen Zhonghua/陈忠华) – This reporter learned from the emergency team for the Xinjing Coal Mine flooding accident in Shanxi’s Zuoyun Country that the number of miners trapped in the accident has risen to 57. According to the latest findings of the team’s investigative group, the number of miners trapped might be 57, up 13 from the estimate of 44 given on May 20. As required by the Safety Inspection Bureau, the Shanxi Party Committee and the provincial government, the investigative group of the emergency team is working with family members to determine the number of miners trapped and produce a detailed list of names.
Follow these links to see how Associated Press and Reuters used the same releases from Xinhua.
Nanfang Daily, Guangdong’s provincial paper with a reputation for pushing the limits just a bit farther than most of its counterparts, ran the same Xinhua release on May 22, merely adding a touch of exasperation to the headline: “Number Trapped in Zuoyun Mine Disaster Keeps Going Up: 5? 44? 57!” Notice also the reference to “disaster” here, which plays up the news more than the Beijing Daily version.
But rare editorials were the strongest expressions of “independence”. Here is the finish of a Nanfang Daily editorial appearing May 24 and calling for “punitive damages” to be levied on negligent mine bosses:
Indeed, the abhorrent cover-up at Zuoyun reminds our lawmakers (立法者), that mine bosses and managers who cover up the circumstances [of accidents] and prolong emergency efforts should be forced to pay punitive damages on top of the usual disaster compensation, even if it means the personal ruin of mine bosses. Only in this way, can we discourage people from challenging the law and the government on mine safety issues to protect their own financial gains.
The first papers to come out with their own editorial takes on the disaster, though, were Southern Metropolis Daily and Sichuan Daily, both on May 23. Here is Southern Metropolis Daily [See also PDF at top of page]:
Collusion Between Officials and Coal Industry Means Failure of “Iron Fisted” Clean-up [Policy]
Just as coal mine safety seemed to be taking a turn for the better and [mine] disaster reports had quieted down, the Xining Coal Mine flooding accident happened on May 18 in Shanxi’s Zuoyun County, bringing the issue of mine disasters once again before the public eye. This is an accident of an odious nature. It is abhorrent not because the mine boss is more heartless, the safety inspection system more ineffective, or the number of dead greater [than previous disasters]. It is abhorrent because the central government has been pushing its no-tolerance (铁腕) policy on the clean up of the coal industry for more than a year now – and then to have such a disaster, no less dark, no less ineffective, no less deadly. If we can say that anything at all has changed, we can say only that the means for covering up such disasters have increased.
We have already seen some results from the no-tolerance clean-up policy for safe production at coal mines, that much is certain. But the disaster at the Xining Coal Mine once again tells us with the lives of miners that complex local interest and departmental interests can make the implementation process fail for lack of final effort … [Social] advantages must be balanced equitably. How we can develop a comprehensive system for equitably balancing social advantages, truly making an iron-fisted clean-up as strong as iron, safeguarding safety — this question is much more urgent even than the emergency effort on the scene [in Shanxi].
The only other notable difference among mainland coverage was an apparent news blackout in effect in Shanxi Province, the site of the disaster. Although CMP has not obtained a provincial-level news ban on the Xining Coal Mine disaster, a ban can be inferred from the silence of local media. Shanxi Daily, the mouthpiece of the provincial party committee, did not report the disaster until May 23, a full three days after the first Xinhua releases were available. The interest in controlling the news locally is not surprising considering local party congress and other positions and due for a change-over this year. Here is the initial Shanxi Daily report:
7 people in criminal detention, 9 high-power water pumps to be delivered today
May 22 (reporter Zhao Zhicheng/赵志成) – After two days fighting bravely day-and-night, the Zuoyun County “5*18” mine flooding accident has been designated an accident of great proportions (特别重大事故), involving cover up by the mine boss of numbers of people [injured], illegal mining beyond designated deposits, serious over-mining with excessive personnel, power and degree, and chaotic workforce and safety management. The mine boss’s concealment of the accident was a vile act that bungled the most opportune time for emergency efforts, placing accident response efforts in an extremely difficult position. As of 12pm today, the emergency team raised the number of workers trapped in the mine to 57 from the previous 44. Seven people suspected of involvement [in the cover-up] have been taken into criminal detention, and other people involved in the case are being sought.
In the last two days, the emergency effort has been a race against time. Tongmei Group (同煤集团), Fenxi Mining Group (汾西矿业集团) and Qi, Linyi and Tunliu counties have, without asking for any compensation, contributed people and equipment, allowing for great headway in the emergency effort. Lately, six water pumps have been employed at the site, and three more are now being installed. It is estimated that by the 23rd, 9 water pumps will be in use, with a total drainage capacity of 1,200 cubic metres per hour.
Appropriate offices in [nearby] Datong City and Zuyun County are arranging aftercare for the families of the trapped miners. At the same time, environmental offices are monitoring the water quality in the area.

On May 24, six days after the disaster, the story finally made the front page of Shanxi Daily. Below is an image of the front page. The article on the Xining disaster runs above the central photograph, an unrelated and uplifting image of schoolchildren in the classroom. The headline reads: “Speeding Up Rescue Work/Seeking Those Responsible”:

mining.gif

China’s coalmining industry has the world’s worst safety record, with about 6,000 deaths at mines every year, according to an Associated Press report. In mid-2005, Chinese officials urged more spending on mine safety after government statistics showed 1,113 workers had died in mining accidents in just the first three months of the year.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 30, 2006, 11:51am]

Chinese media seize on words of cultural minister and broach Cultural Revolution anniversary

A statement yesterday by China’s cultural minister emboldened a handful of mainland newspapers to defy a government ban on coverage of the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. For the first time today, four mainland newspapers ran articles directly mentioning the “fortieth anniversary”, based on a database search of 140 Chinese newspapers.
Chinese cultural minister Sun Jiazheng (孙家正) said at a press conference on May 25 that the National Museum of China and the National Library of China were gathering together Cultural Revolution materials that might “assist in research of this period in history”. The response came as Sun dodged a question by a foreign reporter as to why China had no museum for the Cultural Revolution, but bolder newspapers read this as a clear opportunity for more open coverage – an act Chinese call jieti fahui (借题发挥), or, translated roughly, “using a current topic of conversation to put out one’s own ideas”.
The four newspapers to mention the Cultural Revolution anniversary were: Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily and New Express, Wuhan’s Strait News, and Chongqing Morning Post.
In an A16 article, Southern Metropolis Daily reported the exchange between Sun Jiazheng and a United Press International reporter who asked why China had no Cultural Revolution museum:
The first “Cultural Heritage Day” will come on June 10 this year. The theme of the first “Cultural Heritage Day” will be “protecting our cultural heritage, preserving our spiritual homeland”. China’s Cultural Heritage Day will fall each year on the second Saturday in June.
At a May 25 press conference held by the State Council Information Office, Cultural Minister Sun Jiazheng said cultural protection concerns not only the long-reaching history of our people, but also how we will face our future
[Concerning a “Cultural Revolution” museum, the National Museum and National Library are gathering materials]
United Press International reporter: “May this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. China has many museums about the history of the 20th century, I’d like to ask why China has no Cultural Revolution museum?”
Sun Jiazheng: “Concerning history, including the history of the ‘Cultural Revolution’, we have people gathering cultural materials together. Right now there are various ‘Cultural Revolution’ materials scattered about the globe … and those we can collect, including at the National Museum and National Library, will assist in research of this period in history” …
Even more brazen, however, was a letter to the editor Southern Metropolis Daily seemed to have had at the ready. It appeared right at the top of page A2 and was called, “Forebears, please write down your ‘Cultural Revolution’ histories”:
Cultural Minister Sun Jiazheng said yesterday responding to a reporter’s question that the National Museum was collecting materials from the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in order to improve research on this period of history (May 25, China.com.cn). When I saw this news, I had a sudden hope: Beloved forebears, won’t you please write letters to your children and grandchildren, telling us the truth about what the ‘Cultural Revolution’ was and what you did then? …
The histories that arise from each personal story, each tale of a family’s pleasure, anger, sorrow and joy, are every bit as precious as those official histories – indeed, they are more precious. Forebears, for your children, why don’t you become household Si Maqian’s [Chinese historian, 145-90 B.C.]. Pick up your pens and tell us everything that concerns you.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 26, 2006, 5:12pm]