Beijing has detained Ching Cheong (
Many people who hold unrealistic ideas about China often conveniently forget, or consciously choose to turn a blind eye, to its notorious violations of basic civil rights -- freedom of the press being just one of them. It should not be forgotten that in China the news media is state-controlled and is essentially a puppet, allowed to parrot government propaganda only.
Beijing's long record of arresting journalists who step out of line speaks for itself. Chinese journalists have been arrested for reporting the government cover-up of the SARS epidemic and the spread of AIDS, as well as scandals involving corrupt officials and police brutality, among others. In any democratic society, reporters who bravely stand up against the system are considered heros. In China, they get thrown in jail. It is no wonder that the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders says there are more journalists in prison in China than anywhere else in the world.
As for foreign journalists based abroad or in special administrative regions of China such as Hong Kong, or who work for a foreign media outlet, Beijing does show a little more deference -- just a little -- due entirely to concerns over international pressure. Still, it is not enough to keep incidents such as the detention of Ching from occurring.
In fact, Ching's case marks the second incident of detention by the Chinese government of people working for foreign media within the past year. Zhao Yan (
Of course, no one is arguing that journalists should be granted legal immunity per se just because they are reporters. But Beijing, as a matter of standard procedure, often arrests or detains journalists without charge. Even when it bothers to make an official charge, it is often dubious -- like stealing "state secrets" or engaging in "espionage activities." As for what constitutes "state secrets" or "espionage activities," the Chinese government retains the subjective and arbitrary discretion to define them. The definitions vary depending on the political needs and concerns of the government at the time.
Ching was allegedly detained to prevent the publication of secret interviews with Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽), the former premier who opposed the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. Reportedly, Beijing feared that the publication of the manuscript might stir memories of the massacre and create resentment toward the government. But everyone already knows that the bloody crackdown was ordered by the Chinese government. What kind of "state secret" is that?
There is also the severe lack of legal due process for journalists who are detained or arrested. They are often placed in detention for a long period of time without charges being formally made, without the right to legal representation, and without any formal and open trial.
Ching has been in custody since the end of April, allegedly to assist the "investigation." The same is true in Zhao Yan's case.
If Beijing genuinely wishes to change the impression that it has absolutely no respect for the rule of law and human rights, start by according these detained journalists open and transparent legal due process.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS