News that 10 journalists were charged with covering up a mining accident in China’s Hebei Province is an intriguing development in a state wary of free media.
Reporters being charged for failing to cover a story involving corruption is a far cry from the usual news of them being browbeaten after publishing embarrassing material. But the journalists not only failed to report the story — they are accused of accepting US$380,000 in bribes from officials to stay quiet.
The accident took place on July 14 last year in Yuxian County — 80km from Beijing and just three weeks before the start of the Beijing Olympics. Dozens were killed, and it is likely that safety regulations were being flouted at the mine — as in most accidents in Chinese mines, the most lethal in the world.
For China, the Games were a chance to dazzle the world, but in the months leading to this moment of glory, Beijing was gripped by a fear of the foreign press “seizing on” negative news. Riots had erupted in Tibet in March, prompting Beijing to seal off the region. In the following months, everything from smog and subpar products to the deaths of enormous numbers of schoolchildren in the Sichuan Earthquake put pressure on China’s leaders — and then there was the controversy over underage Chinese gymnasts during the Olympics.
Only after the Olympics did it become clear that another scandal was covered up prior to the Games. Officials in Shijiazhuang and a company called Sanlu knew that infants were being sickened by milk powder tainted with the industrial chemical melamine.
Last week, China executed two people for selling tainted milk and protein powder. Now, it has charged journalists and officials in the Hebei accident, suggesting that the central government is trying to signal a change. The message is, at least superficially, that it is not afraid of confronting and dealing with scandals. Moreover, cover-ups are apparently no longer acceptable, no matter the circumstances. We are now led to understand that the public interest had always trumped the risk of embarrassing the government — even if, at the time, Beijing was busy preparing the best Olympics ever.
Is this message credible? Is the country that embarrassed itself again and again over its botched SARS cover-up finally appreciating the damage caused by punishment of journalists and whistleblowers?
Journalists in China are regularly intimidated into silence or punished for covering sensitive topics. Reporters without Borders has said that China has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world, while Xinhua’s staff are kept tightly in line to prevent unsanctioned reporting.
But there is another interesting aspect in the Hebei case. If these journalists were bribed not to report on Yuxian’s tragedy, this might indicate that no central government orders had been issued to cover up the incident. Such orders would not require bribing journalists, who defy media bans only at extreme risk to their careers and personal safety.
China has struggled for years in a globalized and wired world to contain news of its scandals. Yet, time and again, scandals are revealed. The fact that the authorities were able to contain news of the Yuxian mine accident for 85 days is a testament to the extent of their efforts. But in the end, there were too many loose ends — and too many angry victims.
Incidents that are covered up but which then become public knowledge are magnified in notoriety, damaging the reputation of every level of government. Given the new risks for those involved in hiding the truth, it will be interesting to see what extent China moves toward accountability, if only for the time being.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS