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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing