(Tiger Temple)

I returned from Guangzhou to Beijing on the afternoon of November 6.  For the past two days, I have been busy organizing and studying the materials for the case of Fujian netizens making false charges.  The more I read, the harder it was for me to stay calm.

It is so hard to be nice!  Helping a petitioner write something leads to prosecution for making false charges.

Lin Xiuying is the mother of Yan Xiaoling.  This sorry woman has been petitioning for more than a year.  Although it is known that the problems that she exposed are non-existent, no government or judicial department has ever thought of prosecuting her with making false charges.  Why?

If the three Fujian netizens did not hold sympathy for her, they would not have helped her make her voice known and then they would not be prosecuted for making false charges.  So doing a good deed leads to a bad ending!

After reading the case materials, I cannot understand why Fan Yanqiong became the fabricator when the material in the essay came from Lin Xiuying?  Why did You Jingyou and Wu Huaying became the fabricators when all they did was make a video of Lin Xiuying speaking?

Lin Xiuying told the investigator that she met a middle-aged woman Sister Fan (=Fan Yanqiong) when she went to petition at the provincial government office.  Fan Yanqiong read her petition materials and said, "This material won't work.  You have to be clearer.  You need to find someone who understands the law.  You tell them how your daughter died, as well as the police investigation.  He can re-write the material."  Lin Xiuying did not get a telephone number from Fan, who nevertheless got Lin's number.

Lin Xiuying said that Fan Yanqiong called up one day and said that she wanted to know how Yan Xiaoling died.  Fan Yanqiong asked Lin Xiuying to come to Fuzhou city.  Lin Xiuying said that she is still living in Minqing county where it would take one hour to reach Fuzhou city.  Fan Yanqiong said, "I don't even help others who beg me.  You are lucky to come across me.  If you don't come, then I can't wait any longer.  I am leaving immediately."

Some time later, Fan Yanqiong came to Fuzhou city again and once again she called Lin Xiuying to say that she wanted to learn more about the death of Yan Xiaoling.  Lin agreed.  But she was afraid that she might be conned, so she asked her elder brother to accompany her.  After all, she has only met Fan Yanqiong only once before.

At the meeting, Lin Xiuying told Fan Yanqiong about the death of her daughter Yan Xiaoling as well as her personal doubts.  Fan Yanqiong helped to write an essay for Lin Xiuying.  She printed the essay and read it out aloud to Lin Xiuying.  After obtaining the consent of Lin Xiuying and her brother, Fan posted the essay on the Internet.

Lin Xiuying said that Fan Yanqiong did not charge a single cent for writing the essay.  In fact, Fan had an argument with the copy shop owner for over-charging the copies.

Lin Xiuying said that she is illiterate.  She does not know anything about computers.  She only heard from other petitioners that materials posted on the Internet may gain the attention of the relevant departments.  She got Fan Yanqiong to write the essay in order to gain government attention to deal with the death of her daughter.  Lin Xiuying said that You Jingyou and Wu Huaying made the video for the same purpose.

In the notes taken down by the investigator, Lin Xiuying said that the allegations in Fan Yanqiong's essay came from what she heard from her daughter or other persons.  The investigators asked her how she learned about the collusion between the police and the gang: running a KTV; selling ketamine powder; providing prostitutes; coercing girls to become prostitutes; sharing the profits; etc.  Lin Xiuying replied that she overheard her daughter Yan Xiaoling speaking about these subjects on the phone when alive.

The investigators asked her about "the Like KTV in Mingqing county, Fujian province is an entertainment which sells ketamine powder, provides prostitution, coerces girls to become prostitutes and makes extraordinary profits, thus ruining the lives of an untold number of girls ... how did you know about it?"  Lin Xiuying said that this was what her daughter Yan Xiaoling said while alive.

Lin Xiuying said that she did not try to investigate or understand these problems.  Lin then relayed these hearsays to Fan Yanqiong, who wrote them into the essay without any attempt to verify.  So Fan was at most disseminating rumors but she did not made them up herself.

Lin Xiuying said that You Jingyou and Wu Huaying did not tell her how to fabricate or edit any facts during the making of the video.  You Jingyou and Wu Huaying only let Lin Xiuying speak her own mind.  If Lin Xiuying was inaccurate, then the two are only guilty of dissemination but not fabrication.

When You Jingyou saw Fan Yanxiong's essay on the Internet and went to ask Lin Xiuying to make a video, the Fuzhou city public security bureau had already held a press conference.  At the press conference, the public security bureau clarified that Yan Xiaoling had died from a extra-uterine pregnancy.  The video was produced after this press conference.  The public security bureau said that You Jingyou and Wu Huaying knew the cause of death but still got Lin Xiuying to make this video and let her say that Yan Xiaoling died as a result of a gang rape.  This was fabrication.  The position of the public security bureau is very clear: the press conference information is correct and not subject to challenge.

Are press conference statements 100% accurate?  Do the people have no right to raise doubts?

This reminded me of the death of Guangxi judge Li Chaoyang in April 2007.  After judge Li died in a detention cell, the Guangxi Autonomous Region government police/procuratorate conducted an investigation which included an autopsy.  The conclusion was sudden death.  The Guilin city government called a press conference to say that it was a sudden death.  But the family refused to accept this conclusoin.  After many judicial examinations, it was determined that it was not a sudden natural death.  Even so, the finding could not be reversed.  Then another prisoner on death row made a denunciation to reveal the truth, in which judge Li was beaten to death by fellow inmates.  It was only then that the persons involved were prosecuted.  The "Elude the Cat" case in Yunnan was similar when the public security bureau made an initial finding but the truth emerged due to widespread doubts.  That means that citizens have the right to question the position of the judiciary.

Based upon the known facts, I find it hard to believe that Yan Xiaoling died as a result of gang rape.  But some of the issues raised by Lin Xiuying has not yet been addressed.  Although Lin Xiuying's story is completely at odds with that of the public security bureau, people can still raise questions about any story.  If you report something that is at odds with the truth, you are guilty of making a false charge.  So if the press conference announcement is true, then any challenges to it is making a false charge.  But in the case of the sudden death of Li Chaoyang, any reporter who reported the press conference announcement will have made a false charge given the truth that was to emerge later?  This kind of view is clearly wrong and absurd.

In the case of Yan Xiaoling, Fan Yanqiong, You Jingyou and Wu Huaying were "acting" as civil reporters.  Their essay/video did not intend to make false charges.  They did not fabricate anything.  If the contents of the essay/video damaged certain people, it is just a civil lawsuit.  Has any media reporter ever been charged with a crime for inaccurate reporting?

The prosecutor's case made this a crime committed jointly by several persons.  Lin Xiuying who made the inaccurate petition is free for now while other "accomplices" are free on bail.  So only Fan Yanqiong, You Jingyou and Wu Huaying are being put on trial for making false charges.  Is the law being enforced fairly and justly?  How can it be like this?

On November 7, the Chengdu netizen "Come and go" made a forum post in which he claimed that he uses human blood plasma as fertilizer for his orchids.  "Look at my orchids -- they get a high protein diet!"  A series of photos accompanied the text.

This photo shows clearly that the bag was collected on October 3, 2009 and will not expire until year 2014.  The comments on this post were mostly of the variety: "If after you read this, will you still donate blood?  Human plasma is being used to irrigate orchids!"

Yesterday, the Chengdu Blood Centre told us that they have reported the matter to the Chengdu city and Sichuan province Departments of Health.  An investigation is being conducted right now.  The bags have bar codes which means that complete history has been recorded on computer.

At 20:00 on November 8, "Come and go" apologized on the Chinese Orchid Exchange website.  He claimed to be using scrap plasma: "I did not realize that there could be such a huge reaction.  I apologize here to everybody.  I really did not know there could be such a huge reaction.  I hope you will forgive me!"  Under the law, even scrap plasma cannot be given out.

On November 4, a Zhengzhou newspaper questioned a 12 million government budget for dog administration.  The reporter was told to contact the Department of Finance.  When the reporter met with director Wang who asked him: "Are you a Communist Party member?"  This became an instant Internet popular phrase.

Officialese appears very often, especially recently.  I am happy to find that linking many of these famous sayings leads to a good skit:

Citizen: There is something that I would like to ask you about ...

Official: Which unit are you from?  (Source: National Diving Team director Zhou Jihong to a reporter asking him about the fixing of gold medals at the national sport games)

Citizen: This ... I am ... according to international custom, I am a "citizen"; according to Chinese custom, I may just be a "laobaixing" (=ordinary person) ...

Official: Are you a Communist Party member?  (Source: Zhengzhou City Department of Finance Extra-budgetary Administration Urban Construction Bureau director Wang Guanqi to the reporter asking him about the 12 million yuan for dog administration)

Citizen: This ... Do I have to be a Communist Party member in order to speak to you?

Official: Are you speaking on behalf of the Party? Or on behalf of the people?  (Source: Jingzhou city department director Lu Jun)

Official:  You people court for fart!  You dare to challenge me!  Watch how I deal with you!  (Source: Shenzhen Customs Department Party Organization Committee secretary Lin Jiaxiang who put his hand on the shoulder of a young girl.)

Citizen: I wouldn't dare!  I only want to find some government information ...

Official: You want open information.  There is no information here that can be disclosed!  (Source: When the young man named Wang Qing went to the local government to ask for information, an official told him this.)

Citizen: But citizens have the right to know ...

Official: So do I have to tell you if I want to take a crap!  Do I have to tell you whether the feces stink?  (Source: A cadre said that at a press conference about traffic re-organization in Huangpu district, Guangzhou city.)

Citizen: .... (fainted while foaming in the mouth)

Official: The incident has happened.  What do you think should be done?  ... You should know that you will have to live around here ... (Source: Henan province Yichuan citizen Chai Dianbo was arrested by mistake and assaulted by the police.  After the story was exposed, the police visited the citizen and issued these words of sympathy.)

Here I have to provide some free advertising for Boss Su of the Hangzhou Style Clothing Limited Company.  Recently Boss Su said something truly awesome: "I am telling you.  I have money.  I can spend 100,000 yuan and get your hand chopped off.  Even if I kill someone, I would only have to spend two or three years in jail."  This was what Boss Su told the former business manager Wang Hongli who was trying to collect back pay.

When Wang Hongli and her husband Hao Gang returned a second time to collect her back pay, they were surrounded by several men who assaulted and stabbed them.  Hao Gang was beaten unconscious.  A drunken man threatened to rape Wang Hongli and insulted her (including ripping her dress and pouring beer down).  Faced with these threats, Wang Hongli was forced to sign a document in which she admitted to selling company secrets; resigning at her own will and forfeiting all back pay and bonuses; threatening the boss's wife.

That afternoon, Wang Hongli filed a police complaint which drew strong reactions from society.  The Hangzhou city Party Secretary Wang Guoping wrote a note: "Extremely bad deed, extremely bad influence, punish severely in accordance with the law."  Presently, two of the suspects are detained while the rest are being sought.

Here is the transcript of a recording made by Wang Hongli using a pen recorder:

Wang: I have come to deliver my hand.

(There is a series of noises, including Wang's shrieks and men cursing.  This went on for about 3 minutes.)

Boss Su: Wang Hongli, your clothes are too thick.  I stabbed you hard.  I stabbed you four times and the knife did not enter.

Wang: Don't beat us.  Really, don't beat us.

Man with Anhui accent: Mother's cunt.  How care you scratch my friend's wife (namely, the boss's wife)

(More noise of beating in progress)

Wang: Don't beat us anymore.

Boss Su: You caused trouble for your husband.

Man with Anhui accent: Kneel down!

Wang: Can I sit while I speak, okay?

Man with Anhui accent: Kneel down.  If you don't kneel down, I am going to rape you!

Another man: No.

Man with Anhui accent: No?  Can I just take a peek?

Wang: I am not a young girl.  There is nothing to look at.

Man with Anhui accent: Your mother's cunt.  I can peek at you if I want to!

Man with Anhui accent screaming: Hold them down!  I will take them down by the river.

Another man: Traitors!  You bullied my friend's wife!  His mother's!  I will throw you into the river!

Wang: I was wrong.  I don't want anything now ...

Man with Anhui accent:  Good.  You sign a note.  You write whatever my friend tells you, alright?

Wang:  Fine.  You tell me.


Our reporter interviewed the manager and legal representative Xia Bing of the Jingzhou City Baling Salvaging Services Limited Company.  According to him, Chen Bo did not realized that the three university students were hero rescuers when he demanded money to retrieve their bodies.  "If we had known that they were heroes at the time, we would have donated the money immediately.  We made a mistake.  After we took the money, people said that they were heroes.  By that time it was too late.  Such is public opinion!"

As to the position of "No money, no retrieval," Xia Bing denied it.  He insisted that money is paid only after the body is recovered.

Once it was realized that there was no possibility that the students can be saved, people counted on the salvagers to retrieve the body.  At that moment, Chen Bo appeared.  He is an employee of the only salving company in Jingzhou city, the Jingzhou City Baling Salvaging Services Limited Company.  He arrived and made calls on his mobile phone.  After several dozen minutes, two boats appeared.  According to informed persons, these were salvage boats whose workers have retrieved bodies on many occasions.

Chen Bo began to negotiate prices with the Yangtze University teachers and leaders.  Actually, the price is fixed: 12,000 yuan by day, 18,000 yuan by night.  Cash first, body next.

The students gave their mobile phones, wallets, bank cards and everything else, and they got down on their knees to beg the boaters to salve(retrieve).  This was the so-called "students begging the fishing boats" scene on the Internet.  But Chen Bo and his people were implacable.  They insisted that the money must be delivered first.  This was more than one hour after Chen Jishi, He Dongxu and Fang Zhao had fallen into the water.

The Yangtze University teachers and leaders hied back and forth and came up with more than 10,000 yuan.  The salvaging work began.  In less than 30 minutes, the body of Chen Jishi was found not more than 5 meters from one of the boats.  Then He Dongxu was found.  But the salvaging work stopped.  Chen Bo said: "Not enough money.  The other one will be retrieved only after all the money has been paid."

Xia Bing explained to the reporter: "This is like buying chewing gum.  Do you have to pay to buy chewing gum?  You can't say that you don't have to pay, right?"

According to information obtained at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in Jingzhou city, the Baling Salving Company was registered on June 23, 2008.  It is the only salvaging company registered at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and therefore it owns an absolute monopoly in Jingzhou city.  No matter what, this company filed that its total income in 2008 was 15,500 yuan, with a profit of 965.58 yuan.

The garbage incinerator project in Panyu (Guangdong) is vigorously opposed by the several hundred thousand people who live in the area.  It is easy to imagine why the opposition exists, because this location is upwind from Guangzhou city and it has at least 300,000 residents in a densely populated area including more than a dozen large housing estates within a radius of several kilometers.  The sudden insertion of a garbage incinerator plant that processes 2,000 tonnes of garbage scares the residents who are worried about their personal safety.

When the Panyu district drew up this plan, it should now that opposition was likely.  This is reflected in the <Notice concerning the construction of a garbage incinerator plant in the Panyu district> document in 2009.  This notice was published on February 4, 2009 on the Guangzhou city government website and it used strong words: "All those who violate this notice, or refuse/obstruct state workers in carrying out their duties will be sent by the public security units to the relevant judiciary units for punishment in accordance with the laws and regulations; those who commit crimes will be pursued for their legal responsibilities."  Afterwards, the Panyu district government admitted that the project has not yet passed any environmental assessment yet.  How can a project which has not passed environmental assessment and therefore does not have a construction permit be issued with a stern warning of severe punishment for opponents?  What is the legal basis for this notice?

Fortunately, the Panyu government has not resorted to invoking this notice at a time when public opposition is so heated.  Instead, they have chosen to use the most basic method of communication between a modern government and its people -- on October 30, a press conference was held to address the doubts about the garbage incinerator plant.  Thus, it has made an enlightened turnabout on the handling of a public issue.

But this type of exchange should be done responsibly and not be a ruse to deceive the public.  Otherwise, they may be outsmarting themselves.  There are many such examples in recent years.  In the case of Tiger Zhou, the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Forestry invited four experts who proclaimed that the tiger that Zhou Zhenglong filmed was real.  But that "paper tiger" would make the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Forestry become a laughing stock.  In the case of the Shanghai "black taxi" entrapment, the government held a press conference to announce the results of an investigation which resulted in no evidence whatsoever of entrapment.  Even the Shanghai city leaders condemned the show for "insulting the intelligence of the public."

At this Panyu district press conference, certain details also unfortunately became the foci of public doubts.

At this press conference, netizens strongly questioned the statements from Nie Yongfeng, who is a Tsinghua University professor and the director of the Ministry of Education's Solid Waste Disposal and Environmental Safety Laboratory.  At the press conference, Nie Yongfeng said that the technological level of large-scale garbage incinerators in China has reached advanced international levels.  Overseas garbage incinerator plants with better technology are built right inside residential areas.  In Japan, garbage incinerator plants stand right next to elementary schools and kindergartens.  But the truth is that garbage in China is not as sorted into as many types as they do in Japan, so that dioxin-producing plastic products are incinerated.  Therefore, the article <Chinese population, environment and resources> estimates that the amount of dioxin produced per tonne of incinerated garbage in China is 47 times that of Japan.  Besides, the Liheng (Guangdong) garage incinerator plant now just beginning to operate may have adopted advanced international technology, but the residents found the foul smell unbearable.  To quote international data out of context is possibly guilty of misleading the public and the government.

Why did Nie Yongfeng supported the idea that incineration is safe in this manner?  Netizens found one explanation: Nie is the patent holder to the "rotating gas incineration oven" under patent number 00258660.6 granted on October 20, 2000.  This information can be located on the State Intellectual Property Rights Bureau website.  How can an expert whose research results are used towards designing incinerators be expected to give a fair assessment of the dangers of garbage incineration?  Besides, his invention makes it easy for the public to imagine that there is a business relationship between himself and the interest groups.

When an expert is not neutral in terms of interest, how can the public trust his research and judgment?

The other expert Shu Chengguang at the press conference drew even more attention.  He said that garbage incinerator plants produce very little dioxin and are therefore not dangerous.  He drew a truly astonishing analogy: "If we have to compare the amount of dioxin, then barbeques generate 1,000 ti9mes more dioxin than garbage incineration."  As a result, Shu Chengguang has been dubbed "BBQ expert" by netizens.

His assertion is quite inconsistent with science and data.  The damage by garbage incineration to environment and health in Denmark and Japan is well known.  In the case of Japan, CCTV reports that even though Japan has the most advanced garbage incineration technology of the world, the level of dioxin detected in the atmosphere is 10 times higher than other developed industrial nations during the 1990's.  Since dioxin is a first-grade carcinogen, the cancer rates around garbage incinerators in Japan are higher.  For this reason, Japan has decreased the number of garbage incinerator plants from 6,000+ to 1,800 today.

How can an expert say something that blithely ignores the facts?  Is this a simple case of divergence of academic opinions?  Or is there an interest group motive behind?  Shu Chengguang is a vice-president and chief technologist at the Convanta Energy Group (China Region).  The Covanta Energy Group is the largest garbage incinerator investor/builder in the world.  According to Securities Times, the Covanta Energy Group and the Guangzhou Holdings Company reached an agreement to set up the Guangzhou Development Covanta Environmental Energy Sources Limited Company which is engaged in the garbage incinerator business in the Pearl Delta.  The initial capital was already 50 million yuan.  As the spokesperson for an interest group, it would be amazing if Shu Chengguang did not say that kind of thing.

The problem is that the government should be neutral in matters of administration and policy-making.  They should be the spokesperson on behalf of the public interest instead of tilting towards some interest group.  At this press conference, they permitted the spokesperson of an interest group to explain a public policy while giving him the aura as an expert.  How can such a press conference and such an expert convince the people?

Therefore, I think that if the government wants to use authoritative experts to communicate with the public, the experts should have no material interests in the matter in order to be credible.  The government should not influence or define the judgment and speech of the experts.  The public will only believe it when the experts made their judgment on the basis of objective study.  Otherwise, people will think that this is "insulting the intelligence of the public."

In the next round of environmental assessment over the garbage incinerator, we don't want to see this as being perfunctory and we don't want to see this as being swayed by interest groups.  We hope that the environment assessment experts can be neutral in terms of their interest, that they will consider the public interest as well as urban development together, and that the process should be open and transparent.  Only then can the environmental assessment be fair and convincing, and the public policy can have a legal basis.

(Ming Pao)

Last night, Ah Hin went a second time for a radio appearance.  He said: "After the matter was reported by a newspaper, netizens suddenly forgot the original serious crimes that were charged against me and turned instead to criticize my love life.  This shows that the allegation of me pushing my girlfriend down the stairs was dubious.  Furthermore, someone is trying to continue the attack on me from a different direction."

He believed that his former girlfriend Little Ding is the perpetrator.  Yesterday, a woman calling herself "Little Ding" called up an Internet radio station and admitted that she was the author of the October article which listed "thirteen crimes" against Ah Hin.  However, Ah Hin was not named in that article.  She denied that she wrote the article that triggered the current storm and she welcomed any police investigation.

Beginning yesterday, the Internet split into two camps.  The Anti-Ah Hin page at Facebook has more than 30,000 sign-ups, but there are opposite opinions.  Some netizens criticized people for "blindly following without seeking verification"; others even call to set up human flesh search against Little Ding.  Her friends asked the netizens to have mercy on her.

Hong Kong Baptist University Social Work Department lecturer Shiu Ka-chun said that moral cynics condemn people through human flesh search without verifying the facts: "Their own morality is not high, but vilifying others make themselves look squeaky clean.  "Since I am deploring a despicable person, I must not be a despicable person" becomes a form of self-therapy."  But all attackers as well as spectators can also become the target themselves someday.

Shiu believes that the Internet pursues every "moral incident" vigorously "but it will be quickly forgotten.  It is useless for the principal to fight back on the Internet, because this is a black box operation and not an open court trial.  The only solution is to drop out of the Internet."  But Shiu said also that there will be an Internet "case record."  "In 2020, he may before a university professor.  But any search of his name on the Internet can never erase this case record.  The damage will be deep and long lasting."

The following shows how the Facebook has been modified.  The eyes of Ah Hin has been covered up; his full name, address and telephone number has been deleted; his nickname, website and email remain.

(HK Golden Forum)

Vanes Yeung: We have 30,000 people here.  Let us put up 100 dollars person and get a hit man to take the life of the soft-skinned snake Mr. Tsui so that he cannot do any more evil on earth.

Lo Chun Wai Chris: 10 dollars per person should be enough.

Vanes Yeung: 300,000 is not enough; 3,000,000 is enough to buy two houses on the Mid Levels as he said.

Netizen: 10x30,000 to take care of his dad and mom

Vanes Yeung: 100 x 30,000 to take care of his dad, mom plus him and the Tsui family line will be terminated

Nana Ba: If true, I will really chip in.

Netizen: It has reached 30,000 now.

Vanes Yeung: Ha ha ... I just joking ... don't be too nervous ... if you don't have to pay with your life or go to jail for murder, Mr. Tsui would have been dead a long time ago.

Vanues Yeung: It has been 30,000 for a while.  It is racing towards 40,000 now ...

Michael Ng: If I don't have to pay with my life or go to jail, I am willing to pay $5,000.


At time 36:50 in this video, the principal appears to have swiped an iPod and stuffed into his trouser pocket.  What gives?  The privacy of shoppers in a shop?  Or the right of the shop to protect itself against more costly thefts?

On November 3, a post began to appear at various Hong Kong discussion forums.  The post comes from a person who claims to be a female Form 5 (=fifth year in secondary school) student.  She said that she got acquainted with a certain Ah Hin (who is a 21-year-old student at City University) via the Internet and entered a relationship; after she got pregnant, Ah Hin abandoned her; when she went to wait for him outside his apartment, he pushed her down the stairs and caused her to have a spontaneous abortion.  The full name of Ah Hin was published at the end of that post.

Shortly afterwards, various other people began to bring back critical comments about Ah Hin which had appeared previously in various places on the Internet.  A self-proclaimed ex-girlfriend said that he was rude and unfaithful; a self-proclaimed university classmate said that Ah Hin borrowed money and refused to pay back; another self-proclaimed "aided friendship girl" said that Ah Hin refuses to use condoms or pay when he summons prostitutes.

On the evening of November 3, a Facebook group was established.  Some netizen went and posted Ah Hin's telephone number, address, email, blog URL and even his university class schedule.  As of 11pm last night, more than 28,000 persons have signed up for that group, far more than the 9,000 persons who signed up for the "Donald Tsang does not represent me" group.  Ah Hin's name was among the top five search terms on Yahoo!

When Ah Hin was interviewed by our newspaper yesterday, he said that he found out about that he had become a character in an Internet story on the afternoon of November 3.  "As I was reading that story, I thought that the guy was terrible.  When I reached the end, I saw my name printed there."  Since then, Ah Hin has been judged without a trial by netizens.  He has turned his mobile phone to silent mode because he receives more than 200 calls per day, half of them anonymous ones.  "Some people used foul language to curse; some people faked a baby voice to say: 'Why doesn't daddy want me?'"  Many of Ah Hin's photos were modified to comical effect on the Internet.

Ah Hin learned that many of his fellow students have heard the falsehoods.  He has been not been able to sleep.  "I am really better off dead than alive."  Ah Hin has not been to school for the past three days.  He filed a police report on November 3, and has also sought assistance from the Privacy Commissioner's Office.

Ah Hin insisted that apart from his personal data, everything else in the Internet story is fabricated.  "For example, someone claimed that I owed him money.  The fact is that I don't know him."  He suspected that he is being maliciously smeared after breaking up with a girlfriend.  He called the other party and was told: "You go and tell the police then."

"If I pushed someone down the stairs, then it is an assault case."  In order to establish his innocence, he is willing to be arrested by the police if he really did that.  Because someone made harassing calls to his home, his parents has learned about the case.  Yesterday, the parents offered a "reward" of HKD 100,000 to seek the "female principal" as well as called for her to file a police report.

Ah Hin said that the police asked him to keep silent when he filed his report because they did not want the perpetrator to cover up the tracks.  Therefore, he has not made any comments.  But he changed his mind after he received an invitation to appear on radio last night (listen to first part in Cantonese on YouTube).  A police spokesperson said that they received a report by Ah Hin on the afternoon of November 3 and they are treating this as a case of "telephone harassment."

According to City University Criminology Course director Wong Sing-wing, there is no evidence that Ah Hin broke any laws or any of the claimed events took place but netizens have gobbled up everything.  This shows that netizens do not have the custom of seeking verification.  Instead, the Internet is a warm bed for rumors.  He pointed out that Internet bullying is a new form of crime, with the characteristics of being hard to verify, transmitting very rapidly and causing tremendous mental distress.

(New Express; Southern Metropolis Daily)

On October 31 at around 5pm, a female bicyclist named Xiao collided lightly with a 7-year-old boy in Shiji town.  The mother of the boy named Zhang Yanxia observed the incident and got into a quarrel/shoving match with Xiao.  According to Zhang she tried to remind Xiao to pay attention when she biked but Xiao cursed her using local dialect and also said, "The little child deserves to die."  Zhang admitted that during the argument, she unintentionally tipped the bicycle over.  "A man thought that I intentionally tipped over the bicycle and he came over to hit me."  The man was supposed to be a village safety patrol member named A Bing.  Zhang said that she pinned down on the ground with no means of fighting back.

At this time, Zhang Yanxia's husband Zheng Chuandong just got back on his motorcycle.  Since he was acquainted with A Bing, he went up and separated the two.  A Bing made a telephone call: "More than a dozen men carrying iron spades and machetes came charging at me."  Zheng fled for his life.  According to Zhang, the men came back and destroyed Zheng's motorcycle.

When the Panyu police got the call, they dispatched police officers to the scene.  The armed men fled the scene.  Zheng and Zhang then realized that their son was missing, probably because he was frightened by the armed men.  The police began to look for the missing boy as well as ask the principals to go down to the police station for interrogation.  But the father Zhang refused to cooperate with the police until his son was found.  Zhang believed that the police would be partial towards local residents and biased against outsiders from Guizhou.  The rumor spread that Guizhou persons had been arrested by the police, which denied having done so.  At around midnight, the angry friends of Zhang assaulted the police officers and their vehicles, causing three police officers to suffer mild injuries and 8 police cars (three sedans and five motorcycles) to be vandalized.

Heavily armed police reinforcements who were already amassed outside the village were sent in to take away the troublemakers and advise spectators to disperse.  Twenty-six persons were detained for disrupting public order and intentional destruction of property.

Meanwhile, the local police station mobilized several dozen police officers and almost 100 civilian patrol members to comb the district in search of the missing boy.  At around midnight on October 1, the police finally found the missing boy hiding underneath a bridge.  The boy was brought back to his mother Zhang, who was grateful to the police and quite sorry about her own brashness.

(Southern Metropolis Daily)  October 5, 2009.

An American tourist named Phil traveled to Lijiang city with his girlfriend named Fang.  On October 29, the couple and three other friends arrived in Lijiang.  A Hong Kong female friend named He said that she knew a local citizen named Luo who sells caterpillar fungi.  Luo came over on November 11 but he did not bring any merchandise.  He only asked them "Do you have cash on you?"  After getting an affirmative answer, he came back the next day with another local resident who brought a bag of caterpillar fungi priced at 55,000 yuan.

Fang refused to buy the merchandise because she did not rate the quality as good.  But the other party kicked down a few hotel doors and said that she would have to compensate them for 3,000 yuan if she did not make the buy.  "If you don't, you are not going to leave Lijiang alive!"  A hotel owner named Liu said that the two local residents blocked the hotel entrance after failure to reach agreement on the price.  Even after the police was called in to mediate, the two local residents still prevented the tourists from taking their luggage out.  Finally, the hotel hired a tricycle and transported the luggage out secretly.  That was how the tourists managed to "escape."

Phil said that the local residents grabbed the steering wheel in their car and also bruised his girlfriend's shoulder.  Phil said that he will report the incident to the American consulate in China.  Phil is also perplexed by the fact that the local police station would not take on the case.  According to a local police officer named Wang, any dispute over the purchase of caterpillar fungus should be referred to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.  The police had declined to take the case because it is not within their purview.

Yesterday, Lijiang city Tourist Bureau Quality Supervisory and Management Department worker Huo Yao wished Phil not to blow up the case by going to the American consulate.  He recommended that Phil write to his department which will actively mediate.

Yesterday, our reporter called Mr. Luo.  He said that the caterpillar fungus was brought in from Shangri-la by special messenger.  He was hoping that the tourists would compensate him for the transportation costs.  Mr. Luo does not want to expland this case.  He is willing to contact the Hong Kong female tourist and ask her to mediate.

(Youth.cn)  October 4, 2009.

Yesterday Henan province public security bureau publicity office deputy director Su Yinhai was interviewed by reporters.  He said that the nude photo was published by the reporter on the Internet without police permission.  As to whether the police officer in the photo was too violent or whether it was an "entrapment," Su Yinhai said that he cannot comment since he was not at the scene.

(青青子衿博客)  October 5, 2009.

I think that the Henan police made a timely response about the nude photo.  It shows at least they have a keen concern for public relations.  It also showed that public opinion caused them to react, and that should be helpful in modifying their future behavior.  But since they came out bravely to face the public, they should have dealt with the straight facts instead of wriggling around as if that could somehow stop the wave of public opinion on the Internet.  I have four issues about what Su Yinhai said.

Firstly, according to Su Yinhai, the police did not want to publicize the case.  "On October 28, the Zhengzhou city public security bureau concentrated its police force against a certain bathing center in the Zhongyuan district, a certain bathing club in the Guancheng district and other facilities believed to be engaged in prostitution and gambling."  As such, the action should be an internal police secret.  How did the media find out?  If the police did not notify the media, how can there be "many media outlets accompanying the action, including a cameraman"?  Could the media have tailed the police, entered the facility, took the photo and published it afterwards, all without police permission?  Aren't the media afraid that the police would charge them with interfering with "public duties."

Secondly, let us suppose that the media were not invited by the police and went there on their own.  But shouldn't the police know the potential consequences of having a large group of media reporters following them?  Did they take any appropriate actions, such as telling the reporters not to take photos?  Why didn't they stop the reporters from taking photos?  Why did they grab the hair of the girl and made her face the camera?

Thirdly, according to Su Yinhai, the Henan public security bureau has repeatedly emphasized to its police officers to respect and protect the images and reputations of suspects.  But did this occurr because of a requirement in some document or because it is mandated by certain rules and regulations?  How can we know that this "emphasis" was made?  How can we be sure that this "emphasis" is actually effective?    If this "emphasis" was made solely to excuse the supervisors for misconduct, it is meaningless.  If there are no rules and regulations, how can the base-level police officers be restrained?

Fourthly, we believe that Su Yinhai must realize that the nude photo is indecent.  Why else did he say that "the reporter ignored his professional ethics and posted the photo on the Internet without any hint of social responsibility"?  How was the photo indecent?  Was it due to the filming by the media?  Or was it due to the brutish actions of the plainclothes police officer?  I believe that the police know very well what the answer is.  But when asked "whether the action of the bald-headed plainclothes policeman was brutish," Su Yinhai only said, "I was not at the scene and therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment."  Does he even lack the most basic ability to judge right from wrong?  Is he afraid of offending people?  Why not say, "If what is in the photo is consistent with the public speculation, then this type of improper law enforcement method should be rectified"?  If a police officer cannot even made a basic moral judgment, then where did his sense of social responsibility go?  How hard is it to admit fault?

Did the Henan police got what they want when they responded?  I think that things only got worse as a result.

(Rose Luqiu's blog)  October 5, 2009.

Due to the Internet, many events are quickly aired through the Internet and/or mainstream media reports so that the principals are forced to respond quickly.  Facts show that a rapid response will gain a superior position.  But recent events have also shown that some people have chosen to shift the focus in their quick responses.

As an example, there was the case of the bald-headed police officer in Zhengzhou city, Henan province.  The latest official response was that the police did not publish the photo -- it was the media that did it on their own.  The focus was then shifted to the media instead of the more important question about problems in law enforcement.  Of course, the media has its share of responsibility.  But most of the related reports and comments were criticisms of the police for violating the privacy of the girl.  Fortunately, the netizens are alert and they have clearly stated that they don't care about who released the photos; in fact, they are grateful to that person because we would not know that such things are happening.  Everybody still cares most about problems in procedures and execution during law enforcement by the police.

(ESWN Comment)

I have a page of photos about Sweeping The Yellow (扫黄) that was posted on June 17, 2007.  The photos were collected from various media reports about brothel raids from all over China.  The first photo is that series was:

This would become the subject of a piece of sculpture entitled: "Urban managers arresting girl"

Why was I interested in these types of photos?  Because they exhibited law enforcement behavior that is not tolerated for other 'crimes.'  The traffic policeman is not going to pull your hair for not stopping at the red light; etc.  At what point will this long-existing phenomenon become a matter of concern in an emergent civic society?

(CE.cn, Liberty Times)  October 4, 2009.

A Taipei county council legislator recently received a postcard that has President Ma Ying-jeou holding a classical stance (the Nine-Nine Sacred Art of Sexual Intercourse 九九神功式交媾) and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton servicing him from below.  The postcard had a signature Lin Kuo-wu, by which the police managed to arrest the named painter.  The police were able to find the original drawings, more postcards and an address book.

At first, the police thought that Lin Kuo-wu might be a political fanatic.  Instead, they found in his portfolio photos of former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, Chinese leader Hu Jintao, the Dalai Lama and others.  So it is hard to discern any ulterior political motive.

48-year-old Lin Kuo-wu graduated with an arts degree and worked as a newspaper delivery person earning NT$10,000 per month.  Thirteen years ago, he began to draw the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian series which have the same conceptual framework.  However, he failed to draw any attention.  Over those years, he mailed at least 5,000 postcards to various people.  But today, he has finally achieved fame via Ma Ying-jeou/Hillary Clinton.

His mother said that he was completely transformed after coming across the Nine-Nine Sacred Art more than a decade ago.  She hopes that the police will spare her son.  But Lin said himself: "For the sake of my life in art, I don't mind going to jail."

(Wen Wei Po)  November 5, 2009.

Hong Kong Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung (of the League of Social Democrats) used words of personal attack to verbally abuse our reporter for more than 10 minutes in the corridor of the Legislative Council building on October 28 during a break in the Legco session.  Afterwards, Leung appeared on Internet internet, accused the reporter of "provocation" and refused to apologize.  Our newspaper issued a statement yesterday to deplore Leung Kwok-hung for publicly insulting the character of our reporter in his capacity as Hong Kong Legislative Councilor, damaging the professional dignity of our reporter, as well as suppressing and trampling upon freedom of speech and press.  At the same time, our newspaper has filed a complaint with Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yuk-sing and asked for a follow-up on the case with appropriate sanctions under the relevant regulations.

 On the morning of October 28 during the Legislative Council session, our reporter and two reporters from other newspapers were chatting with government officials in the corridor.  Leung Kwok-hung came out of the meeting chamber, approached our reporter and began to harangue her.  He criticized the reporting and viewpoints in our newspaper.  When our reporter attempted to ask him about the resignation of four members of the executive committee of the League of Social Democrats who wrote an open letter to deplore the LSD for not investigating whether Legco member Chan Wai-yip was misusing contributions, Leung called our reporter a "dog" for at least ten times.  Later on, Leung Kwok-hung appeared on HKreporter and described the incident.  He admitted that he called the other party a "dog."  He said that he will not apologize to the insulted reporter.

Comparative case: Donald Tsang Blames The Media For His Troubles.

Yesterday, I walked past the Liberation Stele in Chongqing and I saw three police officers who parked their car in front of a crowd.  I went up and listened in.  Since I was close to them, I heard what they said.

Woman: I am from Chongqing Evening News.  I am gathering news here.  I have the right to park here.

Tall police man: Sorry, if you are gathering news, please contact our division headquarters beforehand.  We have not been notified by our supervisor.

Woman: How dare you mess with our car from the Chongqing Evening News!

Short police man: Two cars were illegally parked here and we dealt with them.  We have to treat everybody the same.

Woman: I am not talking to you.  You XXX!  You are like a bandit!

Tall police man: Comrade, you are going too far with what you say.

Short police man: Can you please repeat?

Woman: I said that you are like a bandit.

Short police man: You say that I am like a bandit.  Then I saw that you are like a prostitute.  Does that make you uneasy?

So you understand what happened afterwards.  Many in the crowd stood up for the police man.  A person who claimed to be the father of the woman was more reasonable and he apologized profusely.  But the female comrade continued to spew curses, which led to a quarrel between her and the spectators.  The police comrades ended up trying to mediate the quarrel.  Finally, at the request of the crowd, the woman apologized to the police and the people, and then she sneaked away quietly.

Oh, I forgot this classical exchange:

The woman said to the short police man while trying to make a phone call: "Do you believe that I can make sure that you won't be a police man any more tomorrow?"

Short police man: "You have awesome powers.  Such awesome powers.  But there is only one person who can make sure that I am not a police man tomorrow.  That man's name is Hu Jintao.  You can issue a chairman's order.  Everybody else will have to follow procedure so that it will be at least three months before I have to leave my post.  You must understand this."

(China Daily)  Crosstalk star 'faked' illnesses in commercials.  November 3, 2009.

A Beijing crosstalk actor and talk show host hHou Yaohua promotes shampoo in a TV showas come under fire for lending his star power to the promotion of fake medicines.

The China Advertising Association (CAA), which oversees the country's advertising industry, said 64-year-old Hou Yaohua breached his responsibility to the public when he appeared in 10 TV commercials for unregistered medicines and medical equipment.

The national television network CCTV yesterday showed clips from two of Hou's commercials, and METRO found four of the other advertisements online. All six productions show Hou, playing himself, praising the products.

Li Fangwu, director of legal affairs of the CAA, said the 10 commercials of products ranging from sexual performance pills to blood pressure monitors are now banned nationwide because they featured a professional actor promoting products that he did not use and were unregistered. "Authorities from nine provinces have also confiscated the products after consumers' complaints," the official said.

Li said celebrities must not perform as if they were ill in advertisement. "All commercials are considered as misinforming consumers if they have hired actors to play the roles of experts and consumers for the purpose of promoting fake products," said Li.

But Hou said he had done nothing wrong. "I have no memory of these commercials, but I will have to check later," the actor told Beijing Youth Daily on Sunday evening. "There is the chance that advertisers have illegally used my footage and images for commercial promotions."

Hou denied he suffered problems with high blood pressure, even though he starred in an advertisement promoting medicine for the condition. "Let's say that I did promote high blood pressure medicines, do I have to be a high blood pressure patient to make the ad?" the actor said.

Li Decheng, a senior lawyer with the All China Lawyers' Association, said celebrities should be considered lying if they are not the users of the products they promote in commercials.

While the nation's new food safety law stipulates that celebrities are also responsible for the substandard food products they speak for, there is no law regulating liabilities in other products, including medicines. The lack of an effective regulation has led to a number of cases involving Beijing celebrities.

Guo Degang, Beijing's big time crosstalk star, was put on a trial in 2007 after he made his advertising debut for an unlicensed manufacturer which sold a diet drug. The artist reportedly paid back some of his 2 million yuan ($292,900) appearance fee as a fine for the illegal commercial appearance.

Sun Guitian, a veteran actress, has also been criticized for faking different illnesses for different advertisers. The 66-year-old Beijing-based artist has suffered teeth inflammation, rheumatism, as well as lung, kidney and heart illnesses, in different commercials using her real identity.  The actress has denied she faked the illnesses and defended that she had "many health problems".

(Beijing TV)






(China Advertising Association)  The ten examples of illegal advertisements are:

(Qilu Evening News)

One of the products was the Ark Blood Pressure Reduction Instrument.  The reporter contacted the Hunan province company that developed the product.  The reporter asked whether they got Hou Yaohua for their advertising and a worker named Yin said, "Yes, we did."  The reporter asked whether they used Hou's name without authorization.  Yin said: "Says who?  How can that be faked?"  Yin emphasized repeatedly that the product was legitimate, safe and reliable.

The reporter found an advertisement for the Ark Blood Pressure Reduction Instrument on a video website.  Hou Yaohua appeared in this ad.  He mentioned the name, the Ark Blood Pressure Reduction Instrument.  He also ran an experiment to show that the instrument has a magnetic field around it.  He even walked up to the audience to show the results.

(SCMP)  TV stations rapped over misleading Sino Land ad.  By Ng Kang-chung.  November 3, 2009.

A television commercial for a Sino Land residential project that featured fictitious and computer-generated scenery of forests and lakes has been criticised as misleading by the broadcasting watchdog. ATV, TVB , Cable TV and Now TV, which ran the commercial in late May, were "advised" to observe the code of practice on television advertising standards more closely. Public concerns about misleading property sales brochures and TV commercials arose after complaints that buyers of flats were often fooled by the artists' impressions of new developments offering scenery and views that were too good to be true. The Broadcasting Authority launched an investigation into the commercial on Lake Silver, a Sino Land luxury project in Ma On Shan, after receiving a complaint against the TV commercial.


Sino Land had already been criticised for misleading buyers in the printed brochure for Lake Silver, which showed graphics of flats enjoying sea views and a backdrop of hills, while the view from most floors would probably be blocked by Henderson Land's Lok Wo Sha development when completed.

Here are the TV commercials:



(Hong Kong Broadcasting Authority)

The BA noted that (i) the advertisement promoted a property development in Wu Kai Sha. It had a 1-minute Chinese version and two 2-minute versions with Chinese and English subtitles respectively; (ii) the advertisement was presented in a surrealistic manner using artistic presentation and computer-aided graphics. Graphically, there were shots of natural sceneries like forests and lakes, three-dimensional portrayals of a clubhouse and banquet halls, and an ending picture showing the property located in a bay area surrounded by green bushes; (iii) there had been press reports that there were other property developments in the immediate vicinity of the property concerned; and (iv) the location plan in the "Lake Silver Development Information" produced by the developer showed that there was another property development in the vicinity.

Having considered the submissions and representations from the relevant licensees, the BA considered that -

  1. scenery of a property was a very important factor in determining its value and popularity. An advertisement could be imaginative in its presentation, but essential information of a property should be truthful and should not be misleading. As the ending picture of the advertisement displayed a full view of the concerned property, viewers should have expectation that it was a realistic depiction of the property. The end shot of the advertisement showing the property under concern surrounded by green bushes without any other building in the vicinity rendered the advertisement untruthful and misleading; and
  2. the relevant licensees had not exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining the truthfulness of the advertisement as they should have noted from the "Lake Silver Development Information" produced by the developer that another property development, which was in the vicinity, was not displayed in the ending shot of the advertisement.

(Apple Daily)

Artist's depiction in the printed brochure for Lake Silver

Apple Daily's depiction of the eventual site



On the night of October 28, more than 300 police officers from the Zhengzhou public security bureau proceeded to raid illegal establishments involved in prostitution and gambling.  Nine people were arrested, and two bathing centers and one electronic game facility were shut down.  This was the second large-scale operation in Zhengzhou.  The police kept a lid on all information, such that the police were not told what the operation was before setting out.

Yes, but so what?  The "what" is that the Internet has been flooded with netizen criticisms about this particular photo:

The video/photo showed a plainclothes police man with short hair kicked down the door and then screamed at the naked girl, "How many?  How many tonight?  Speak up!"

The girl lied that she did not do any business that night.  But the investigator produced a list which showed that there were 26 clients.

The controversial part is when the bald-headed guy grabbed the hair of the naked girl and yanked her head upwards.  The publication of this photo drew netizens to ask: "If you look at what the bald-headed guy did, you would think that this girl is a killer.  Is it any way to treat a woman?  How many women willingly become 'sex workers'?  They are forced to do so by their living circumstances.  Let us look at the expression on the girl.  She looked lost and helpless.  Does anyone know the story behind her?"  Another netizen asked: "Can any legal expert tell us whether it is legal to publish the nude photo of the woman?"

Related Link: Sweeping The Yellow (扫黄), ESWN, June 17, 2007.

(libcom.org)  May 6, 2009.

There were 58,000 “mass incidents”, the Chinese state's euphemism for strikes, street protests, roadblocks and other forms of mass protests, in China in the first three months of this year.

Chinaworker.info reports the monitoring agencies in Hong Kong, and cites the pace of job losses and migrants being forced to return home as the main causes. The figure covers protests which involved 25 or more people.

The report said that if this trend continues, then 2009 would break all previous records with over 230,000 'mass incidents', compared to 120,000 in 2008 and 90,000 in 2006.

So how would these "monitoring agencies in Hong Kong" tally mass incidents?  Probably by reading Chinese-language reports coming from newspaper websites and Internet forums.  So how about this recent event?  Is it a mass incident?  After all, this is an illegal assembly that disrupted public order (e.g. vehicular traffic) and even involved explosives (namely, firecrackers).


Bang bang bang bang!  The sound of firecrackers arose amidst the celebratory banging of gongs and drums next to the dragon dance troupe.  Long red banners were unfolded and paraded in the streets.  On the morning of October 25, 2009, nobody knew how these activities came about.

This was a very ordinary day.  It was not a regular festival day such as the Lunar New Year, but the celebratory mood was far stronger.  This was not a marriage celebration for some rich family, but the whole city was out celebrating.  For the masses of Daoxian county, this was a very special day that will be written into local city.  They were "celebrating" the fact that their leader (Communist Party secretary Yi Guangming) has been placed under "double regulations" by the Hunan provincial party disciplinary committee.  Their explosion of joy represents their support of punishing corrupt officials.

"Why are you setting off firecrackers?"  One shop owner asked another.  "Boss Yi has been placed under double regulations.  Didn't you know?"  "Oh, Lao Yi has been placed under double regulations."  So the other shop owner bought some firecrackers to set off in front of his own store.  Everywhere, the news spread on the wings of birds in all directions through the county.  The sound of firecrackers arose everywhere.

The Daoxian authorities were surprised by this spontaneously organized behavior.  They were very worried.  The Daoxian county Political and Legal Committee secretary Zhao Wenwang called an emergency meeting to discuss response measures.  The Daoxian government sent out police officers to stop people from setting off firecrackers, confiscate the banners and arrest the people with the banners.  There was also the opposite opinion: the government should accept and not hold back public opinion -- putting the lid down often achieve the opposite effect.

At a time when the case of Yi Guangming was all over the Internet, it was regrettable that the local Yongzhou media were totally silent.  The Yongzhou city leaders told the local media (radio, television, newspaper and Internet websites) that the name of Yi Guangming must not be mentioned.  But over in Changsha city more than 400 kilometers away from Yongzhou, the largest and most influential website in Hunan province RedNet published a very brief response: "RedNet Changsha October 26 (reporter: Xie Lunding) The news "Hunan province Daoxian county party secretary Yi Guangming placed under double discipline by the provincial party disciplinary committee on suspicion of violating discipline" had been going around the various Internet forums earlier.  This has been verified by the Hunan provincial disciplinary committee this afternoon."
"Enthusiastically celebrate the most corrupt person in Daoxian county being placed under double regulations"

"Resolutely support the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party"

Why do the people of Daoxian county hate Yi Guangming so much?  Among other things, he was a hidden investor in the Xinxiangyang hydroelectric station which caused all farmers downstream not to have enough water for irrigation.

Investor shares in the Xinxiangyang hydroelectric station,
including relatives of Yi Guangming and other figurehands

Waterless rice paddy downstream

Yesterday the Chongqing Jiaotong University on its official website that a student has been given three days of administrative detention for spreading Internet rumors about syringe attacks in Chongqing.  The student is an undergraduate named Pi who is majoring in Road Engineering.

According to Pi, he was talking to his mother by phone and learned that there were cases of criminals stabbing children with syringes in his hometown.  His mother reminded him repeatedly to pay attention to his personal safety.  Without doing any investigation, Pi went to the Baidu forum for the Chongqing Jiatong University on October 20 and made the post <I am shocked, the syringe attacks have come to Chongqing>.

According to the university, the news of the "syringe attacks" began to spread quickly among some students and caused a certain level of anxiety.  Pi said in a personal statement that subjectively he made that post only to remind fellow students to pay attention to their personal safety, but objectively that post has violated the relevant laws of the state.

The university's statement also quoted a police officer named Chen from the Chongqing city public security bureau Internet supervisory department.  Chen addressed the issue of whether the penalty on Pi was too severe.  In his view, Pi's penalty was too light.  When a citizen spreads rumors about syringe attacks on the Internet, this is "disseminating terrorist information."  In principle, that is defined as a crime case.  But since Pi is a student and there is no evidence that he deliberately acted that way, the police gave him a lesser penalty.

(Oriental Daily)  November 1, 2009.

\In Hong Kong, a 'dirty old man' has been spotted around the Kwun Tong MTR subway station.  Yesterday our reporter spotted him in the vicinity of a school in Kwun Tong.  Whereas he walked over there with an erect posture, he immediately because hunchbacked and unsteady once he get here such that he 'accidentally' bumps his elbow onto the chests of the female students.

For two days in a row, our reporter has been gone out there at 8am to wait for his arrival.  On one morning, we followed him for more than two hours during which he 'accidentally bumped' into more than 30 females, including elementary school students, middle school students and office ladies.  The 'dirty old man' goes home around 10am.  He shows up again at noon and also in the early afternoon when classes end at the schools.

Here is the YouTube video: