Is it just me, or has there been in the China Daily recently just a little more "openness", a little more willingness to address difficult issues and voice opinions critical of the status quo? We probably shouldn't get too excited about it. The range of topics they're allowed to be this adventurous on is no doubt still narrowly prescribed by higher authorities, and the criticisms remain very oblique, muted.
A couple of days ago, for example, there was an editorial on the case of Wu Baoquan, a man from Ordos in Inner Mongolia, who has been jailed for posting online comments critical of the way in which the local government there had carried out forced land acquisitions (a common source of complaint in China today). The writer delicately notes that the apparent use of the police as "a tool of local government to tackle unfavourable opinion" (again, a very common source of complaint in China) is "a role that might go against the Constitution and relevant legal codes". Might?? It's amazing how no-one in this country has a clue how to handle modal verbs until it's necessary to make your English as wishy-washy as possible when expressing some criticism.
The piece also notes that, while you may not be able to trust your police or your government in China, it's all right, because the Internet these days is providing a useful avenue for righting such wrongs. This notion was prompted by the fact that the victim in a very similar recent case in Henan has been released from prison early and given an official apology, after there was an online outcry about what had happened to him. However, this praise of the power of the Internet seems somewhat grimly ironic, given that both these men, and others too, were jailed for precisely that - trying to use the Internet to publicize a grievance. There's no sign yet of a remission of sentence for Mr Wu. (We're told that he should be happy that he's been given leave to appeal again; but he might not be quite so stoked about that, because the first time he appealed, the judge doubled his sentence from one year to two because he had showed "a lack of contrition" by continuing to pursue his complaint against the local government.)
The real money quote, though, is this:
A couple of days ago, for example, there was an editorial on the case of Wu Baoquan, a man from Ordos in Inner Mongolia, who has been jailed for posting online comments critical of the way in which the local government there had carried out forced land acquisitions (a common source of complaint in China today). The writer delicately notes that the apparent use of the police as "a tool of local government to tackle unfavourable opinion" (again, a very common source of complaint in China) is "a role that might go against the Constitution and relevant legal codes". Might?? It's amazing how no-one in this country has a clue how to handle modal verbs until it's necessary to make your English as wishy-washy as possible when expressing some criticism.
The piece also notes that, while you may not be able to trust your police or your government in China, it's all right, because the Internet these days is providing a useful avenue for righting such wrongs. This notion was prompted by the fact that the victim in a very similar recent case in Henan has been released from prison early and given an official apology, after there was an online outcry about what had happened to him. However, this praise of the power of the Internet seems somewhat grimly ironic, given that both these men, and others too, were jailed for precisely that - trying to use the Internet to publicize a grievance. There's no sign yet of a remission of sentence for Mr Wu. (We're told that he should be happy that he's been given leave to appeal again; but he might not be quite so stoked about that, because the first time he appealed, the judge doubled his sentence from one year to two because he had showed "a lack of contrition" by continuing to pursue his complaint against the local government.)
The real money quote, though, is this:
Bending laws by judicial organs such as public security departments should be the last thing to happen in a country with a sound rule of law.
Gosh! Are they implying - ever so gently and indirectly - that China doesn't have a sound rule of law? I think perhaps they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment