The photos that got Wang, a 23-year old model in China, in serious trouble

We live in a world that’s anything but shy of conflicts. That’s why I’m constantly amazed by how much we citizens of the world share many similarities in our taste in uniforms. We love babes in police uniforms, I mean, both Americans (Hello, Magic Mike!) and Chinese, except, while posting sexy photos of oneself wearing, or almost wearing, a police uniform on the social media can get one a few followers and likes, or, with some luck, the status of the “Internet sensation,” in China, that can actually get one some sweet jail time. That’s how “dignified” the Chinese police uniform is. Or not.

That’s what happened to Wang, a 23-year old model who was convicted on the charge of “fraud” — for the lack of an appropriate translation for zhaoyaozhuangpian zui, or 招摇撞骗罪 — and sentenced to 9 months in prison with a one-year reprieve by a district court in Beijing earlier this week. A few months ago, Wang posted on Weibo as @馨儿徽安:

I became a police officer in my hometown, and everything is starting from zero, so I’m learning very hard. As a jinghua (or a “police flower,” a term used in China to refer to female police officers — author), I have a lot of presure on me… Jinghua is just a title. I use these titles such as “jinghua” or “model” for business negotiations at the dinner table, and get deals and investment.

To this post, Wang also attached three photos of herself wearing a police reniform and bikinis.

Wang was reported to Weibo by a user and her post was flagged as “false information” by the website’s administrator. The post was taken down by Wang shortly after, and by then it had been reposted and commented on for hundreds of times, which was, however, pretty inconsequential considering Weibo’s 300 million users.

It’s unusual for somebody to be prosecuted for a post that has so little impact. In fact, Wang is reported to be the first in China who has been sentenced to prison for posing as a police officer online. Many people expressed on Weibo that they think the punishment she received is too severe for her deed. “I don’t think [Wang] should have been punished so severely. Wang was just wearing a police uniform; she didn’t con anybody out of money,” as @笔者楚觉非V commented on Weibo.

The problem with the case, however, is not just about the degree of punishment, but about principles too. What really constitutes “fraud” in China is unclear, both in principle and in this specific case. As a netizen @lucan路璨 has pointed out, Wang has stated in her profile (and her account is “verified” for her identity) that she’s a model. If she did reveal her true identity, that means that she didn’t have the serious intent to mislead others to believe her false identity as police officer. In that case, her posing would be a performance — Wang herself also stated herself that she did it just “for fun” — rather than serious impersonation, or fraud.

If that’s the case, Wang shouldn’t be punished for “fraud,” an opinion shared by some netizens, such as @lucan路璨, who wrote, “Please tell me which law prohibits people from wearing police costume?” Technically, @lucan路璨 was right. Wang’s “uniform” was just a “costume” that she kept after a photo shoot where she was hired to pose in it. So where should we draw the line between performance and fraud? Or, in other words, where should we draw the line between speech and action, for performance is a form of speech, while impersonation is an act?

Now, speech can be the basis for legal action in China, but many Chinese are aware of the lack of freedom of speech in China and their expressions of grievances and demands for the rights to free speech are not rare in online discourse in recent years. However, unfortunately, few have brought up the issue of speech in the debates surrounding Wang’s case. (I have made some comments on Weibo about Wang’s case and free speech. The responses I got were pretty negative and off the point.)

A couple of people did bring up the idea of “thought crime.”

One of them is @NOD净化者, who wrote, “Faint. Only when there’s a victim who has been conned and when her action resulted in serious consequences should we use the Criminal Law. Should we prosecute people for thought crimes?”

@NOD净化者‘s comment is in response to the comments by a user who claims to represent “Central China University Law School Student Union” (@华中大法学院学生会), who supported the court’s decision because “many countries have criminal laws that include crimes of impersonating public servants.”

However, even if the question of speech is put aside, the truth is, Wang is not in trouble just because she’s an impostor, but also because she’s a “slut.” Not only her originally post attracted much criticism, but even after she was convicted, many continued to attack her unsympathetically:

This whore wants a good reputation. Die! — @东坑家人.

[Wang] deserted morality for fame? So sad. — @-必修课.

Look, [you’re] obsessed to be famous, and can’t you be famous in jail now? This is what you get by following the fad. — @zeeyorl

Stupid, you deserve it. Hahaha… Still want to show off, want to be famous? — @红烬Ash

It is safe to read these allegations as misogynistic vent of anger, jealousy, and hatred, from both men and women. Sexism, coupled with the good old authoritarianism, are what Wang is truly up against.

@笔者楚觉非V‘s comment seems to have hit the hail on the head here:

As to her indecent poses, they got her in jail because she tarnished the image of people’s police force. [However,] imagine if Wang was dressed up as a nurse, a teacher, or a maid; would she be punished like this? No. They’re all occupations, but are treated so differently. Why?

The logic behind this hypocrisy is that it’s acceptable to degrade nurses, teachers and maids — occupations traditionally taken by women — but it’s a crime to degrade police officers — an occupation traditionally taken by men — remember? A woman police officer is sexualized as a “police flower” — and, more importantly, an occupation that represents the state and its (masculine) power over its people.

The truth is, Wang’s offense doesn’t lie in her posing as what she is not. There have been plenty of images of beautiful young women and men posing as police officers “with dignity” in the public space but no one would have even bothered to ask whether they are models or real police officers. There’s also plenty of sexy photos that can be considered way more indecent than her photos floating online, but rarely anybody has gotten into trouble with the law for them. (“What if she didn’t wear any clothes? What would that be? Pornography, body art, or body painting… I want to ask how many years can she get for that?” as @烦人先生2447486305 asked.) Wang’s offense lies in her juxtaposing an image of a desired — sexually objectified — young woman with the image of the police force. At the same time, she dared to do so with a certain “shameless” spectacle. And that — THAT is the worst HUMILIATION thrown in the face of the stern-faced paternal state. (Even the name of her crime, zhaoyaozhuangpian zui, screams out this frustration of a self-righteous patriarch. Literally, zhaoyao means to bluff, to show off, or to parade. Zhuangpian means to con, to trick, or to swindle.)

“Don’t you repeatedly make fun of the system. [Remember,] the system has power,” as netizen @林水邑风 wrote. Read: if you dare to disgrace the state, you’re going to jail.

The recent deadly flood in Beijing exposed the municipal government’s poor infrastructure and emergency response. The government didn’t have any effective warning system in place for the public. Taking advantage of the high cell phone use rate in China, some cities use text messaging to send out warnings to the public in case of emergencies. Of the 20 million permanent residents in Beijing, more than 95 percent own cell phones, but the city doesn’t have a text messaging warning system in place. The municipal government’s excuse is that it takes too long to send out text messages to such as big population, but a few days after the flood, telecommunication service providers such as Beijing Mobile and Beijing Telecomm issued statements that there is no such technical barrier as claimed by the Beijing city authority.

The authority is slow in response to the flood, but it has been quick to muzzle people’s mouths. Webmasters, under the pressure of the government, have been deleting the discussions about the flood, its casualty, and criticism of the government. The official death toll released on July 22, a day after a monstrous storm was 37. Days later, despite the increasing doubts raised in the public, the authority still stands by this number. In the cyber sphere, weibo users have been posting photos and witness accounts of the disaster, which have amounted to more suspicion in the public that the actual death toll is way larger than the officially released number.

“Liangxiang residents witnessed with their own eyes, that more than 20 bodies were recovered from the water this morning, and there are more under the water,” a netizen 鸥orianna posted. Liangxiang is a neighborhood in Beijing’s Fangshan District, where the food caused the most damage in the region.

Another post showed a still shot from a video in which a group of government officials waited for other people to pull out the bodies in the water and then took off their pants posing for publicity photos.

Both of these posts, however, were deleted by “little secretaries,” a name weibo netizens have given to the “security editors” hired by Sina to self-censor the site, shortly after they were posted. In fact, posts like these will only survive for a few hours on the website.

But the netizens haven’t given up. As the original posts are getting deleted, images of screen captures of these deleted posts started to be circulated fast. Because texts in the images are not searchable, it is harder for little secretaries to search for sensitive posts and delete them. Sometimes, instead of reposting, some people attach these images to their posts so that when the original post gets deleted, their posts won’t be affected.

Li Kaifu, an IT entrepreneur and opinion leader on Sina Weibo, even posted a tutorials of how to avoid posts getting deleted. “Don’t repost the original, but post the screen shot. This way, you can avoid getting into trouble, and can also save the screen shot for later use,” wrote Li.

Even these posts are disappearing too, but the hide-and-seek game between the netizens and the authority has just started. Netizen 摄影爱好兔 collected a long list of posts from witnesses of the flood, all of which had already been deleted, made it into a long image and posted it on Sina Weibo (see partial below). The post was reposted for more thousands of times before it was finally deleted by the administrator. However, new posts are still popping up, one at a time, keeping the little secretaries busy.

Two posts in a collection of deleted posts of images and witness accounts about Beijing’s flood in late July

The flood has passed, leaving rubles of buildings, damaged cars, and grieving families in Beijing. However, the flood of speech hasn’t been muzzled, despite the government’s effort to. On the contrary, people’s enthusiasm in participating in the public discourse has been going ever stronger. Maybe it is time for those in power to reconsider the ancient Chinese wisdom. For thousands of years, Chinese have seen too many times the demise of dynasties, and perhaps the authority should learn something from history after all.

Anonymous's message on the defaced websites

Over the years of its “operation,” if anything, Anon is known to be good at creating excitement in our psyche. And they did it again. The news of its attack on the Chinese government, one of the most notorious censors in the world, surely has excited many freedom lovers, Chinese or not, especially as this happened just a few days after the government’s crack down on websites and the blockage of weibo comments in China. Does this mean that Anon has officially declared war on the Chinese government? How much will their hacktivism impact the Internet in China? Will this become the beginning of a larger social movement?

Don’t get to excited. At this point, I do not see that Anon will have major impact on loosening the Chinese government’s grip on the Internet, nor will it effectively mobilize the Chinese public. And here are my reasons:

On the list that Anon published on pastebin.com, the websites under attack are mostly websites of private businesses. Only a few government websites are on the list, all of them for local governments. The list does not have a single website of a big transnational company (and the group is advocating a “global revolution”) or the central government.

This means, the impact of these attacks is no comparison with that of the attacks on the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Universal Music, and MPAA in protest against SOPA and PIPA earlier this year. Actually, I doubt the government websites Anon attacked have much traffic to begin with since they’re mostly government websites on the city level.

Perhaps that’s why Anon chose to attack the hundreds of non-governmental websites as well. In fact, in Anon’s webchat on #GlobalREvolution, a participant (unclear if s/he is affiliated with Anon) pointed out that attacking those websites was to “spread the word.” If that was Anon’s intension, it didn’t pick the best targets because most of them seem to be of some obscure IT companies.

More importantly, the “word” Anon is trying to spread really doesn’t tell us anything that we didn’t know. There’s no need for anyone to tell Chinese, living in China or overseas, that our freedom of speech is suppressed, because we are living it. In fact, Chinese have been expressing their discontent with the government’s Internet restriction and censoring. Chinese netizens’ reaction to the statement by Hong Lei, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, can well evidence this. Hong said during a press conference yesterday that “the Internet in China is open, and netizens enjoy tremendous freedom… The Chinese government regulates the Internet according to the laws.” Thousands of Chinese commented on various weibo sites, expressing their disgust with the government’s hypocrisy (“Blocking comments, identity verification, we are indeed free”).

So why haven’t Chinese risen up and done something to change? That’s because the Internet is only one place of control. There’s stops and frisks, there’s secret imprisonment, there’s forced eviction, and there’s suppression of unionization of workers… The Chinese government’s control over its citizens is a complex system that reaches various aspects of citizens’ lives on multiple levels and in myriad forms. To mobilize Chinese to take action, if we want to entertain this idea for a second, the Internet is not the only battleground, but it is THE battleground of Anon.

In fact, despite censorship, the Internet the most open space in China and it has been serving as a place for information dissemination, deliberation, and expression that hosts public opinions. However, as the example of Guangzhou’s stops and frisks has shown, in a police state, public opinion hardly has the power that required for change. As Anon and its supporters are raving their victories on Twitter, I’m not sure by taking down a few websites in China, Anon can start a revolution in China as the hashtag #GlobalRevolution suggests.

In the end, Anon’s action has created more of a fantastic image than any actual effects in China. Anon certainly has taken advantage of the sensation-seeking Western media’s obsession with the group and with China’s human rights issues and made a loud noise. I’m not sure, however, how long this sensation can last. Besides, most Chinese governmental websites are so poorly designed and of little use (except for showing off the government’ “good work”) that they do not even need to be hacked to be malfunctioning. As @AnonymousChina tweeted, “cdcbd.gov.cn qnwqdj.gov.cn bbdj.gov.cn redefaced lol your security still suck…” You know what? Maybe that’s because they don’t care about it that much.

According to Xinjing Bao, a Beijing based newspaper, the government shut down 16 websites because of their “creating and spreading rumors and negligence in management” which have resulted in “extremely negative social impact.” However, Beijing and Guangdong Internet administrative agencies only “severely criticized” Sina Weibo (based in Beijing) and TencentWeibo (based in Guangdong) and “punished them accordingly.” However, there is no information about the specifics of the “punishment.” Xinjing Bao also reports that “the two websites have agreed to abide the relevant laws, implement corrective measures, and further strengthen management.”

I tested both microblogging websites this afternoon and it appears that users can post, comment and repost microblogs as usually. As to what measures the websites are going to implement to “strengthen” their management, I haven’t seen any signs of stricter censorship or blockage.

It is possible that the commenting and reposting functions on weibo sites were suspended and recovered shortly, for some netizens have complained the blockage of comments on these sites. A journalist posted in the group “Chinese Journalists” on Sina Weibo, criticizing the government for “fabricating a harmonious society.” “It’s fine that you (the government) are shameless,” he wrote, “but what makes you really shameless is to block weibo‘s comments.”

It is still unclear what is going to happen to these websites. It will be hard for the government to flat-out close or directly censor these websites largely because of economic reasons. Moreover, like the journalist mentioned earlier, many Chinese are no longer willing to accept whatever imposed on them, and those who see weibo a freer and more open space for information sharing and public debate, many of whom are opinion leaders in China, will not let it to be smothered without a fight.

Updates:

April 1, 1:15 PM EST – As of now, Sina Weibo disabled commenting, but still allows reposting. On Sina Weibo, a message says when one clicks on “comments”: “From March 31, 8 AM, to April 3, 8 AM, commenting is suspended temporarily. We apologize for the inconvenience.” The reason for suspension, according to Sina Weibo, is so that website can “cleanse” the website of “harmful” and “illegal” information.

On Tencent Weibo, it seems commenting and reposting are both still functioning.

April 2, 6:25 PM EST – Tencent Weibo has blocked commenting, citing the same reason as Sina Weibo. However, posting, reposting, and modified reposting are still functioning properly.

Both Sina and Tencent schedule to reopen commenting function at 8 AM on April 3 Beijing Time. That’s less than two hours from now. It seems that the suspension of commenting on these websites are meant for purging the existing posts. Even it is only temporary, netizens are very unhappy and expressive about it. “Two more hours to go? I suddenly want to lash out at someone,” Hong Huang, a well-known business woman and opinion leader, wrote on Sina Weibo, and her sentiment is certainly shared by many.

April 2, 10:58 PM EST – Sina Weibo is back to normal. Commenting is allowed.

As Wukan’s protest unfolds before the world’s eyes, however, in China, what’s happening there has been blocked from media. Search engines, such as that of Sina’s Weibo, have blocked the terms “Wukan” and “Xue Jinbo” from search results.

But the censorship has not been able to completely block the information from netizens. In the past couple of days, netizens on Weibo have been using the initials of the village “WK” to circumvent censorship and circulate reporting about Wukan’s revolt reported in Taiwan and Hong Kong media. On Weibo, tens of thousands of users showed their solidarity with the Wukan villagers. “Goodnight, people of WK…” a Weibo user writes, “this is another sleepless night for you, but people all over China are sticking together with you…”

Others condemned the government for using militarized forces against villagers’ peaceful protest. “Besieging a village with heavily armed troops, what’s your motive?,” another user writes, criticizing the authorities’ deployment of militarized police force. “Those who are in power can’t pacify people, so they resorted to violence. That is completely incompetent, unintelligent, and shameless, and the end result will be doomed to be condemnable, sad, and despicable. History will remember; the monument of shame is already erected, waiting for your names to be engraved on… Think twice before it’s too late.”

Some netizens are concerned how long the relatively peaceful stand-off can last before a bloody confrontation. “Tonight, they (the authorities) want to copy 1.9.8.9.6.4. in WK,” a Weibo user writes, referring, in coded language, 1989’s Tian’anmen Square protest.

Another Weibo user is hopeful for a peaceful resolution. “In my humble personal opinion,” she/he writes, “what’s happening in WK has to be resolved peacefully no matter how difficult it is. Don’t want to see more blood. Let children walk out of this chaos; children shouldn’t share the cruelty of the adults.” She/he continues to express her/his concern for the villagers’ safety and the dangerous prospect facing them if violence breaks out: “People all over the world are supporting their protest, but who are willing to join them to fight against power? Yes, protest is resistance too. But (as outsiders) hail them for fighting against arms, theirs will be the only blood that will be shed.”

Some netizens have gone further to criticize the lack of social justice and democracy in China.”In this country that has no religious belief or a [functioning] justice system, things like this should get every citizen think carefully,”a Weibo user writes, “violence is not an option; China has had too much violence for thousands of years.”

Relating to Beijing government’s issuance of a regulation for weibo‘s (microblogging) identify verification, a Weibo user writes: “Today when I was having lunch with Haibing, and we talked about weibo‘s identity verification law. I said I don’t complain about these things nowadays any more. Haibing said, complaining about economy is fine—even if you turned the world upside down you’ll be fine—but those other things, forget it. Actually, I would be happy to live my life watching roosters fight or walking my dog rather than worrying about the heaven and the earth. But tonight I read so much about WK, and saw hundreds and thousands of villagers protest with tears in their eyes. I can’t allow myself to feel nothing. They’re all people, like you and me! They’re people who have been robbed!”

“About WK, I don’t even know what’s real and what’s rumor. This happened in a China that [claims] to devote itself to building a harmonious society? Unspeakable horror, iron-handed oppression. Respect goes to those who’re not afraid of dictatorship,” another netizen writes.

Wukan’s revolt is an escalation of the conflicts between peasants and the authorities and real estate developers over land seizure seen across China for years. In October, three young AWOL soldiers were shot dead on their way to help another soldier revenge his family whose land had been seized by the authorities by force. The public showed tremendous sympathy to the fallen soldiers. In Wukan’s case, the public clearly stand with the villagers. “Give back the land to its people,” a Weibo user writes. “Who are the masters of this country?” another protests.

A Weibo user points out that land seizure is a tough case for the government to handle: “The local authorities’ unregulated land selling is not unique [in Wukan]. If WK returns the land to the villagers, I’m afraid villagers all over China will request [the authorities] return land to them, and this is what they (the authorities) fear.”

She/he has a point. The fear of the prospect of Wukan’s revolt spreading over China led the government to block the news in the very begging of the protest. The media blackout provoked many netizens on Weibo to criticize Chinese government and the media. “It would be nice if [the government] use the effort they made to block the news somewhere it’s actually needed,” a Weibo user writes.

Another user is concerned about the government’s cover-up: “This time about wk, I don’t know if some wumao (government agents infiltrating online communities who post favorable comments about the government and the Party) will come out and ‘clarify the rumors’… damn it, those wumao, no matter how stupid they are, should have a bottom-line for morality and conscience!”

A user applauds foreign media for their coverage: “WK is getting big. Turned out it’s foreign media that have conscience…” Another criticizes Chinese who haven’t shown their support to Wukan for their apathy: “I couldn’t sleep this morning and reposted a lot of [posts] about wk. In today’s China, some people fled, but some are ready to give their last drop of blood to protect their home… But, most of us are still just onlookers…”

Now it seems that Weibo is still trying to block information under the pressure of the government. Several users mentioned that their posts containing “WK” have disappeared shortly after they posted them. “Posts about WK can’t live for over an hour; why not tell us the truth?,” a user complained.

However, the discussion of Wukan is still alive on the social media site despite the censorship. Perhaps Chinese people are more rebellious than the government thinks we are, like this one, who, before she/he went to bed last night, wrote her/his last post for the day: “Before I go to bed, I’ll post this, risking my account being deleted.” There’s a link to a blog post with photos of protesters and crying villagers and a lengthy report of Wukan’s revolt. “I also want to say,” she/he continued, “WK people, hang in there!”

Let me first backtrack a little bit. Despite the occasional blocking of sensitive terms and topics (read examples here and here), the Chinese government had been quite lenient with microblogging, or weibo, according to the “Chinese standards” of course. People actually can get information and talk about things on weibo sites the way they can’t anywhere else. Many people also use weibo as a venue to express their dissatisfaction and critical views about the government, officials, or social vile.

But that may change now, as the Beijing authorities finally behaved as it was almost expected to. The City issued a regulation today requiring all the weibo service providers registered in Beijing to require their users to verify their real identities before they can post on weibo sites. The regulation requires the providers to “prohibit and limit users who disseminate harmful information and to report to the police department immediately when they are aware of actions that endanger the safety and security of society or of possible criminal activities.” To emphasize, it reiterates that the service providers must “assist and cooperate with concerned agencies in their regulating effort.”

Since two of the most popular weibo service providers Sina (weibo.com) and Sohu (t.sohu.com) are both registered in Beijing, this regulation can have unprecedented impact on the social media scene in China.

On Sina’s weibo.com, users are enraged by this regulation. “There’s one kind of rapists: because raping everyone has been going so smoothly, [they] are not excited any more,” one user writes, “so [they] figured out a new trick: the rape victims must report their real names so as to satisfy the rapists’ new fetish… They gave this regulating measure an appropriate name—identity verification.”

Many weibo users fire at the government’s and officials’ lack of transparency in comparison with their control over citizens privacy. “It is incredibly difficult to make [the information of] officials’ assets public, but it only takes a piece of paper [for the government] to violate citizens’ privacy,” another user writes. “What is dictatorship? This is it! Have you discussed it with citizens before you made any policy? What is dictatorship? This is it!,” she/he continues.

Another user writes: “My weibo identity is verified, but have your assets been verified? … have your overseas green cards been verified? … has your using government vehicles for private use been verified? … has your using public funds for personal use been verified? … have your shabby construction projects been verified…? Weibo is no more than a social platform, just like people going to coffee shops or tea houses to chat. Have you ever seen anybody required to verify her/his identity to have a coffee?”

A user expresses her/his exasperation by depicting a very gloomy picture: “What’s going to happen after identity verification? What else can happen? Issuing laws to regulate the Internet, followed by prosecution based on speech (wenziyu), and then all those who are slightly critical of today’s society where the government officials conspire with businesses and thugs, where bribery and corruption [are rampant] will be thrown into jail. What else can it be? Today, rumor doesn’t even exist. There’re so many blood-boiling true stories that can’t be all told, and who has the time to spread rumors?”

Some users threaten to leave weibo.com. A user writes, “The day when weibo‘s identity verification takes effect, perhaps will also be the time when [I] say ‘goodbye’ to my friends online… It’s not that I’m afraid of anything, but I just don’t like it… I just don’t like it when I have to verify my identity before I open my mouth to chat… That is not chat… I might as well save the time to figure out things like Yi Jing and baguai.”

Others even threaten to take it to the street or the non-existing ballot booth. A user writes, “When there are fewer people on weibo, there will be more on the streets.” And another writes, “The day when weibo verifies identities is the day I vote with my feet!”

However, among all the angry voices, there’re some from whose who are not intimidated by the regulation. “Who’s scared of whom! If nobody’s scared, those thugs will be scared!” a user writes.

Another user points out that “the identities of most of the opinion leaders on weibo have been verified, which means that actually identity verification has long been applied to the core members of weibo. I hope people won’t see weibo‘s identity verification as intimidating. It’s just a paper tiger. Don’t be intimidated by it and stop talking from now. Just react to it like those who have been verified.”

He has a point. Identity verification has been offered as a service for public figures and celebrities long before the issuance of this regulation. Those with verified accounts are the ones who are the most popular and have the most influence on weibo, and many of them are quite vocal when it comes to commenting on social issues. However, this is also a group of elites who have more leverage confronting the authorities than ordinary citizens, who are more likely to be subject to sanction, often without even being known. The regulation is certainly worrisome.

Since Qin Dynastic in BC, the central government’s control over speech and culture has been consistently tight. There have been numerous periods when intellectuals and dissents were severely persecuted because of their speech or even their potential of speech. There have been a few moments in history when Chinese had a little bit more room to speak up and explore ideas, opinions and expressions, but they were all cut short, often accompanied by fire and blood. Are Chinese still willing to stand up for what we believe in? Is this the beginning of the end of another brief spring of relatively open public forum for information, ideas and expression in China?

“According to relevant laws and regulations, the search result of ‘Guangdong Wukan’ (广东乌坎) is not shown.” This is what you get if you type in “Guangdong Wukan” in Weibo’s search engine. The same alert will pop up if you type in “Xue Jinbo” (薛锦波).

In Chinese traditional medicine, a doctor can diagnose diseases by pressing the inner side of a patient’s wrist and feeling the pulse alone. It won’t be entirely unfair to say that Weibo’s search engine is like the wrist of China, one of the best places to feel the Chinese government’s pulse. It tells you what the government tolerates, or what it fears or feels absolutely paranoid about.

Since you’re reading this post, I assume you’ve known about the recent villagers’ revolt in Wukan, Guangdong in protest of the death of a villager under the custody of the police. Xue Jinbo was the said villager, one of the 13 representatives representing the villagers to negotiate with the local government on issues surrounding land seize, such as compensation. According to Xue’s family, his body had signs of torture. However, the forensic medical examiner’s report denied the possibility of abuse, and asserted that Xue died of cardiac arrest.

China News Service (CNS), a state news agency, reported the story (zh), which has been reposted on a few news websites. CNS reported that the situation in Wukan had been under control. It also asserted that the revolt was “provoked” by two village leaders, Lin Zulian and Yang Semao, who “spread rumors” and organized villagers to set up blockages to stop a “working group” to go into the village. “The blockages seriously disrupted villagers’ production and life,” according to CNS. The police arrested the two village leaders, who are waiting for punishment. Similar to Weibo, comments for the story are disabled on CNS and those websites that reposted it.

Nobody has a complete list of terms blocked in China online in general or on social media specifically. There are some classic standards such as “free Tibet” and “Taiwan independence,” but the list apparently keeps growing. Speaking only of this year, during the Arab Spring, “jasmine flower” was added to the list, and after Occupy Wall Street started this fall, for a certain time, “Occupy Wall Street” was also blocked. And only a couple of months later, these blocked terms have two new members.

I wouldn’t say that the government has tender nerves. After all, this year is the year of protest, and China is not entirely a country that’s short of things worth protesting.

Now, let’s get down to today’s topic, the train wreck in China on July 23 and the “media blackout” afterwards. Although the government seemed to tried to hush the media and public forums right after the accident, its effort hardly succeeded. In fact, the actions the Railway Ministry and governing entities on various levels took in the aftermath of the accident, such as burying the fallen cars only about 24 hours after the accident and the media blackout have triggered storming discussion, criticism and questions online. The accident has indeed become a PR disaster for the government, and as the public’s request for transparency grew, it has launched a PR campaign that aims to pacify the outrage of the public. Among the issues surrounding the accident and its aftermath, the following are some of the most discussed online.

First of all, the incredible death toll. The official death toll of the accident is 40. However, in a weibo survey published a few days ago when the death toll was said to be 39, 98% of the 2000 users who have responded say that they do not believe that “39” is the accurate number. Many netizens have left comments on the poll, expressing their disbelief and anger:

Isn’t this meant to deceive the old folks [?]… You think the local residents who went out to help search for and rescue the victims were mute, the volunteers who helped the paramedics didn’t have weibo, you think people all over China were mentally challenged[?] Four cars full of passengers, and only 39 were killed! It seems that although this bullet train was no good for thunder strikes, it indeed could resist crashing!

Original weibo post in Chinese:

花都小斑 ：这是在坑爹么……当附近赶去搜救的居民都哑了么，当帮忙医护工作的志愿者都没有微博么，当全中国人民的智商都有障碍么。满载的四节车厢，就遇难39人！敢情这动车抗雷不来塞，倒是很经摔么！(8月1日 18:25)

In fact, totally six, rather than four cars derailed in the accident, the first four cars of D301 and the first two of D3115. A netizen breaks down the numbers to show how fishy the official report is:

600 passengers in the 6 cars fell down off of the 30-meter high bridge. The casualty in the cars on the bridge not included, the known survivors under the bridge are over 210, but the Xinhua News Agency reported that 35 people were killed. According to Xinhua’s number, then, 600 (total) – 210 (injured) – 35 (dead) = 355. Where are these 355 people?

Original weibo post in Chinese:

天使羽翼光阳 ：共6节车厢满员600人掉到30米高桥底下。桥上车厢里有多少人伤亡先不算，桥下已知活着的为210多人，而新华社报的 亡者 为35人。照新华社数据，那么，600（总）-210（伤）-35（亡）=355人，这355人 去 哪了？(7月30日 14:11)

Many netizens have expressed their distrust in the Railway Ministry and their official report:

Already, there is a mother of a victim who said that her daughter’s name was not on the victim list! Only devil would believe the information released by the Railway Ministry!

Original weibo post in Chinese:

颓废-訫寂 ：已经有死者的母亲说死者名单上没他女儿的名字了！铁道部放出来的话能信就有鬼了！(7月30日 3:07)

Another netizen sarcastically writes:

Whether you believe it or not, I believe it! I believe whatever the government says! I can only believe whatever the government says!

Original weibo post in Chinese:

fishsz2828 ：不管你信不信，反正我信了！政府说什么我都相信！政府说什么我都只能相信！(7月29日 23:19)

In fact, the expression used in this post, “Whether you believe or not, I believe it!”, has become one of the most circulated expressions among netizens in China to sarcastically express their disbelief in the government’s official information about many social issues and current affairs.

There’s also speculation of the reasons for the false report:

It’s said that an accident that kills 35 or more people would be categorized as a “serious accident,” which would cause the municipal Party Secretary of Shanghai, Yu, to be fired! Officials all protect each other’s interest!

Original weibo post in Chinese:

黛菲尔花艺 ：据说死亡35人 以上属于重大安全事故 上海市委书记—俞某 就会下台哦 ！ 官官相护！(7月31日 13:57)

Another netizen comments on the poll result:

Can the 2% [who answer that they believe what the government report] above all be the employees of the Railway Ministry[?]

Original weibo post in Chinese:

上官老西 ：上面的2%是不是铁道部的(7月30日 4:26)

Some also have speculated the real death toll:

According to informants in Wenzhou, the death toll is 259! 183 are injured and 154 are missing.

Original weibo post in Chinese:

李阿7 ：据温州知情人士说 死亡259人！！ 伤183人 失踪就要154人(7月30日 0:29)

“Many must have been buried,” writes a weibo user grimly. (Original in Chinese: 邂逅鱿鱼 ：应该被埋了不少吧(7月30日 0:31))

Netizens also criticized the government’s media hush-up and request transparency on the part of the government to release accurate and truthful information:

The news about the bullet train accident on sino.com has been harmonized, as the Railway Ministry wants to harmonize our voice. We need our own platform to communicate! A platform of us Chinese where we can say whatever we can say! People who have conscience please use all your resources to repost [the news], and keep looking for new ways [to disseminate information]! Otherwise, we are deprived of our basic rights! They say that the results [of the investigation] are going to be release in September, and want us to forget. Should we netizens be losers?

Original weibo post in Chinese:

想像翱翔天空 ：新浪网上动车新闻都被和谐了，好像铁道部要和谐我们的声音，我们需要自己的交流平台！我们中国人自己能说话的平台！有爱心的人们动用一切方法继续转发，继续找方法！不然我们连最基本的权力都没有了！他们说9月出来结果好像要让我们淡忘.我们网友难道又是输家吗？(7月30日 2:02)

“Being harmonized” (bei hexie) is a term used by Chinese netizens creatively to refer to being censored and silenced by the government. The term comes from the Chinese government’s rhetorical trope of creating a “harmonious” society in China, an excuse for crushing the discordant voices. Chinese are fed up with the censorship and control of information in China. The demand of transparency from Chinese people is louder each day as more people are increasingly aware of the harm of censorship, and the train accident has become one of the catalyst events that trigger this outcry from the grassroots. “It’s not that we hope that there are more victims, or the death toll to be bigger,” a netizen writes, “and what we want is truth, transparency of [governmental] actions, and a truthful explanation for the people.” (Original Chinese post: 周洋西西 ：不是说我们希望遇难者人要多，死亡数字要大，我们想要的是真象，处事透明化，给大家一个真实的说法。(7月29日 23:26))

The government certainly has realized that something has to be done to pacify this unusual outcry from the Chinese public. As one of its PR strategies, the Railway Ministry, in response to the public’s adamant request, released the names of the 40 victims killed in the accident as of July 29th, and has utilized major portal websites in their PR campaign, such as sino.com, which is the hosting portal website of weibo.com and a one of the most popular news websites and blog hosts in China. On the list published on sina.com, the descriptions of some of the victims are unusually detailed. For instance, in the information about one of the victims, Huang Yuchun, she is described as:

a fifth grader, who loved reading, and liked painting, “sometimes very active, and sometimes very quiet.” On the D301 train, the accident happened just as the ctive Yuchun left her seat.

Original in Chinese:

小学5年级学生，爱看书，喜欢画画，“有时很活泼，有时很安静。”D301次动车上，好动的雨淳刚离开座位，事故发生了。

In the information about an Italian student, Liguori Assunta, she is described as:

an outstanding student of the College of Oriental Studies in University of Naples (translated), who loved travelling, a gentle college girl whom was called Qianqian by her friends.

Original in Chinese:

意大利那不勒斯大学东方学院的一名优秀学生，热爱旅行，大家都亲切地称呼这个温柔的女生为茜茜

Certainly this humanist appeal has been a major strategy the government now uses in its PR war to regain trust from Chinese public. The coverage on sina.com about the accident is flooded with pictures of Premier Wen Jiabao’s visits paid to survivors and the family of the victims.

Among the victims, two-year-and-eight-month-old Xiang Weiyi, or “Yiyi,” is one of the star victims who is a “miracle” in official press release. Ironically, she was saved after the government ordered the rescue team to stop searching because there was no sign of survivors only 24 hours after the accident.

However, few Chinese bought into this rhetoric. While the Chinese public is concerned about Yiyi’s recovery, many see the government’s using Yiyi as a PR tool a platitude. One of the most circulated post on weibo is a sarcastic description of an imaginary scenario in the future on China Central Television (CCTV) when the government uses Yiyi in their propaganda:

A moving scene in the 2012 CCTV Chinese New Year Variety Show: Little Yiyi sits in a wheelchair, pushed by a police captain, and slowly comes onto the stage, in the background, “Ode to the Motherland” playing. Zhu Jun (CCTV star host) takes over the wheelchair with a heavy heart, and then gives little Yiyi a fatherly hug, tears welling up… In the audience, everyone is wiping their eyes. Yiyi: Thanks to the country, and the party and the government are my new parents. Zhu Jun already has lost his voice as he sobs: What a wonderful child! Dong Qi (another CCTV star host) walks onto the stage with tears, saying in a weeping yet firm voice: The is a great victory, a miracle!! The backbone of China, auntie Ni Ping (an older CCTV star host), walks up to the stage, and, in a serious yet motherly voice, says: Yiyi, don’t worry a bit; all of us are your mothers! Then the entire venue is boiling with exhilaration, and people all over China are moved.

Original in Chinese:

2012春晚最感人一幕： 小依依坐在轮椅上被特警队长推着,在歌唱祖国的背景音乐中缓缓上场.朱军接过轮椅，心情沉重，而又充满父爱地搂着小依依，眼角有泪滑过。。。台下观众无不抹泪。 依依：感谢国家，party和go-vern-ment就是我得再生父母。朱军已经泣不成声：多好的孩子啊！董卿泪流满面地走上台，声音哽咽但语气又无比坚定：这是伟大的胜利，这是一个奇迹！！ 中国脊梁倪萍大妈走上台，声音凝重但又不失母爱：依依放心，我们都是你的妈！整个春晚现场沸腾了，全国人民都被感动了。

Another widely circulated post compares China to Germany and Japan in dealing with similar accidents, and criticizes the Railway Ministry’s irresponsibility:

When an accident happened in Germany, it took them two or three years to preserve the scene of accident, piece together the wreckage of the plane, and report the results; after the railway accident in Japan, the major lines were closed for two months, and the character “life” was planted at the scene of the accident in order to remind people of the tragedy. What about China? [You] destroyed the evidence immediately, carried out rescue recklessly, and within 5 hours, [you] announced the conclusion of rescue efforts. When Yiyi was rescued, [you] said she was a miracle. Railway Ministry, where’s your conscience?

Original in Chinese:

风筝飞在天：#搜热门##动车遇难名单#德国发生事故，花了两三年的时间保护现场，拼完飞机残骸，公开真相；日本轨道事故，两个月禁止黄金线路通行，并在事发地点树立“命”字，加以警示。而中国呢？第一时间毁灭现场、粗暴的施救、5个小时宣布搜救完毕，当依依被救出的时候，说是奇迹。铁道部，你们的良心去了哪里？

In a poll on weibo that asks “What is your opinion about Railway Ministry in the Weizhou bullet train derailing accident?”, 79% respond with “black-hearted, corrupted, and using people’s blood in their experiment!” It has been reported that the bullet train was a rushed project, and the accident was the result of the Railway Ministry’s putting profits and its officials’ political capital before people’s lives. In another poll, which asks “How satisfactory is the Railway Ministry’s handling of the accident?”, only 1% respondents answer “very satisfactory” and 2% answer “somewhat satisfactory,” while 98% answer “pei!”, an expression in Chinese that can be loosely understood as “bullshit!”

Among the actions the Railway Ministry took in the aftermath of the accident, one of the most controversial ones is the burial of the derailed cars within 24 hours after the accident. As the netizens’ accusation of the Railway Ministry trying to destroy the evidence of the cause of the accident grew, the Ministry had to explain the reason for this decision. It’s reported by sina.com “Top News” that:

-The Railway Ministry Denies Burying the Engine of the Bullet Trains- A concerned official of the Railway Ministry says that in order to put the rescue vehicles in the site of the accident, the less damaged cars under the bridge needed to be moved out, and their wreckage, including the smashed parts of the engine, needed to be moved out and put into a dip, so that the crane would have space to operate. None of the parts or the cars were buried, and the accusation of destroying evidence is groundless.

Original in Chinese:

【铁道部否认挖坑填埋动车追尾事故列车车头】铁道部有关负责人称为使汽车吊进入场地作业，需要将桥下较完整的车厢整体外移，对散落的部件，包括撞碎的车头部件，采取外移并集中堆放在取土坑中，为吊车作业腾出场地。所有部件和车体绝没有实施掩埋，更不存在销毁证据的问题。

However, few netizens are satisfied with the explanation from the Railway Ministry. “Shameless!” “Bullshit!”, many exclaim. Too many Chinese, corruption is at the heart of the government’s efforts to keep the truthful information from the public. As one netizen writes:

The reason why China is not a strong country is because of these corrupted pests who are eating up [the country] like silkworms; if the government doesn’t give us an acceptable explanation, how can we think that it’s with us; are people their fat chicken, waiting for them to slaughter us?

Original in Chinese:

谦虚的学习 ：中国不能有效的强大起来就是因为这些腐败的蠕虫在蚕食，如果政府没有一个合适的交代，是否可以认为他们同样是一样的战线，人民就是他们的肉鸡，在等待宰割吗？(7月30日 19:30)

That is a good question. It is certainly encouraging to see that Chinese are able to voice our opinions candidly more than ever before, but where will this discourse lead to social changes? That is something yet to be seen.

            More Share and Comments