No one knows whether the City would have made this move if there were no public pressure for transparency on this issue, but anyone who has some understanding of China’s politics wouldn’t discount the power of public opinion expressed online. The City has been standing by their initial number of 37 since the torrential rain caused the deadly flood in the city. In fact, about 24 hours earlier, at the 2nd press conference held by the Beijing City Press Office after the flood, the reported death toll was still 37 (ZH). One would wonder if the authorities changed their mind in response to the public outcry for transparency.

One thing is for sure. The Chinese government is taking what people say online and what they think about official information seriously these days. On the afternoon of July 26, People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the government, published an article titled, “The Casualty Number Is Not a ‘Sensitive Topic’” (ZH). Apparently, this article is written in response to people’s suspicion about the official death toll and their outrage about the government’s suppression of information and discussions about the flood online.

In the article, the author, People’s Daily‘s columnist Fan Zhengwei, first defended the government’s slow release of information in times of crises:

There is a well-known saying on the Internet, “When the truth is still putting on its shoes, the rumors have travelled across half of the world.” Different from citizens publishing information as individuals, the government has a process of verifying and synthesizing information; also, different from publishing information in real time online, the government has to follow a process of publishing statistics as well. Especially with the advances in new media technologies, mobile devices and weibo have pluralized the ways information is communicated, and the authorities today are met with more serious challenges [than ever before]. To a certain degree, we have to admit to a fact: in many cases, no matter how fast and timely official information is communicated, it always falls behind rumors and heresay on the Internet.

But then Fan cited the “international experience” in emergency response and information transparency, and seemed to try to appease people by acknowledging that the government has to communicate with the public better:

It is required qualities in authorities on every level to study the nature of communication in the Internet era, to respect the laws of public opinion development in the era of social media, to recognize the public concerns in a society of increasing awareness of rights, and to be able to build credibility through interactive communication. In fact, in terms of “negative news,” people are more concerned with the government’s attitude to the “negative news” [than the news itself]. As a comment about the casualty number a netizen left on the People’s Daily‘s official weibo page goes: “Only by confronting [problems], can [the government] resolve [them]; only [through its] dedication to resolving problems, can [the government] win people’s hearts and minds.”

Of course, this piece is still full of bureaucratic platitudes, and one would doubt whether this commitment to better communication is sincere. In other words, no one knows whether the government will truly commit to transparency or it will just use technologies and media with more sophistication so as to manipulate the public opinion. Nevertheless, when we see that the government has to directly answer to people’s outcries on weibo and other social media, we know that no one can discount the power of media technologies in empowering people to make their voices heard and to pressure the government to do better — despite the censorship.

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!”

“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.