China's media censorship

Frank Ching says the new draft law will create suspicion of Beijing, even when none is warranted

Korea Times
Sunday, July 9, 2006

By Frank Ching

China's decision to impose new censorship rules through a draft law is very definitely a step in the wrong direction. The passage of such a retrograde measure is likely to hinder reform in China and lead to suspicion overseas that Beijing is covering up embarrassing developments such as an outbreak of infectious diseases or environmental disasters -- even when such things are not happening.

Last week, the National People's Congress Standing Committee was presented with a draft law that would make it a crime for newspapers, magazines, web sites and television stations to publish information on "sudden events" without authorization. If the bill is passed, media outlets would face fines of up to US$12,500 each time they published such information.

According to the official Xinhua news agency, "sudden events," or emergencies, are defined as "industrial accidents, natural disasters, health and public security crises."

Members of the standing committee held an initial round of discussions on the bill but adjourned without taking any action. Presumably, they will resume their deliberations when they meet again in two months. Draft laws normally come into effect after three rounds of legislative hearings, which are held every two months.

News of the draft has led to criticism within China. Zhang Ping, editor of the Southern Weekend, wrote: "I think it is very dangerous to pass this law to guarantee the government can manage the media."

A lawmaker, Fang Xin, defended the press, saying: "Once emergencies occur, it is usually the reporter's perseverance that lays bare the truth and encourages the government to take proper action."

Beijing's approach is fundamentally flawed. The news media is a positive force in society. A free press is necessary to keep the government on its toes, especially when the government itself is not accountable to the public. Restricting the press will result in a public that is kept in the dark and in local governments whose excesses will no longer be subject to scrutiny.

Beijing should understand that many of today's problems today stem from abusive local officials. Premier Wen Jiabao acknowledged at a press conference in March that "some local governments have infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and social conflicts have subsequently occurred."

In this struggle between victimized farmers and avaricious officials, the press -- and the central government -- are on the same side. Muzzling the press will only deprive the victims of a powerful champion while enabling grasping officials to line their pockets without fear of being exposed. Surely, this cannot be what the Chinese government wants.

The media should be seen as the partner of the government, not its enemy. Without a free media, even the central government would be kept in the dark by local authorities, who do not want embarrassing news, such as coal mine disasters, to be publicized.

Muzzling the press will even affect economic growth and foreign investment. A sterile environment does not foster the emergence of entrepreneurs. Without a free flow of information, foreign businesses will be less likely to pour money into the country. Business executives will be less willing to bring their families to live in a country where they won't know about public health hazards.

Moreover, in a real emergency, no one will know where to turn to for reliable information. If something like the SARS crisis should again emerge, an untrammeled press will be able to speedily disseminate information and to save lives. This is a lesson the government should have learned three years ago.

Interestingly, Xinhua disclosed that drafting of the law began in 2003, the year when China was embarrassed by reports that it was covering up the severity of the SARS epidemic.

At the time, the health minister was fired and China pledged to cooperate with the World Health Organization by promptly reporting cases of SARS and, subsequently, of avian flu.

Presumably, the Chinese authorities will continue to cooperate with the WHO. But if the media is prohibited from publishing reports on the situation, doubts will inevitably arise as to whether all information is, in fact, being made available by the government.

Many observers believed that the SARS episode prompted China to be more open. However, it now appears that far from prodding China to be more open and transparent, the SARS episode led to the current legislative attempt to prevent future disclosures of embarrassing news.

Such an attempt should be nipped in the bud. Hopefully, the combination of criticism both in China and overseas will lead the authorities to have second thoughts and permanently shelve the bill. China needs more openness, not more censorship.

Date Posted: 7/9/2006