Journalist Face Death Penalty: Freedom to BUY is not Freedom of THOUGHT.

Awaiting a Democratic Hong Kong.

According to a BBC World Service Report Mr. Ching Cheong, the Hong Kong journalist who is detained in China for spying has “confessed”, although his wife continues to maintain he is innocent. If convicted he can face the death penalty.

Mr. Donald Tsang our we-all-know-future Chief Executive from a fake and skewed by “invite only” election says not to get too “emotionally involved” but try get the facts so we can help as much as we "Could."

(Note: One tend not to get too “emotionally involved” with people who will not be around much longer in our lives thus points to the fact “could" is a euphemism for not much.)

The US and the British Consulate has expressed concern. Mr. Ching also holds a British National Overseas passport. It means the British government has to give the impression they care by sending press releases but nothing else.

The Chinese government also made a statement that although they respect the role of journalists and the work they do, journalists should not receive "special treatment." (For example: rights to a fair trial, rights to be innocent until proven guilty, like rights to be part of a free press and not have subversion leveled at you for telling a story. All of which are "Special Treatments" when it comes to China because NO ONE gets them.)

Mainly, Mr. Ching is in very very big trouble and he's going to spend a good period of time in jail. I have no faith in the ability to get him out. We know that this is a warning to everyone else. Every arrest serves as a reminder our government believes reporting or researching anything that is not officially sanctioned while across the border are spreading state secrets where one can face the death penalty.

And the truth was Mr. Ching most probably WAS looking for “state secrets” according to the CCP. It is more than possible he was looking for an alternative truth to a story, a different angle. He was gathering information some people in the Central government did not see fit to publish. 

But the question is. What does the government deem as “State Secrets?” Is it a story about the protest of workers against the government? A story about insurrection of a minority group? Another case of SARS? Or an uncontrolled outbreak of the bird flu? Could it have been a story about a prostitution ring filled with corrupt party officials? Smuggling uranium? Environmental destruction and displacement of peoples? It may not have anything to do with government “secrets” as we know it.

And even if it was politically tied, we have to ask: what was he going to use the information for? Was Mr. Ching going to use them for a STORY? Or he was really going to use it for espionage? Which means he has contacts and dealings with other governmental intelligence agencies? But most probably it was going to be placed in a column for the Straight Times.

However if the definition of treason is when a person or group act in a way that threatens, may help in or is an attempt to topple the existing government, then ANY information that is not government sanctioned IS treason for the fact that the Communist Government believes any negative press is a threat to their power. So under the current system, under the current logic Mr. Ching is indeed guilty and they do have every right to detain him. Thus the only way out is for the officials to decide that the free flow of information is NOT an attempt to over throw the government but instead part of journalistic creed.

But how can we make China understand? We can’t even make the “international” community of free countries understand. They continue to trade and deal with China, allow her to join trade pacts.  Allow violations of human rights and free speech consistently with no more than a statement of suggesting the country should “consider” allowing the Chinese people to have more freedom.

With China’s economic growth, there is the increasing trend for people to hail the new economy. As the exile democratic activists Wuer Kaishi said, “Do not forget what China is.” Which is a totalitarian regime, which is a police state, which is more often denied than remembered.

But every so often we are faced with the reality that someone is in prison, facing long jail sentences, possibly death by doing something we can never be sure of as true. It will never be verified because we already know the system is under party rule. It is not an independent judiciary. Chances of having a fair trial in this case under these circumstances is minimal. We know that people are accused of things that they did not do. Placed in jail for what might even be encouraged in a civil society,  things people might win journalism awards for.

For every person who asks “How this can be happening?” It is because they have numbed themselves to the truth. China feels free because thought is not caged. You can walk around thinking what you want, and doing everything that is exactly like being in the free world, except when one tries to express, share or encourage certain ideas that deviate from party line.

Often there is a period of relative freedom, where the press increasingly are reporting stories that were previously untold, and thus increasing the boldness of journalists. It is only when one person pushes pass an expectation of self-censorship, simply going further pass the invisible line of acceptability problems are encountered. The outcome is a warning, a job lost or in the worse case scenario an arrest.

Could Mr Ching, along with the other jailed journalists and cyberdissidents be a reminder for those who don’t believe China is not free, that it is not?

That “freedom” in China relies on the whims of those in power and their personal feelings and personalities? That there are no rules to play by because what is written is not adhered to if it is written down at all. And it has been that way since 1949 and will remain this way irregardless if the Olympics arrive, that Gucci makes dollars, and there are a billion mobile phones on the streets, all of which are cheaper, nicer, and has more functions than those available in first world countries.

We can see it unfold, what was thought to be impossible is not, that money and freedom does not need the other. Freedom can exist in the sphere of economy and will not automatically translate into the political realm if the controlling government decides not to allow it. Just because history has never witnessed an economic vibrant country without political freedoms does not mean it will not occur in the future if not happening right now.

We must learn that we cannot equate the freedom to buy with the freedom of thought.

The irony is that the communist thinkers of Marx, Engle, Lenin, and Mao were right. Capitalism does not care for the people, their well being, or their lives. It is an amoral creature looking only for profit.
For right now, it is capitalism’s willingness to trade without politics, over looking ideals, only caring for the bottom line that keeps communism alive and making it stronger. Who would have thought that Capitalism would be the basis of creating a Communist Superpower?

Is it possible that Marx was right?  Communism will prevail as the last step of our economic destiny? As Capitalism is what should precede the launch into communism? What the Soviet Union got wrong China will get right?  Imagine if the joke ends up being on those who believed that capitalism was the way to free the world. Because the outcome of accepting the economic possibilities of China, will encourage a new kind of political system and allow it to supercede what is here already. What we end up with is a one party, unelected, government increasing in power and influence which will bring tighter control, and ever more acceptance of the behavior of totalitarian regimes to the rest of the world.

Through trade we lose.

Comments

[doug]

Through journalists, we fight. Are there any journalists in Hong Kong? I couldn't believe my ears when Donald Tsang answered that question from Francis Moriarty about what he was going to do to obtain help for Ching.

Tsang's answer? uh, pretty much nothing, so get over it, dude.

[Mike]

This post sparked off many thoughts in my mind. It is shameful that Britain and the US don't speak out more, come to think about it Australia should as well considering we're in the region. But you know all that Human Rights stuff interfers with business, and no one wants to annoy China. That a journalist gets arrested for basically doing his job is outrageous, but I wouldn't have heard about it unless I read it here. I guess a lot of people outside China have a skewed vision of the country, we only hear for the most part what a "success story" it is becoming and how well the government is doing to manage the economic growth. You make a great point about capatalism willing to trade without politics and overlooking ideals, but who is going to speak up over this stuff on behalf of those who can't? Great post.

[doug]

To elaborate: I won't quote him directly, but I'll paraphrase. Tsang said that many people get in trouble for doing things in China, and that this is a lot of people and you can't help everybody.

And right before then, an AFP journalist asked him how he could be a devout Catholic in Hong Kong when many of his ''bretheren'' were being jailed for their beliefs in China.

Tsang said that he prayed every day in Hnog Kong and every day that he was in China he prayed. Which led me to ask out loud in the news room, Why can you pray and other people can't???

[doug]

one more thing: he was collecting a manuscript about Zhao Ziyang, I believe. That's what the washington post said. And the Straits Times never really confirmed that.

[david]

...the washington post broke the story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900986.html?referrer=emailarticle

"Security agents have allowed Ching to call her (his wife) four more times, she said. In the latest call, on Sunday morning, Ching urged her not to tell reporters about his detention. But when a security agent picked up the phone and invited Lau to come to Beijing to see her husband, he grabbed the phone and told her to stay in Hong Kong, she said.

"He told me to work on his behalf in Hong Kong," Lau said."

here's the link to reporters san frontiers:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13957

keep it alive...the mainstream hong kong press surely won't...

[Glutterbug]

Stop giving Donald "Special Treatment." How come he gets to practice catholism by praying when he's over the border and no one else can?

More thoughts later.

[doug]

Are you sure the Hong Kong press won't keep it alive?

Where do you get that assertion, which seems baseless on its face?

[tim Fong]

Yan,
I just saw a guy on Charlie Rose's interview show discussing China's "rise." All they could talk about was how American's have to be "more competitive," to counter the rise of the "Communist party."

They reall don't get it. You know, the more I think about it , the more I realize that the whole situation totally favors western companies, to their eventual detriment. Through greed, they push the race to the bottom mentality. And through greed, as you say, the Chinese are going to convince the west to fight against itself.

I think the only possible just stance to take is not pro US/anti china. Nor is it pro China/anti US. No, the right stance is to take the side of people everwhere who are struggling for freedom, as you say, the freedom to express themselves. I liked your dig at Milton Friedman =)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The US business press likes to push "competitiveness," because it gives them an excuse to drive US wages and benefits down. They like to push for stronger protection for intellectual property, because it enriches the bottom line. They offer the false choice of protectionism vs free trade. But it's a lie. The truth is, there are international conventions on worker protection and human rights. If my government (and other Western governments) pushed the Chinese government to respect those rights, then it would force them to raise the cost of production. That is, to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. It is bullshit (and don't we know it) when the Chinese government uses forced labor to produce cheap goods for export.

But it'll be a cold day in hell when the US business lobby pushes the US government to press the cause of human rights in order to protect human rights everywhere. Including at home.

[tim Fong]

addendum: and I wish US labor unions would stop screaming for tariff walls, and spend more time realizing that they have common interests with Chinese workers. Otherwise, it is too easy for the Chinese govt to present them as enemies, when really we are all fighting for the same thing.

[Glutterbug]

That's really interesting because you are advocating workers rights in an international manner. Which is very much the tenants of global communism and also a somewhat the "American liberal" cause... but you're right. Would that not be interesting if it is American Labour Unions who call for better treatment of Chinese workers..

I was thinking how it's impossible to do interesting political work with companies in HK because they are tied to working in china so they can't be for democracy or anti-china in anyway, and that will continue with western companies as well. So Nike can never do anything that would piss off the Chinese government. So in a way, we then start suffering a kind of economic censorship and modification of behavior through money in western countries as well. Not just here. And which means eventually through globalization the world indirectly has to work under the Chinese ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. But then again maybe those who own corporations don't care, they tend to be right wing anyway. it's like making money to one's own demise. I guess that's what it means that you shouldn't play with people who are not your "friends" because you will be affected and influence. Hey. My teachers were right...

But what was my dig to Milton Fiedman? It was unintentional, but if you tell me I can pretend I meant to do it!

yan

[tim]

Yan,
You wrote:
"We must learn that we cannot equate the freedom to buy with the freedom of thought."

I thought you were referring to Milton Friedman's book, "Free to Choose." A lot of free market fundamentalists talk about how real freedom is the freedom to have chose what things to buy. So a lot of them go into mini-orgasms over HK, b/c of the laissez-faire nature of the HK economy.

But, that is a pretty damn shallow view of freedom, and that's what I thought you referenced with your quote. Don't be so modest =)

[Glutterbug]

I am not being modest. I am being ignorant. Never heard of the book and I actually had to look who Milton friedman was in google. Having said that, although I don't know the specifics, I was directly talking against it the idea. I mean you pick things up along the way. :)

yan