Different papers, different approaches to Tiananmen [Tiananmen / China]

There’s probably not a lot I can add to the ready-made media onslaught that is and will be “Tiananmen 20th Anniversary.”

Besides, I don’t expect anything dramatic to come of it (call me jaded).

One thing I did want to note, though … I just went into Google News and typed in “Tiananmen” to see what I’d get

The first three headlines that I see about the vigil recently held in Hong Kong were from Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, all of them talking about the vigil held in Victoria Park in Hong Kong recently. That’s not the interesting part for me.

The interesting part is that the three of them had different takes to their headline. The NYTimes, true to form, was the most emotional. Reuters was in the middle. The WSJ was the least dramatic, basically reflecting their political leanings (as I see them) on the issue of China.

June 4th Candlelight vigil at Victoria Park Hong Kong, 2008 - Aaron Tam

The more Pro-China Wall Street Journal says: “Hong Kong Holds Tiananmen Vigil“

Ok … I guess there was a vigil. Not a blaring headline. Somewhat muted, I’d argue.

How about Reuters?

They say, “Thousands in Hong Kong attend Tiananmen candlelight vigil“

… hmm, does that little extra information “thousands” provide it a little more grab? I say yes.

Then there’s the New York Times: “Hong Kong Tiananmen Vigil Is Enormous and Somber.” Wow. Subtle headline, NYT.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (now) … the New York Times’ news in China must always (always) be taken with a grain of salt.

It isn’t that they’re reporting lies or anything … it’s more that they go out of their way to play up the dissent angle. Anyone who exclusively reads the NYT for their China news is painted a picture that is very focused on the human rights struggle, creating a skewed view of what China is really like. Sometimes I read their articles about the nascent struggle for social change and I wonder, “have you been to this country?” I know I’m not alone on that one.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I think there’s definitely a tension in China, but it seems the NYT is playing more to its US audience, which is convinced of the moral wrongness of China and grabbed by stories of dissent, than it is actually presenting a realistic portrait.

… and in case you didn’t read the story, the vigil seemed pretty impressive.

Here’s the NYT again (bolding my own to highlight different approaches):

Throngs of men, women and children gathered at a park here on Thursday evening for an enormous, somber candlelight vigil to mark the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square killings.

The organizers said that 150,000 people joined the vigil, tying the record set by the first anniversary vigil in 1990 and dwarfing every vigil held since then. The police estimated the crowd at 62,800, their largest estimate for any vigil except in 1990, which they put at 80,000.

Here’s how the WSJ starts:

Tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents staged a candlelight vigil in a public park Thursday to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, as Beijing and the rest of mainland China remained under a tight clampdown around the politically sensitive day.

Hong Kong’s annual vigil marks the world’s largest remembrance of the deadly Chinese government crackdown of a 1989 pro-democracy demonstration in Beijing, and is the only major one held publicly on Chinese soil. Organizers late Wednesday said 150,000 people attended. Hong Kong police issued no immediate estimate.

Both present the attendance facts roughly the same way (although, oddly, the WSJ did not get an estimate from police while the NYT did), but the NYT has, I think, a more emotional spin to it and refers to the tragic finale of Tiananmen as “killings,” which is a much more visceral word than the WSJ’s choice of “crackdown.” For reference, the strongly anti-China Epoch Times labels it a “massacre.”

二＋周年維園六四燭光晚會 -- 20th Anniversary June 4 Candlelight Vigil -- 2009.06.04 - Charles Mok

I will say, though, that the WSJ journal story provides much, much more depth than the NYTimes one. It’s a solid recap of all the political tightening going on around the country (in case you’re interested in a recap).

Other interesting snippets from the stories:

The major gathering contrasted with the near-silence on the mainland. In Beijing, heavy security and tightened restrictions over foreign media access appeared to prevent any major protests. Hundreds of uniformed and plainclothes security personnel Wednesday patrolled Tiananmen Square, which was mostly closed to visitors.

Ahead of the anniversary, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement remembering “the tragic loss of hundreds of innocent lives” during what she called “the violent suppression of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square.” Mrs. Clinton’s statement acknowledged China’s “enormous progress” on the economic front, but called on China to “examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing.”

That triggered a strong response from China’s foreign ministry, which expressed “strong dissatisfaction” with Mrs. Clinton’s comments. “We urge the U.S. side to put aside its political prejudices and correct its wrongdoings so as to avoid bringing interference and damage to Sino-U.S. relations,” a ministry spokesman said, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

… In Hong Kong and Macau, Chinese territories that are separately governed, officials barred entry to at least two Tiananmen activists. Wu’er Kaixi, a student leader in 1989 who has lived in exile in Taiwan since the crackdown, said in a statement he intended to surrender to Chinese authorities to stand trial, in hopes of “a resumption of a dialogue of a sort,” and to reunite with his parents, who he said weren’t allowed out of the country. Macau authorities refused Mr. Wu’er’s entry, and he was later carried onto a Taipei-bound plane by police officers, Associated Press reported.

Charles Mok -二＋周年維園六四燭光晚會 — 20th Anniversary June 4 Candlelight Vigil — 2009.06.04

On another note, I’m happy to see that some of the worst fears about Hong Kong reunification have not been realized.

The mere fact that this vigil seems to go off every year without a hitch is a testament to Hong Kong’s continued openness.

For the most part Hong Kong has been left with the freedoms that made the island great in the first place. Huzzah.

Hong Kong, PCCW and Rule of Law [Financial Times]

The Financial Times posts an interesting story today with some bold claims. In essence, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission ruled against ome heavy hitters and the Financial Times plays its significance up big time.

I have no ideas on this, but I thought it worth posting.

“Winds of Change for Asian Model“

The importance of the case lies in its wider implications. It shows how tycoons in Asia still use companies as their private fiefs and trample over small shareholders with impunity. It gives the lie to claims that western corporate governance is irrelevant in Asia, where companies supposedly respect the interests of all stakeholders.

The SFC’s decision to pursue the case on behalf of independent shareholders was undoubtedly brave, as was the court’s sticking its neck out to stand up to a business family as powerful as Mr Li’s. But the fact that their actions were exceptions to the rule shows that Asian capitalism still leaves much to be desired.

And yet the judgment is a sign that the rule of law is taking root. Never before has a Hong Kong court so harshly rebuked one of the territory’s “untouchable” business leaders – one whose plans, more over, were supported by state-controlled China Unicom, PCCW’s second-largest shareholder.

EastSouthWestNorth: What Did Jackie Chan Say? [China]

Catching up on my EastSouthWestNorth, and the author has been pretty awesome about putting up two interesting stories about Jackie Chan and his controversial statement.

Here is a translation by the author of the blog of exactly what Jackie said, including some more of the context than you may have seen before EastSouthWestNorth: What Did Jackie Chan Say?.

My take is that Jackie is not so confident in Chinese people overall. There seems to be a fair amount of self-hating going on in there. Check it out for yourself and see what you think:

[transcription]

Eh … actually … actually, China has been changing all along.  During the ten years since I returned … for those ten years now, the progress has been very big, very big.  Besides today, let us not forget, we have been reforming sixty years … thirty years … but our nation has been founded .. thirty years … we are just a small nation among large nations … how shall we say?  … we have a history of five thousand years, but our new nation was only founded sixty years ago.  We have only opened up for thirty years.  It is hard to make any comparisons with those … 

But I suddenly feel that for the ten years since I returned … I slowly … I grew up in Hong Kong … I grew up in Hong Kong … from the time when Hong Kong was returned to China up until now, I can slowly see … I don’t know … eh … whether it is better to be free or it is better not to be free … right now I am really very confused … eh … if there is too much freedom, it becomes like Hong Kong today … very chaotic … furthermore, it becomes like Taiwan … it is also very chaotic … eh … I have slowly come to realize that we the Chinese people need regulation …

[laughter first, then applause from the audience]

If there is no regulation and we suddenly opened up, we can do whatever we want.  Sometimes I feel that … eh … when I go to Singapore, why can’t I have chewing gum?  Later I realized that it is correct to forbid people from having chewing gum.  If I let you have chewing gum, some people are going to stick it underneath the table or on the chair.  They don’t respect themselves.  Many people are not like those people in the United States or Japan where they are spontaneously self-respecting.  When you don’t have self-respect, the government will regulate.  That is for certain.  I can see that.  Today people are doing whatever they want to do.  Today a lot of people are abusing their freedom of speech, abusing their cultural freedom (in Cantonese) … eh … cultural freedom, they are abusing it … er … human rights.  They abusing it.

Ever since I returned, our movie screening process has been a lot better today than ten years ago.  I believe that it will continue to be a lot better ten years from now continually continually continually.  Today our nation of China … I cannot speak for the nation … but I feel that our nation is learning continuously … it is learning continuously from the outside … really … you see that we hold so many research conferences in China, we hold…  eh … and we send so many senior officials overseas to study, and this is all in order to learn.  I believe that our China will become better and better.  This is what I believe.  [faint applause]

[cut to a different clip]

What I want to say is … when I was in Hong Kong, I was in the film industry.  Sometimes, I want to say that our Hong Kong film industry really has no idea what it is up to.  Really.  They get a story today, they start filming tomorrow and they are ready to show the movie next week.  They make so many, many lousy big movies.  You can’t bear to watch anymore.  Sometimes I wonder why Hong Kong … Hong Kong in the past … would let such movies be shown?  Our film industry produces so many lousy movies.  Right.  Every country has its own system.  When I go to the United States, I cross the street and the police will stop me if I go through a red light.  You have to observe the laws of that nation.  If you go to Vietnam, you will have to abide by Vietnamese regulations.  If you go to Singapore, you will have to abide by Singaporean regulations.  In China, you may be uncultured and you litter everywhere.  If you go to Singapore and you litter, watch what happens.  You will go to jail immediately.  Therefore if you come to China to make a movie, you must abide by Chinese regulations.  These are just the rules of the game.  This is how I feel.   [applause]

 

The author of the blog was also kind enough to post the translation of a story from The Southern Weekend discussing the domestic responses to Jackie’s statement (“Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China React Differently To Jackie Chan’s Comment“). I’m not sure how good this story is, but for me it’s a lot better than nothing.

Oh, Jackie Chan, you shill, you [pandering]

The blogodome is blowing up with the news that Jackie Chan, he of a recently banned-by-Beijing film, has decided that Chinese people just can’t handle freedom. I know you’ve ready this everywhere else, but I HAD to at least link to it … you know, to make sure the blogodome stays in a good state of blah-blah-anger. 

The original story is in The Telegraph. Here’s a blog post from The Useless Tree on it. Here’s the stuff from the Telegraph. 

Jackie Chan has triggered controversy by claiming Chinese people are so chaotic they need to be firmly controlled by the government.

The actor told a forum on the southern Chinese island of Hainan, whose attendees included Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, he was not sure “freedom” was necessary.

Chan, 55, whose latest movie, Shinjuku incident, was banned in China, was asked about censorship and restriction on the mainland. He expanded his comments to discuss Chinese society in general. 

“I’m not sure if it is good to have freedom or not,” he said. “I’m really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”

He added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

His comments were applauded by the Chinese audience, but triggered fury in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Ahhh, Jackie. What a strange move. Most people seem to be chalking it up to a money-move … ie, if you flatter the government in Beijing, they’ll loosen up on censoring your films in the future. But that still doesn’t totally make sense to me. Would he think this would go over well in Taiwan and Hong Kong? Does he really not need those markets anymore? Did he think that his statements wouldn’t go public? I’m so confused right now. If it was a calculated money moment, why make it so brazenly? Just strange stuff.  

Even more strange, his proof is Hong Kong and Taiwan … two places that are doing fine, for the most part and whose governments haven’t had any Cultural Revolution-like disasters on their record soooooo … what was the point again? That the Communist Party was responsible for the grinding poverty up until their recent embrace of completely counter-ideological economic systems? Was … I’m confused. Did Hong Kong have The Great Leap Forward? 

Hell, does Hong Kong even have “freedom”? I guess a lot more than the mainland. Is Jackie living in bizarro world? Does he realize that he even has a career at all becuase of the freedom that has existed in Hong Kong (the freedom that the mainland is slowly, painfully imitating?). Man. I wasn’t going to get apoplectic, but what a strange moment. 

Jackie Chan: “ ”I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”"

Well, Jackie. Well. I’m at a loss.

Here’s an interesting angle (again quoted in The Useless Tree) from John Pomfret of the WaPo:

UPDATE: This story is getting a lot of play all over the internets.  Too many posts to link to all of them, but one rather interesting response was that of John Pomfret over at WaPo’s PostGlobal:

My reaction, however, is this: Chan is just saying what a lot of other rich Chinese feel. In the 20 years since Tiananmen, Chinese society has changed enormously. One of the most astounding ways has been in the return of a class society and in the disdain with which China’s rich view China’s poor. When Chan was saying Chinese need to be “controlled,” to be sure, he was speaking about the poor. He didn’t have to say it, But that’s what the audience at Boao heard and that’s why they cheered him on. Anyone who has conversations of depth with members of China’s elite has heard this argument before. “The quality of the average Chinese is too low,” the line goes. (Zhongguoren de suzhi tai di le.) “So of course we can’t have full freedom.”

He is right: class-based politics is increasingly obvious in China.