As long as whatever information we get comes from a regime that brainwashes people with info only it is in a position to release, erases the milions murdered by Mao while hailing him a saviour, claims only a couple hundred ‘counter-revolutionaries’ were slaughtered in self-defence of the state on June 4, proclaims that Tibetans are grateful at being liberated (from who?) peacefully (give or take a few thousand the gov’t refuses to admit) etc etc etc etc etc etc etc … Richard, are you seriously neutral? Let the regime peacefully liberate its justice system first before accepting anything it says. That’s what I say…

August 10, 2005 @ 1:25 am | Comment

“The jury is still out?” Is that an allusion to the fact they don’t have juries in China?

August 10, 2005 @ 1:31 am | Comment

There is a possibility that he be a spy. It doesn’t really matter what information he got. It’s about who paid him for the information.

Anyway, the way Chinese government handles media does no good to both China and the government itself.

A media as professional and free as that of UK is the dream I long most for to come true in China.

August 10, 2005 @ 4:09 am | Comment

I’ll drink to Keir

August 10, 2005 @ 5:06 am | Comment

Keir I’m with you and I can’t honestly say I’m neutral. As I said in earlier posts, anytime they arrest a journalist like this it sends up a huge red flag based on their abysmal track record. But we have to look at all sides, even if we instinctively (and justifiably) distrust the party and if I’m going to follow this story the material I linked to is definitely of interest, at least in understanding how people in China see it. That’s why my last words were to consider the sources.

Meanwhile, unlike the arrest of the Nanjing reporters and the NY Times assistant, I can’t say categorically that Ching’s arrest is an outrage and a mockery of justice because I don’t know enough about it — yet.

August 10, 2005 @ 8:42 am | Comment

richard, i like your neutrality when you don’t know all sides of the story..but the others are also right, when they detain ching incommunicado for a few months..something’s fishy!

August 10, 2005 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

Obviously I think something is fishy too or I wouldn’t have posted so much about him. And trust me, as I learn more I will show no mercy to the CCP — if indeed this is just another example of their arresting a reporter and essentially destroying his life just because he caused them to lose face.

August 10, 2005 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

I saw on Phonix TV news with a newpaper article titled “Money and women brought down Ching”, I didn’t listen to the news report at that time though.

August 10, 2005 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

Oh no, don’t get me started on Phoenix TV again, hehe

August 10, 2005 @ 7:56 pm | Comment

Let me guess, Phenix TV is a puppet tool of the evil CCP?

August 10, 2005 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

When the ‘State secrets’ law is as vague as it is, anyone is a spy.

August 10, 2005 @ 10:59 pm | Comment

Wawa, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

August 11, 2005 @ 3:53 am | Comment

I’m actually leaning towards that he is a spy after reading the link Richard posted.

August 11, 2005 @ 8:33 am | Comment

as the person who posed the link, i can tell you that i am not convinced that Ching Cheong is a spy. the key is the information that was given to him, and i don’t know what it is.

meanwhile, i resent being manipulated in what i called ‘one-sided asymmetrical information warfare.’ it goes beyond this case, but it is a general conditioning exercise to confuse and/or intimidate people into shutting up.

see:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050812_2.htm

i don’t know of a counter-strategy.

August 11, 2005 @ 9:22 am | Comment

Just want to clarify that I didn’t say I was convinced either, just leaning towards it.

“‘one-sided asymmetrical information warfare” in my opinion is something that Chinese need to learn from west so that they could claim their media is free.

August 11, 2005 @ 11:04 am | Comment