ST correspondent held

[Ed: Re-updated 030605 0818 AEST]

The latest scandal in the international press world has hit home once more.



ST’s Hong Kong-based foreign correspondent on China, 程翔 | Ching Cheong, has been held in Beijing for ‘stealing state secrets’.


A CURRENT AFFAIR

Tons of news reports covering this, but some which brought out a few different nuggets here:

The Guardian’s article, more descriptive than most

Washington Post’s, with some chronology on Ching Cheong and more factual details

CNA’s, which surprisingly (by Singaporean press standards) acknowledged China’s censorship relating to 赵紫阳 | Zhao Ziyang¹ and Tiannanmen. Which is more than can be said of ST's own coverage.

The Standard’s, with Ching’s wife calling him ‘stupid’ and reckoning this a scare tactic to silence the media. I agree (the latter* more than the former).

Forbes’, on Singapore’s shock

The Times’, on China’s foreign ministry stating Ching’s admission to spying (I find this suspect.)

RSF’s, calling on UK and Singapore to ensure Ching’s release

Also, coverage within the blogosphere by Singapore Ink and Simon World. Links galore at Singapore Angle. | Also, a fairly succinct descriptive by Elio Diodati, with almost enough links to rival Singapore Angle.

*Update: The IFJ agrees. So does New Century Net (via Singapore Angle.)

[Ed: On a technical point, I am confused by articles reporting that this is the first instance of foreign corro capture in China, and others that it is the 2nd. (What about Zhao Yan²?) Enlightenment welcome.]


EYES WIDE SHUT

I found the Singapore MFA’s press release the most scanty excuse for a statement at all, on this. Elsewhere, the following ST statement is appearing ubiquitously --

..The Straits Times .. said in a written statement Sunday that it had been told by the Chinese Embassy in Singapore that Ching “is assisting security authorities in Beijing with an investigation into a matter not related to the Straits Times."

On the Singapore side of the issue, I am disappointed by 2 messages which seem to be a priority for SPH and MFA (see also Forbes article):

i) that Ching’s detention is based on work that has nothing to do with the Singapore government
ii) that the Chinese foreign ministry has not contacted the MFA, hence lack of information provided by SPH

The first seems to be making the point that such dubious activities must, of course, not be linked to Singapore’s institutions, thus absolving Singapore’s authorities of all responsibility for this poor unlucky journalist. (Note the quote above came from the Chinese embassy in Singapore, not SPH. However, the manner in which it has been reproduced by SPH leads me to hold my stand - cf. Izydata's correction on Ink.) It also seems a contradictory follow-up to Singapore’s alleged shock on the matter.

More significantly, however, I take issue with how even a seemingly illustrious testimonial (see below) of Ching seemed to imply that such investigative journalism may just be rightly considered illegal by the Chinese authorities, and whatever other law-of-the-land deferences that may be, well, deferred to.

'We are shocked by this new accusation,' SPH said in a statement.

SPH said: 'We have no cause to doubt that in all the years that Ching Cheong has worked with us, he has conducted himself with the utmost professionalism.

-- from Forbes article, link above

As for the second – I fail to see how such a lack of intelligence-gathering initiative should be reflective of a government, a national publication for which a correspondent has been ‘acting in the best interests’. For all my tirades about our nationalistic (many say propagandistic) mouthpiece media, this would’ve been one opportunity to protect those who contribute to that mouthpiece. He is kaki-lang - one of ours - for crying out loud.

In concession to SPH, however, I must also state that SPH has tried to obtain permission from Chinese authorities to visit Ching, although in vain. Also, Simon has quoted from a source that ST has tried .. to secure [Ching's] freedom.


THE BLACK GESTAPO

The Peking Duck captures my sentiments on this too well:

There are all kinds of excuses we can come with as to why this is okay, and why we should just let it go as an "internal matter." But I don't see it that way. Reading this article made me sick, and hearing in my head all the pre-rehearsed excuses of the apologists just makes me sicker.

What's your definition of a police state? Does China qualify? To me, it is where people are afraid to speak because the police have the power to arrest and hold them at will, as Stalin's secret police and the Gestapo did. Is this an examnple of the behavior of an enlightened government or of a police state -- or of something in-between? The question is sincere. I generally choose not to refer to China as a police state, as there are aspects of the country that seem to go against the classic definitions. But each time I read stories like this, I am forced to reconsider.

***
Update:

THE ADVOCATE

The CPJ has spoken. Their latest media release condenses many of the most pertinent quotes and details on the case. Vincent Brossel at RSF reiterates my suspicion at Ching's 'confession' to espionage, and indicates a possibility that a confession was wrangled out of Ching under some manner of duress:

.. [Brossel] says [RSF] questions the means by which the government might have obtained a confession.

"When you detain someone for a month and you put pressure on his family, you put a lot of pressure on him, it's obvious you can get some confession," said Mr. Brossel.

-- VOA 310505

I suspect it may have more to do with a mangling of Ching's words, based on dubiously constructed questions and (correspondingly) dubiously interpreted answers. Or perhaps I give too much credit to gaol civility in China. Gah.


MEET JOE BLACK

I'm perturbed by China's foreign ministry's adamant denial of any link whatsoever to Zhao Ziyang and Tiannanmen. But the more likely motives of the Chinese Censorship Party are thinly disguised in light of 2 things:

i) their non-disclosure of the foreign agency they accuse Ching of spying for
ii) their refusal to detail the charges against Ching

-- which they justify with a most egregious statement:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan, asked at a news conference for details of what Ching was accused of doing and for which country he was accused of spying, would say only: "We have full evidence to support this case."

-- AP 010605

What's even more unnerving, however, is that SPH is taking the same line. The following interview excerpt between SPH's ed-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng and BBC's Julian Marshall, via Singapore Angle:

BBC: According to the Chinese authorities, he was in Guangzhou where he travelled to collect secret papers linked to the former Chinese leader, Zhao Ziyang.

Cheong: I have absolutely no idea that this had happened. As I said, this came as a complete surprise to us.

BBC: You don't think this is connected in any way with the editorial line that maybe your newspaper takes on China?

Cheong: I do not believe that to be the case. In fact, our editorial line on China can give no cause for action of this kind.

Looming bleak:

SDUT reports Hong Kong 'spy' reporter may languish in China custody "for months before he is tried on espionage charges";

LA Times' prognosis is even darker - Reporter May Face the Death Penalty.

This disturbs me greatly because of the implications of such a precedent, for press freedom in China:

China has never jailed a journalist working for a foreign publication. It usually detains them briefly and deports them on charges such as spying.

-- Times Online 310505

How low can you go?


HOPE FLOATS

On the up, though - thankfully - some good news sees ST stepping up:

Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang, who was heading for Hong Kong yesterday from a newspaper conference in Seoul, said: 'We have engaged lawyers and will be making legal representation on Ching Cheong's behalf.

"I met his wife Mary last Friday to assure her of our full support and will be meeting her again tomorrow to discuss the latest development."

SPH has engaged one of China's largest law firms, the Jun He Law Offices, to assist Mr Ching and his family.

-- Asia Media 010605

I think this is very encouraging, particuarly for establishment-skeptics such as myself.

As warm a fuzzy it may be to see ST/SPH not devoid of compassion or a sense of justice, however, I think these developments are more revealing of the underlying complexities surrounding China's relations with "the relevant countries" - and the future of those relations.

It's not quite the same, but - brings back memories of the good ol' Michael Faye days, no?


Technorati: media, press, China, Singapore

¹Zhao Ziyang is a former CCP leader who opposed the use of force against protestors at Tiannanmen Square in 1989, and was subsequently put under house arrest for what was the last 16 years of his life.

²CJP News Alert: Chinese authorities are leveling new accusations at Zhao Yan to continue holding him indefinitely.