Last month the Chinese government said that the process of obtaining complete information as to why so many school buildings collapsed in last month's earthquake is underway. This week it began reigning in media which have been asking too many questions, even barring grieving parents from protesting. The first attempt at providing answers came this week from the Sichuan Ministry of Education in the form of five key reasons for the number of school-related deaths, which haven't gone over well with many [zh] bloggers.
Well-known blogger-journalist and author Ran Yunfei, who lives in Chendgu, had this to say about these five points in his May 29 post, ‘How are the children wrongfully dead to be allowed to rest in peace?‘
I feel the central government ought to rebuild the Ministry of Education, make Minister Zhou Ji resign as an apology to the nation; rectify the relevant Sichuan Education Ministry officials, and bring those directly responsible to justice. Otherwise, I'm afraid that the central government will continue to lose the public's trust.
Here are the Sichuan Education Ministry's five concluding points as they've been getting spread around online and as posted by Ran Yunfei, slightly shorter than the official version as they've stripped of bureaucratese and rephrased clearly:
2. The disaster struck during class time, so the numbers of collective casualties was quite high.
3. During class time, students were gathered inside classrooms, so there was a large burden on the floors, and during evacuation again they were gathered within the stairwell, and these corridors and stairwells were relatively weak parts of the buildings, so this created definite harm.
4. According to information supplied by Sichuan Education Ministry administrators, quite a few of the school buildings which collapsed in Sichuan province were built quite a long time ago, so the schools were old and unmaintained, and this is a major factor leading to the collapse of some schools.
5. Inherent defects existed in the designs of the school buildings themselves with respect to earthquake resistance.
The transcript of a talk given on May 31st by legal scholar and active blogger He Weifang has been posted to message board website Paowang. In it He focuses on the role of the Procuratorate, the Chinese version of the American Attorney General's Office, should be playing in the legal and administrative aftermath of the earthquake, seeing it as the most suitable body to provide that degree of oversight.
He makes several points to that effect, starting off with calling for the need for the Procuratorate to be ensured independence as it carries out its work in, among many things, overseeing compensation given to parents to children lost in the earthquake, transparency as those responsible for things like the ‘tofu dregs’ construction of school buildings are sought out, seeing that the practice doesn't continue as new houses and buildings are constructed, and at the same time, ensuring those eventually brought to trial are guaranteed a fair trial and not one aimed at placating an angry public.
The key suggestion He makes however, is the activation now of article 71 of China's constitution, which he says has never been put into effect:
Also, a little bit more investigation is needed for the author of this post. The whole article keeps tell people like “chinese government is habitual bloodthirsty”, “There are no real supervision”, “People are banned from protesting” etc…. This kind of reports have been repeated repeated and repeated, however Can we have some further work on some details? for example, talk to those who lose their children in this damned earthquake or builders of the “tofu dregs” what you refering to?
When everythings’ answer had been fixed and organized beforehand like this one. Well, I must say, in this damned earthqueake, some people care about human life, some others just like political animals.
John Kennedy !
U R son of bitch!!!
I read two title about u!
I am chinese!
I not work for chinese gov.
I am a programmer for mobile game!
I can’t understand that u r mischief-maker!
I want to ask u : how many students study in class at a class room?
I kown that there is 50-60 students in a class room at china ‘s school.
china is development country!and the earthquake place, many country people ,this place ,is poor ! can’t endure so big earthquake!
if U doubt that chinese gov. hide the 8.0 earthquake to 7.8!
so ,I want tell you the USA said the earthquake is 7.6
u can get this data for the :
so,u r son of bitch!
if u r a writer.you should justness criticism sthing!
sorry my english is poor!!
You really are a son of a biscuit!
I don’t know if that could even be considered as an insult. Well, I wasn’t try to insult you anyway.
Anyhow, although you do tend to gravitate toward the more negative and sensationalistic stuff (for whatever reason is beyond me), I do like this post.
Sadly, improvements in safety standards are often spurred by tragedy. The Kansas City Hyatt Regency hotel walkway collapse, Mulholland’s famous St. Francis Dam, New Orleans, not to mention some of the more notable aviation disasters (I am sure that people can easily rattle out a few more), all stand as grim testaments to the fact that progress is often paved by the blood of the unfortunate.
The tragedy of the Sichuan earthquake, of course, shouldn’t be an exception. Yeah, the questions raised now and in the days or years to come are going to be hard. But, isn’t awareness of one’s deficiencies the first step toward improvement? Right?
Isn’t this the angle you are shooting for? That is, bringing awareness to the deficiencies that scream of redress, rather than just plain faulting finding or, even worse, rubbing salt and stirring up crap.
If it is one of the later, you really are a son of a bitch. But you are not, right? That is, a son of bitch or stirring up crap.
Ahh, it really doesn’t matter what your intentions are. This earthquake is a hard cookie to swallow; a lesson paid in blood. We’ll take that to heart.
So, my appreciations for the post.
Hi Kain, thanks for the thoughtful response. Judging from the kind of sentiment that you, Eric and Liang have all expressed, I think a discussion on what my intentions are in blogging at GVO might be useful at some point, but I don’t feel comfortable using this post for that. How about Twitter? I’m feng37 there as well.
I think John Kennedy is a younger version of Jack Cafferty of mini CNN, JK can take it as a compliment or insult. Then again he’s got to answer to his big big boss, and that might be CIA org funding Dalai et al. Anyway, I am NOT defending nor attacking JK, but he’s got a job to do. That is to get the most controversial topics so that there are many people jumping on his forums all at once. I notice some grow to 500+ comments on some topics wrote by JK. jk is just used as a mini pawn just like Dalai is used as a big pawn. . . .[sigh] Very interesting
u should come to tibet ,u should look the truth!
u doubt the chinese people? u should come to China and look the truth!
u r son of bitch!!!
John Kennedy,go away!!!
I think that you are providing a wonderful service by translating and summarizing these blogs out of China. Please do keep up the good work and do not get discouraged by negative comments.
(A laowai in Shanghai)
Yes, I think he is quite biased! After all, the government gave The 5 Reasons, so that is all we need to report and that is all we need to know. I doubt there could possibly be other points of view for this situation, and anyone who points out that there are many people, including Chinese, who don’t agree with the government is certainly somewhere between a son-of-a-biscuit and a son-of-an-English-muffin.
All Chinese should move on, go back to working hard, buying consumer goods and keeping up with the Joneses, stop protesting, etc. The 20,000+ grieving parents should do the same, and maybe put more effort into making another little emperor to replace the one that got crushed in this horrible tragedy.
About the intensity of the earthquake: I think we should take a vote on it, come up with a compromise. How about 7.7? (that way there are no ‘8’s!)
And Liang: I am unsure about the point of your post, you mean it is okay to have to many students in a classroom? Or it’s not so bad they were killed because they were poor? Or you mean it is okay that only the schools for the children from poor families were destroyed while the ones for the government officials were not because the rich children will be the vanguard to lead China into the future, so it’s more important to protect them?