Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The July 24th catastrophic crash of a high speed train in Wenzhou, eastern China, made world wide headlines. The dead and injured totals as of today, July 30th, stand at 40 dead and 192 injured although earlier reports indicated as many as 210 injured including 2 foreigners. The cause of the accident is still under investigation, but the preliminary facts indicate that train D301 in service from Beijing South Station to Fuzhou (in Fujian province) and train D3115 in service from Hangzhou to Fuzhou, were derailed when D301 struck the stationary D3115 at around 8:30pm local time. Although both trains are limited to traveling at a maximum of 250km/h (~155 mph), it is uncertain how fast D301 was moving at the time of the accident.
This is more than just a human tragedy for China, but possibly an economic tragedy as well. With China looking to compete globally to sell high speed rail systems that are going to become increasingly important to countries around the world as fuel prices rise, their systems have been plagued by unstable performance and this crash caused the stock of state owned CSR Corporation to plummet 14 points on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Although CSR is technically the world’s largest manufacturer of high speed rail equipment, it faces stiff competition from German and Japanese manufacturers who have more mature and refined products. While none of this is unfamiliar to anyone who has followed businesses in the wake of a disaster in the West, what is unusual is what happened next.
Lawyers were told not to take plaintiff’s cases related to the rail accident.
“Urgent statements” issued under the aegis of the Wenzhou Judicial Bureau and the Wenzhou Lawyers’ Association told local attorneys they were “unauthorised respond and handle the cases” because “the accident is a major sensitive issue concerning social stability”. This caused public outrage when the statements were subsequently made public. In addition, Chinese media has been uncharacteristically critical of both the government’s response to the accident despite a crackdown on coverage by the Propaganda bureau of the PRC. A Propaganda bureau memorandum leaded last Friday warned, “All articles on the Wenzhou train collision are to be put off the homepage with immediate effect. None are to be put on the homepage itself. In the news section, only one article may be placed there, but no commentaries are allowed. Promoting the discussion of related topics on forums, blogs and microblogs are not allowed. Forum sites are to remove all previously promoted articles and blogposts off from the frontpage and mini-sites immediately. All posts, blogposts and microblog posts that do not meet with the requirements of this afternoon’s orders are to be resolutely deleted. All sites are to implement this order with immediate effect, and to complete execution within half an hour. Checks will begin within half an hour.”
Despite this crackdown, a lecturer at the East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai, Zhang Xuezhong, called on the Chinese media to close ranks and work together to “open a window in the sky”. He said that if the media joined forces to act in accordance with their conscience, they might very well be changing the course of history. Wang Qinglei, a producer for the CCTV show “24 Hours”, was fired after host Qiu Qiming asked some very pointed questions during the July 25 broadcast: “If nobody can be safe, do we still want this speed? Can we drink a glass of milk that’s safe? Can we stay in an apartment that will not fall? Can the roads we travel on in our cities not collapse? Can we travel in safe trains? And if and when a major accident does happen, can we not be in a hurry to bury the trains? Can we afford the people a basic sense of security? China, please slow down. If you’re too fast, you may leave the souls of your people behind.” Speculation is that Quinglei was let go over his role in approving this broadcast, but it may have been complicated by his blog postings critical of the government’s action which went viral.
In the aftermath of this public relations nightmare, the Wenzhou Judicial Bureau apologised for the statement. Liu Xianping, spokesman and director of the bureau’s office, said in remarks quoted by Xinhua news agency, “We didn’t know the content of the statement before it was released. It was written by the lawyers’ association [the Wenzhou Lawyers’ Association], which used our name without authorization.” A Wenzhou Lawyers’ Association spokesman confirmed this version of events to Xinhua. Their excuse? They feared that “conflicts would be generated if legal services are not well-provided”. Naturally, fearing poor quality representation is a problem resolved by removing representation all together.
As the rights of our citizens are steadily eroded away, the citizens of a totalitarian country on the other side of the world begin once again to fight for theirs in the aftermath of tragedy, is the most more important lesson we take away from these brave citizens acting in the face of repression the value of free speech or the value of questioning government and industry? Both? What do you think?
Source(s): channelnewsasia.com, 2point6billion.com, shanghaiist.com, Economic Observer
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
“is the most more important lesson we take away from these brave citizens acting in the face of repression the value of free speech or the value of questioning government and industry? Both? What do you think?”
Mespo, You’re right, sadly Golaith wins more often (a lot more often at least with med mal.
Nurse says “I’ll lose my job if I testify” there goes free speech. Doctor says “I cannot testify against this doctor or I will suffer repercussions.” There goes free speech.
Societies and state refuse to sanction. Lesson? Don’t bother questioning, at least in this instance, industry.
sad, sad, sad. (And Mespo, thanks for reading.)
Gene H;
I can’t claim any flash of inspiration with my Brandeis quote. I just typed it in a petition I’m drafting. A tad verbose perhaps but I think great thoughts ought to be back on the public record from time to time.
“We just like to see the flabergasted look on his face when the rock finally gets there.” -mespo
…I’m holding that image in the mind’s eye, for now… 🙂
an:
True enough. We just like to see the flabergasted look on his face when the rock finally gets there.
mespo,
Justice Brandeis was a wise jurist.
“…in most cases, Goliath wins.” -mespo
…but, not always… and so we keep fighting.
“In the aftermath of this public relations nightmare, the Wenzhou Judicial Bureau apologised for the statement.”
***********************
Justice Brandeis’ words ring as true today as the day he said them in 1914, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
Carol Levy:
I read your blog. Yours is a sad case. Peter Janetta is not just a “known” surgeon but probably the “most known” surgeon in the field of trigeminal nerve (TN) surgery. His pioneering work in developing microvascular decompression to treat TN is rightfully praised. All that said, he is not immune from error. I have no idea about the facts of your case, but you did get into a David versus Goliath situation and despite what you see in the movies and on TV, in most cases, Goliath wins.
As you folks say in your trade”a sidebar”
Rutten: The threat of Nancy Grace
Op-Ed
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/27/3039962/the-threat-of-nancy-grace.html
I have been staying as far away from Chinese goods as possible. It’s difficult.
You don’t say….I was aware of the merge of the CAB….But, I have read transcripts from the Estate of HR Hughes…..that being Howard…and Hughes Aviation, Air, Electronics, Etc……….Even people in Government got reassigned….You don’t say….I do say…..
AY, the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) existed from 1938 until 1984, when it was absorbed by the Department of Transportation. It no longer exists. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was created in 1958. And to answer your question, they definitely do have a culture of stifling dissent. For example, they were trying to press on with a microwave landing system to replace the tried and tested Instrument Landing System (ILS) in the face of a stone wall of opposition by users. According to my sources inside the FAA, any criticism of the ill-considered microwave landing system was not tolerated. Of course, the advent of GPS and other technology made it a moot point and MLS died on the vine. Just an example.
They also have been known to engage in punitive practices regarding pilot medical certificates. I do not really have space here, but I have a sheaf of faxes in my files I got from Bob Hoover regarding his run-in with the medical examiner for the FAA. When a couple of people in the FAA blew the whistle on the conspiracy to deprive Hoover of his license, they were punished severely.
Gene,
I hear you got mail…
raff,
I think that’s a great idea. But honestly, we’d have a lot of catching up to do to meet the quality of product the Germans and Japanese build. They build some really nice trains. It’s not impossible mind you, but it would be a task. A task well worth pursuing considering how many construction and support system jobs it would create. There is no reason we shouldn’t be like Japan or Europe where you can park your car, get on a HSR for the big spaces and then take clean safe local light rail almost all the way to your final destination. It’s also a very enjoyable way to travel.
OS,
Does not the FAA and CAB keep somethings sileent?
Maybe now is the time to build high speed rail that out performs the Chinese. China won’t be able to compete if they remove their lawyers because the world knows about their problems already.
as a mechanic and machinist the problems i’ve seen with the quality of chinese manufacturing the idea of going 150mph on anything they’ve built scares the hell out of me.
This is not a new phenomenon. Government agencies and their agents have been trying to suppress information about their own wrongdoing since some building collapsed back in ancient Egypt, Rome, or China. In this country, we see state legislatures trying to make it increasingly difficult to file lawsuits against elite classes and businesses. It is not necessarily the wrongdoer they are protecting, but their insurance carrier. Our state has a one year limitation on medical malpractice claims, even though that cuts discovery of the condition down to virtually nothing in some cases. Then they limit the amount of damages, statutorily, to such small amounts that it becomes economically impractical to litigate in many cases.
I had a medical malpractice case against a ‘known’ doctor. It is a long story but ultimately, after 14 years in the court (not a typo) my lawyer literally forced me to accept a settlement that was not close to paying lifetime costs associated with the malpractice. In addition the Pa. Superior Court called this man’s testimony perjurious* nevertheless 4 weeks after the forced settlement Gov. Ridge nominated this doctor Peter J. Jannetta (1995-1996) as sec’t of health nominee (1995-1996). (All 50 senators and Gov Ridge’s office was informed of this perjury.)
The government and the courts are not separate entities here either.
Carol Jay Levy
author A PAINED LIFE, a chronic pain journey
http://apainedlife.blogspot.com/
(The pained life, 30 years and counting but right now I am writing about the med. mal. case.)
*”We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta’s testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial.” Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995
sec’t of health nominee. Despite
A through assessment of this tragedy might lead to places the government, both local and national, does not want it to go. Bribery and corruption allegations are ongoing in the building of the Chinese high speed rail system. If there is anything that points to shoddy work or maintenance, like the fact that there was a malfunctioning signal that caused this accident, who knows what questions would be asked in court about the design, quality of materials, maintenance or lack thereof, and who signed off on what.