Microsoft censoring Web sites in China

DELETED: A spokesman said the software giant works with Beijing to restrict access to Web sites and censor subject lines on Web logs that include 'forbidden language'

AP , SHANGHAI

Chinese bloggers, even on foreign-sponsored sites, had better choose their words carefully -- the censors are watching.

Users of the MSN Spaces section of Microsoft Corp's new China-based Web portal get a scolding each time they input words deemed taboo by the communist authorities -- such as "democracy," "freedom" and "human rights."

"Prohibited language in text, please delete," the message says.

However, the restrictions appear to apply only to the subject line of such entries. Writing them into the text, with a more innocuous subject heading, seems not to be a problem.

Microsoft staff in China could not be reached immediately for comment. However, a spokesman at the tech giant's headquarters in Seattle acknowledged that the company is cooperating with the Chinese government to censor its Chinese-language Web portal.

Microsoft and its Chinese business partner, the government-funded Shanghai Alliance Investment, work with authorities to omit certain forbidden language, said Adam Sohn, a global sales and marketing director for MSN.

But he added, "I don't have access to the list at this point so I can't really comment specifically on what's there."

Online tests found that apart from politically sensitive words, obscenities and sexual references are also banned.

MSN Spaces, which offers free blog space, is connected to Microsoft's MSN China portal. The portal was launched on May 26, and some 5 million blogs have been created since then, Microsoft said.

The Chinese government encourages Internet use for business and education but tries to ban access to material or Web sites deemed subversive.

A search on Google for such topics as Taiwan or Tibetan independence, the banned group Falun Gong, the Dalai Lama or the China Democracy Party inevitably leads to a "site cannot be found" message.

The consequences of defying government limits can be severe: At least 54 people have been jailed for posting essays or other content deemed subversive.

Internet-related companies are obliged to accept such limitations as a condition of doing business in China. And government-installed filtering tools, registration requirements and other surveillance are in place to ensure the rules are enforced.

The government has recently demanded that owners of Web sites register with authorities by June 30 or face fines.

Sohn said heavy government censorship is accepted as part of the regulatory landscape in China, and the world's largest software company believes its services can still foster expression in the country.

"We're in business in lots of countries. I think every time you go into a market you are faced with a different regulatory environment and you have to go make a choice as a business," he said. "Even with the filters, we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships. For us, that is the key point here."

The international media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders has protested the online limits, sending letters to top executives of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and other companies urging them to lobby Beijing for greater freedom of expression.

"In terms of the reality of the situation, those business deals are going to continue as globalization expands," said Tala Dowlatshahi, a spokeswoman for the group. "But we want to make sure that pressure is being put on the companies to pressure the Chinese government to ensure a more democratic process."

HK media urge Beijing to treat reporter fairly

REUTERS, HONG KONG

More than 1,000 journalists and university alumni in Hong Kong urged the Chinese government yesterday for fair and open treatment of Ching Cheong, a reporter detained by Beijing and accused of spying.

In two full-page advertisements in the Ming Pao newspaper, the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and alumni of the University of Hong Kong urged Beijing to treat him fairly.

Ching, a Hong Kong=based reporter for Singapore’s Straits Times, was detained by security agents in Guangzhou on April 22 and is being held under house arrest in Beijing. But his plight only came to light after his wife informed the media last month.

After accusing Ching of spying for unnamed foreign intelligence agencies on June 1, Chinese authorities have given no other official word on his case.

His detention has sparked fears that Beijing is tightening its noose over press freedom in Hong Kong.

Supported by signatures of over 00 present and former members of the media, the HKJA said it found it difficult to accept how such accusations could be leveled against Ching without authorities showing any evidence.

“There are many grey areas in the country’s security laws. Reporters could easily step on landmines by mistake and [these grey areas] could be easily abused by authorities,” the HKJA said.

It also urged Chinese authorities to allow Ching, 55, to exercise his right to legal aid.

About 300 alumni of the University of Hong Kong, where Ching studied, appealed to Chinese President Hu Jintao in a separate full-page advertisement to take into consideration Ching’s patriotism when handling his case.

If charged and convicted, Ching could face the death penalty.

Ching’s detention has drawn heavy criticism from the US and media groups around the world.

There's more to tourism than cash

During Monday evening's meeting with members of Taiwan's business community based in China, Premier Frank Hsieh called upon the Mainland Affairs Council and other organizations to agree to reciprocal, non-stop chartered cargo flights with China, the direct sale of Taiwanese agricultural produce there and the relaxing of restrictions on Chinese tourists.

Contact with China is of course beneficial, especially in the economic sense. But the key issue here is that China is a country with a planned economy. Its private sector can be manipulated by the government. Moreover, policy decisions often depend on the whim of officials. This makes the risks very significant.

If Beijing follows through with its offer to allow Taiwanese produce to be sold in China, and lets tourists come to Taiwan, there will be big profits for certain industries. It is highly likely that costly investment in the agricultural and tourism industries will grow to meet increased demand.

But if Beijing decides to reverse this policy, the investment, which usually takes many years to have proper returns, will be threatened, and pressure will be placed on the government to bow to whatever conditions Beijing cares to impose. Beijing intends to use the private sector to pressure the government and the government must be prepared for this.

On the other hand, according to a report published by Japan's Ministry of Land and Transportation last week, 44 Chinese visitors went missing between January and last month, an increase of 57 percent from the same period last year. Since the Japanese government allowed Chinese tourist groups to enter Japan in 2000, the number of tourists overstaying visas reached 362. Some Chinese arrive in Singapore with fake papers to gain admission to local schools, after which they engage in activities such as prostitution or swindling senior citizens. China-friendly nations such as France and Australia are also faced with similar problems.

Although being open to China can generate tourism revenue, these countries have also paid a high price in other ways. Is this a burden that Taiwan wants to assume?

Given the international reports of fake marriages, illegal immigration, prostitution, illegal labor and even intelligence-gathering, and bearing in mind the disappearances of Chinese tourist groups in July and August last year, Hsieh must give this issue serious consideration. Aren't there enough illegal immigrants locked up in Taiwan's detention centers?

The Cabinet should spare the public any more nonsense about how the government will regulate and guarantee an effective management policy, because the solution to many of these issues depends on Beijing, not Taipei. This fact alone does not bode well for increased contact.

The Cabinet needs to offer the public a very clear explanation of how it will handle the effects of deregulating cross-strait contact, so that these policies and their probable consequences can be reviewed and challenged by the public.

This may be the only way to form a policy with a high degree of public agreement. This is important if the public is going to bear the consequences of such actions.

Kissinger rewrites US policy

Readers might find former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's op-ed piece in the Washington Post of interest ("China: Containment Won't Work," June 13).

I will leave it to others to comment on Kissinger's prescriptions for US policy on China, which aim to "witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress."

And as for his statement that, "The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years," we might want to ask the Tibetans and Uighurs about that -- to mention only two peoples within China's present territory.

But I am more concerned with Kissinger's statement that, "Despite substantial US arms sales to Taiwan, Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles: American recognition of the one-China principle and opposition to an independent Taiwan; China's understanding that the United States requires the solution to be peaceful and is prepared to vindicate that principle; restraint by all parties in not exacerbating tensions in the Taiwan Strait."

Surely you jest, Mr. Kissinger.

You were there at its creation, so you know full well that the Shanghai Communique never said that the US "recognizes" Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. "Acknowledges" is the word that was used, and with clear intent to show that the US knew this was Beijing's position but that the US did not ratify this position. Testimony in hearings before Congress by numerous State Department officials over the years have underscored this point.

I believe that anyone reading the Kissinger article would come away with the clear idea that the US recognizes Beijing's claim to Taiwan as part of China. But this is simply not so.

Kissinger also claims that Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles, one of which is US recognition of the "one China" principle.

Maybe Kissinger & Associates deals with its China business interests based on this principle. But the US government does not.

In hearings before Congress, the Bush administration has been clear about the fact that the US has a "one China" policy and that this is distinct from China's "one China" principle. The US "one China" policy recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and states that any resolution of the Taiwan question must be resolved peacefully, by mutual agreement and, because Taiwan is a democracy, with the consent of the people of Taiwan.

The US is agnostic on the sovereignty question, deeming it to be unresolved. The "one China" principle is China's formulation and reflects the earlier statement by Kissinger of "recognition" of the Chinese claim that Taiwan is part of China.

US President George W. Bush may have said in private conversations with Chinese officials that he opposes Taiwan's independence. The Chinese press has certainly reported this as if it were fact. But the State Department has adamantly said that the US position on this issue has not changed, namely that the US does not support Taiwan's independence.

Read the Kissinger transcripts of his conversations with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong in 1971 and you will see that Kissinger dearly wanted to close a deal, and was willing to give private assurances to the Chinese leaders about Taiwan that went far beyond the text of the communique.

But private assurances are not policy, and Kissinger's attempt to rewrite US policy in his opinion piece does nothing to enhance the peaceful resolution of cross-strait tension.

Michael Fonte

Democratic Progressive Party liaison in Washington