Chinascope – Page 315

Virus Origin: Beijing Stressed Bio Lab Safety in December 2019 and January 2020

In December 2019 and January 2020, Epoch Times obtained multiple official documents from Beijing City and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (AR), regarding the management of bio labs.

1. December 31, 2019: The Inner Mongolia Health Commission issued the “Emergency Notice from the Inner Mongolia AR Health Commission on Effectively Strengthening the Biosafety Management of Pathogenic Microbiology Laboratories on Human Infectious Diseases.” The notice was marked “Urgent.” The notice stated that the health administrative departments and relevant units at all levels should take it as a “political positioning” issue. The health administrative departments at all levels should conduct early detection, immediate verification, prompt reporting, and proper handling of possible emergencies. The notice asked subordinate health commissions to register the first and second classes of pathogenic microbiology laboratories and conduct regular systematic reviews of those labs.

2. January 3, 2020: The General Office of the National Health Commission issued a not-to-release-to-public “Notice of the General Office of the National Health Commission on Strengthening the Management of Biological Sample Resources and Related Research Activities in the Prevention and Control of Major Emergent Infectious Diseases.” In this notice, “biological samples” was defined as blood, pharyngeal swabs, sputum, tracheal aspiration or bronchial lavage fluid, urine, and feces of patients, suspected patients, and their close contacts. The notice prohibits all institutions and individuals from publishing information about pathogen detection and experimental activities on their own.

3. January 14, 2020: The Health Commission of the Changping District, Beijing issued a not-to-release-to-public “Notice on Conducting Special Supervision and Inspection of Pathogen Microbiology Laboratories.” The notice requires good handling in the collection, transportation, use, and scientific research management of biological sample resources. It asked the first, second, and third classes of biosafety laboratories to conduct self-inspection on January 15 and 16. Another document, “Changping District Pathogen Microbiology Laboratory Biosafety Supervision Checklist” provides a set of procedures for the reception and storage of viruses.

4. January 16, 2020: The Scientific Discipline Education Division of the Beijing Hospital Management Center issued the “Emergency Notice on the Mutual Inspection of Laboratory Biosafety in Municipal Hospitals.” The notice said that the Beijing Hospital Management Center would organize a mutual biosafety inspection of 22 hospital laboratories in the city from January 17 to 21.

5. January 16, 2020: The Science and Technology Education Department of the Beijing Health Commission issued the “Notice of the Beijing Health Commission on Holding Laboratory Biosafety Training.”

6. January 16, 2020: The National Health Commission issued the “Notice of the General Office of the National Health Commission on Printing and Distributing Biosafety Guidelines for Novel Coronavirus Laboratories.” The notice was marked “urgent” and “not to be released to the public.” It emphasized “for internal use only and not allowed to be spread on the Internet.” The notice provided detailed regulations on how to extract nucleic acids from viral cultures, conduct animal infection experiments, and handle uncultivated infectious materials.

7. February 14, 2020: At a meeting of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Xi Jinping mentioned “Biosecurity” five times and asked “to incorporate biosecurity into the national security system and to publish the ‘Biosecurity Law’ as soon as possible.”

8. From April 26 to 29, 2020: The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress discussed “The Draft of the Biosecurity Law.”

Virus Origin: China Sent Confusing Messages on Investigation of Virus Origin in China

The U.S., the European Union, and Australia are demanding an investigation into how the coronavirus started in Wuhan. In the past, China has refused the request. However, on May 6, Chinese officials sent different messages on whether Beijing would offer to cooperate with such an investigation.

#1: At the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Press Conference on May 6, when asked when China would invite the World Health Organization (WHO) to conduct such an investigation, Hua Chunying stated, “Regarding this kind of scientific investigation and study, we, of course, hold an open attitude and are willing to continue close cooperation with the WHO… We are willing to, in addition, work with the international community on fighting the pandemic, and support the review and summarization of the pandemic situation at an appropriate time…”

Hua also criticized the U.S. for presuming China was guilty and using the investigation to play political games. (China’s Foreign Ministry Website)

#2: Chen Xu, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said on May 6 that, as long as the coronavirus is spreading and as long as the U.S. is still accusing Beijing, China will reject any international scientists’ requests to investigate the origin of the virus. When asked when China will invite the WHO to conduct an investigation, Chen said, “We cannot tolerate the free spread of such a ‘political virus’ (referring to the U.S. stating the virus came from the Wuhan Lab of Virology).” As for the invitation to the WHO, Chen said that, on one hand, Beijing must decide what the high priority (items) are and, on the other hand, Beijing needs a good environment. (Radio France International)

WeChat Users outside China Are under Political Surveillance

Evidence shows that communications among users with WeChat accounts registered outside China are under political surveillance. Moreover, according to a Citizen Lab report published on May 7, 2020, they are also being used to train the algorithms WeChat uses to censor and monitor China-registered users.

WeChat is a communication application released by China’s Tencent in 2011. It is used by more than 1 billion people worldwide, and ranks the third-largest in the world, after Whatsapp and Facebook.

As with all social media in China, WeChat actively censors on its platform, including around politically sensitive topics and discussions related to the coronavirus pandemic. The censorship of users appears to be for accounts registered to mainland China’s phone numbers.

WeChat is required by law to share user data with the State government. Tests at the Citizen Lab showed that, for the first time, communications among non-mainland-China users are subject to surveillance.

Further, it has been demonstrated that such communications are also being used to train the algorithms WeChat uses to censor and monitor China-registered users. After documents and images containing politically sensitive content were sent solely among non-China-registered accounts, it was observed that, shortly thereafter, those files were censored for China-registered users.

Source: Radio Free Asia, May 7, 2020
https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/meiti/jt-05072020101223.html

Briefings | | May 10, 2020 | Government/Politics Information/Technology

Connected to the CCP: Australian Billionaire Lost 900 Million Dollars for Supporting the CCP

Forbes reported that Australian Billionaire Andrew Forrest openly supported the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the coronavirus period and, as a result, saw his fortune shrink by close to $900 million.

During the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. and Australian governments demanded an investigation into how the virus started in Wuhan. However, Forrest defended China’s alleged role in concealing the possible cause of the virus outbreak.

Even the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, said Forrest’s comments about the virus possibly originating outside China were nonsense. Morrison said, “I don’t think anybody is in any fantasyland about where it started. It started in China.”

Forrest also invited the Chinese consul-general in the State of Victoria, Long Zhou, to speak at a media conference organized by the Australian Health Minister, Greg Hunt. The Australian, a national morning newspaper, published a critical editorial on Long Zhou’s gate-crashing the Minister’s event at Forrest’s invitation. It stated, “Business must not dictate the nation’s foreign policy.”

A prominent radio talk show host, Alan Jones, described Forrest as a “Beijing propaganda sock puppet.”

Forrest’s wealth, estimated by Forbes at $8.8 billion, is based largely on a 30 percent stake in the iron ore mining company, Fortescue Metals, which sells most of its ore to Chinese steel mills.

The effect on the stock market of Forrest’s championing the CCP was severe. On May 4, while most mining companies suffered a price correction with leaders such as BHP and Rio Tinto down about 7 percent from their highs on April 30, Fortescue Metals fell 12 percent, resulting in Forrest losing about $900 million in his stake.

International Journal Retracted 30+ Academic Papers from China

In April, a journal under the international academic publisher Springer retracted 33 papers from China all at once. With eight papers withdrawn earlier in the past two years, the total number arrived at 41. The authors of 39 papers came from China.

The mainland Chinese media The Paper, Multimedia Tools and Applications is the journal that issued the decision. The incident involved dozens of Chinese universities, state entities and companies, including Zhejiang University, the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Wuhan University of Science and Technology, and China Jiliang University. Many papers had received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The top three institutions in terms of the number of papers retracted were Zhejiang Electric Power Company under the State Grid, the School of Electrical and Optoelectronic Engineering at the Changzhou Institute of Technology, and Hefei University of Technology. One corresponding author from the Changzhou Institute of Technology had seven papers retracted. State Grid and Hefei University of Technology each had a corresponding author with four papers retracted.

Reasons for withdrawal included plagiarism of unpublished manuscripts, attempts to subvert the peer review process, content plagiarism, and improper copying of images without permission. More than half of the authors agreed to withdraw.

This is not the first incident of collective withdrawals involving Chinese scholars. In August 2015, Springer withdrew 64 papers published in its 10 academic journals, most of which were from China. In April 2017, Springer’s Tumor Biology journal withdrew 107 papers that were from Chinese scholars, all at one time, because of peer review fraud. It was hailed as a major earthquake in Chinese academic circles.

Source: Central News Agency, May 7, 2020
https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202005070283.aspx

Briefings | | May 10, 2020 | Information/Technology

China’s Thousand Talents Plan Goes Low Profile

The Thousand Talents Plan (TTP), once a high-profile Chinese government project to attract overseas talent, is now on total radio silence. Ever since the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started to pursue the scholars involved in TTP, Chinese authorities have mentioned little of the project in public. It is now even difficult to search relevant information on the Internet.

It was rumored that, as early as late September 2018, the Chinese authorities had ordered the official media to suspend the coverage of TTP. A document circulated on the Internet; the “Thousand Talents Plan Youth Project Review Working Group” authored it. It was affixed with the seal of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, which clearly ordained that “the wording of ‘Thousand Talents Plan’ should not appear in written notifications.”

China’s effort to keep a lid on the project is believed to be a response to the FBI’s probe into the TTP scholars that started in September 2018. The Thousand Talents Plan is a short name for “China’s Overseas High-Level Talent Recruitment Program.” In December 2008, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decided to implement the program. In January 2009, the Talent Work Coordination Group, a task force underneath the CCP’s Central Organization Department, formulated the “Opinions on the Implementation of the Overseas High-level Talent Recruitment Program.” Over the next ten years, about 8,000 overseas experts were hired with high pay, most of them ethnic Chinese.

Searching the characters “千人計畫” (Chinese characters for TTP) on Baidu, China’s largest search engine, turns out very few results. If the search is done using simplified Chinese character, nothing can be found. The keyword is unsearchable on China’s social platforms such as Weibo. It is rumored that, since April this year, China’s cyber police has been filtering the keyword for TTP. However, searching with characters “中國海外高層次人才引進計畫” (Chinese characters for “China’s Overseas High-Level Talent Recruit Program”) will give some information. Sometimes one has to combine different words so as to find piecemeal data.

Source: Central News Agency, May 6, 2020
https://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/202005060336.aspx

Briefings | | May 8, 2020 | US-China Relations

Public Opinion: An Open Letter with Fifteen Questions Challenging the Current Top Leader

After China announced it would hold the National People’s Congress and the National Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in late May, an open letter written in Chinese, addressed to the representatives of the two conferences was widely spread on the Internet. The letter posed 15 questions, mainly against Xi Jinping, though it did not call out his name.

It was said that Deng Pufang, son of China’s former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, wrote this letter. (However, in Chinascope’s view, this is unlikely since, if Deng Pufang indeed wanted to challenge Xi, he could do it in many other ways that demonstrate more political savvy than an open letter that everyone sees.) However, the letter is worth reading as it shows public sentiment against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its leader. The following are the 15 questions:

As representatives of the two conferences, is it more important to protect the interests of our country and people, or to protect the power of a certain authoritarian?
The Constitution clearly stipulates that the representatives of the two conferences have the right to supervise and correct the wrong decisions of CCP Central. However, a few years ago, CCP Central created a “crime of baseless comments” (for someone who criticizes the top leader or CCP Central) and this year it created a “crime of showing no respect.” What is the value of the representatives of the two conferences then?
The authorities want to “settle questions by THE ONE” (this is a phrase that Xi’s supporters use to state following Xi’s direction). Is “THE ONE” an Emperor who inherited his power from his family, or a publicly elected President, or the CCP General Secretary based on all party member’s votes? Since it is none of these, why he is “THE ONE”?
If party member criticizes the mistakes made by the central leaders, they are “making baseless comments.” If the public does that, they are “stirring up the subversion of the government.” To whom does our country belong?
The Wuhan pneumonia has spread to the whole world. Did the central government delay the prevention and control of this virus? Did it hide information from the public? Should we provide an explanation to the world? Who should bear the responsibility for allowing the pandemic to get out of control?
The relations between China and the United States continue to deteriorate. What responsibilities should the top leader bear?
The turmoil in Hong Kong has lasted for almost a year. Who has destroyed Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” structure? What responsibilities should the top leader assume?
The “Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)” irrationally invests money based on the central leaders’ own preferences, without the approval from the National People’s Congress and without consideration for the national economy and people’s livelihood. What kind of behavior is this? Now this program is about to be aborted. Who should bear the responsibility?
Without the approval of the National People’s Congress and without expert’s study, the central leaders decided to invest trillions of yuan to build a Xiong’an New District (next to Beijing) based on a few people’s suggestions. Now that the project has been aborted, who should bear the responsibility?
Why did Taiwan drift away from the mainland? What responsibility should the central leaders assume?
A large number of foreign companies have withdrawn from China, a large number of Chinese private enterprises have closed down, and a large number of workers have lost their jobs. Does this have anything to do with the central leaders’ wrong decision? If so, who should bear the responsibility?
What kind of behavior is it for the current top leader to use his power to amend the Constitution by removing the limit that a person can only serve the top leader position for at most two terms? If anyone with power can create law on his own, what is the use of the national Constitution?
CCP Central has decided to re-adopt the planned economy model that the world has long abandoned. Is this decision coming from the consideration of strengthening someone’s personal power or of the interests of the country and the people?
In recent years, China’s international image has plummeted and national credit has been totally lost. Who should bear this responsibility?
In order to prevent the retired senior comrades from proposing a collective motion to call for an expanded CCP Politburo meeting, the CCP Central sent military police to provide “special protection” to retired senior comrades and current high-ranking officials of the party, government, and military. The “special protection” is actually to restrict their communications, freedom of movement, and guest visits. What kind of behavior is this? Who gave him this power? (See Chinascope posting: Leadership: The Widespread of a WeChat Posting Calling for Politburo Meeting to Remove Xi Jinping and Leadership: Fu Zhenghua Removed from the Deputy Party Secretary Position of the Ministry of Justice)

Beijing Forces Hong Kong and Taiwan Entertainers to Hold Correct Political Views in Order to Work on the Mainland

Beijing has once again tightened its ideological control over the film and television circles in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Recently, it has been reported that the China Film Administration, the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and other movie and television authorities have verbally ordered major film and television companies, including Tencent, iQiyi and other audio-visual companies, to try not to use those Hong Kong or Taiwanese entertainers or behind-the-scenes personnel who have an unknown political view. For those who are hired, they must sign a statement claiming that they will hold the correct political views for the next 10 years, which means that they must show they are patriotic towards the mainland and the party with their word and actions. Otherwise they must be responsible for the financial loss if they are banned from performing because of their political views.

People in Taiwan’s film and television industry have determined that it is likely that the film and television industry is actively cooperating with the party’s political censorship. It is too early to know how the policy will be carried out, but it may put pressure on those celebrities who have depended on the mainland market for a long period of time. If forced to make a political statement, they could become a puppet for the CCP’s propaganda which suppresses personal conscience and freedom of speech.

Taiwan ’s Mainland Affairs Council called on Beijing to respect creative freedom, and not impose the party’s motivation on performing arts and cultural works. The Taiwan Ministry of Culture pointed out that China’s political review system runs against the universal values of respecting freedom of artistic expression and also suppresses creative content, which the world will not accept.

The CCP mouthpiece Global Time reported that the spokesperson for the China State Taiwan Affairs Office had previously clarified that the 10-year political review order was “pure fabrication,” but she also pointed out that China “does not allow a few people to make money on the mainland while supporting the separatist activities of Taiwan independence and it does not want cross-strait exchanges in the movie and film industry be tainted by Taiwan independence forces.”

Source: Voice of America, May 6, 2020
https://www.voachinese.com/a/beijing-tightens-thoughts-control-20200506/5407959.html

Briefings | | May 7, 2020 | Geo-Strategic Trend

Wu Guoguang: Xi Jinping’s Reversal of the Course, Will China’s Transition be Peaceful or Marked with Bloodshed?

Cheng Xiaonong: U.S.-China Strategic Relations Have Crystallized

Xinhua Commentaries: “Exposing the Three Major Political Deficits of the U.S.”

The CCP’s Performing Arts Troupes in the U.S.

WeChat Users outside China Are under Political Surveillance

International Journal Retracted 30+ Academic Papers from China

China’s Thousand Talents Plan Goes Low Profile

Beijing Forces Hong Kong and Taiwan Entertainers to Hold Correct Political Views in Order to Work on the Mainland

Articles

Topics