Publicity, dishonesty, misleading information and truth

Comments on David Hamilton’s comments on my comments, 30/03/2010, see http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/28/the-chinese-legal-system-and-the-stern-hu-case/

Your suspicion is noticed.

There is no question that the Chinese legal system is different from that in Australia, and what is available in Australia may not always be available in China involving a legal case.

But, have a look at what has been happening in Australia involving this case. Some of Australian media reports or comments have just been incredible!

For example, even after the admission of receiving bribery by those involved, some media were still talking about they don't know whether it was under duress or forced admission.

Tell me if you can please, how do those people on earth know every detail of every case in the world? Why didn't they contact the Australian consular in Shanghai for that matter or for a bit of clarification?

Of course, there will be no one to sue them for defamation - they are free to say whatever they wish, that is what their freedom is about!

Now in terms of your specific point. If the Chinese legal system handles confidential matters in closed fashion if a party to it asks for that, then regrettably one has to accept that is still the case in China. There is no point to score some points either politically or audience purpose, even by misleading methods or information. In this case, at least the bribery part of the court hearing was open. What does that mean? Does it mean "no way of assessing whether the trial was conducted fairly or impartially"? Is that statement right?

There was clearly something, as opposed to nothing, to use to assess, even though it is incomplete. Why ignore that part and state something that is obviously wrong?

Give me a break!