Inner Mongolia Press and Publication Bureau Suspends China Business Post

The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Press and Publication Bureau (Inner Mongolia PPB) ordered the China Business Post (Caijing Shibao) on September 8 to suspend publication for three months after the financial newspaper published a July 11 report (reprinted in Sina.com) critical of the Agricultural Bank of China, according to a September 25 South China Morning Post (SCMP) article (subscription required). The newspaper has halted publication in protest of the suspension, and the author of the report has filed a lawsuit against the Inner Mongolia PPB, which issued the paper's license, according to an October 30 SCMP article (subscription required).

The July 11 report alleged, among other things, that the bank's branch in Changde city, Hunan province, had transferred bad assets to another company for a fraction of their value using forged government documents. The bank denied the allegations, according to a July 16 International Finance News report (reprinted in Xinhua). The China Business Post responded with a statement, reprinted in Sohu.com on September 27, saying that four sources at the bank had confirmed the report's facts.

The China Business Post issued a September 25 statement on its Web site saying "higher-level officials" punished the paper for violating:

• "standard reporting procedures that must be followed for news reporting"
• "the requirement that significant and sensitive news stories must be verified with the party being reported on before publication"
• a ban on "extra-territorial reporting," the practice of a newspaper from one area publishing critical investigative reports about another area, on matters that officials in the investigated area are preventing their local news media from reporting. (Some Chinese media have engaged in extra-territorial reporting as a way to issue more critical reports, but in recent years Communist Party officials have sought to clamp down on this practice.)

The suspension order said that by violating such restrictions, the report, which was published as the bank was preparing for a public stock offering, was "inappropriate" and had an "adverse influence," according to the September 25 SCMP article.

According to the SCMP article, the suspension order also cited previous China Business Post articles, some published more than five years ago, as reasons for the suspension. These included:

• a June 2003 article (reprinted in Boxun) about the noted economist Wu Jinglian's support for Jiang Yanyong, the doctor who publicized the coverup of the SARS epidemic; and
• a June 2003 article (reprinted in Finance World) on Shanghai tycoon Zhou Zhengyi's financial and legal difficulties.

Cui Fan, the author of the July 11 report, filed a lawsuit against the Inner Mongolia PPB on October 29, according to a November 4 Associated Press (AP) article (reprinted in Yahoo!). According to a purported copy of Cui's complaint posted on Legal Advisor Net, Cui filed the suit with the Xincheng District People's Court in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region capital of Hohhot. As reported in the AP and the October 30 SCMP articles, the lawsuit alleges that the Inner Mongolia PPB defamed Cui and lacked the authority to suspend the publication. According to the copy of the complaint, the lawsuit also alleges that the Inner Mongolia PPB failed to follow the Administrative Punishment Law's provisions requiring the bureau to:

• provide the newspaper with prior notice of the "facts, grounds, and basis" of the penalty and an opportunity to defend itself (Arts. 31, 32). The lawsuit alleges that the bureau did not notify the newspaper of the facts, grounds, and basis for the penalty or afford it the right to defend itself and state its case.
• conduct a "comprehensive, objective, and fair" investigation including the collection of evidence (Art. 36). The lawsuit alleges that the bureau never investigated Cui or approached her for evidence that would help determine the truthfulness of the article.
• notify the newspaper of its right to request a hearing (Art. 42). The lawsuit alleges this did not occur.

Article 3 of the Administrative Punishment Law provides that an "administrative penalty that is not imposed in accordance with law or in compliance with legal procedures shall be invalid."

The lawsuit demands revocation of the suspension, an apology from the Inner Mongolia PPB, and one yuan in monetary damages. A court official surnamed Li told AP, "Right now, it is roughly decided that the case will not be placed on file." Asia Times issued a report about the case on November 19 which did not indicate whether the court had accepted the case. Under Article 112 of China's Civil Procedure Law, a court must decide whether to accept and hear a case within seven days of a lawsuit being filed.

Lawsuits challenging China's media censorship are rare. Cui's lawyer told AP, "No one before has questioned the administrative legality of the press and publications management." A Reporters Without Borders spokesperson said the organization was not aware of any similar lawsuit filed by a Chinese newspaper in the past, AP reported. An official at the Inner Mongolia PPB told SCMP that any lawsuit brought by Cui should be directed against the national press and publication bureau instead of the Inner Mongolia PPB because the decision to suspend the paper came from higher-level officials. Chinese citizens have attempted to sue the national-level General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) in the past, with little success. After GAPP reportedly ordered eight books banned in January 2007, one of the book's authors filed a lawsuit to overturn the ban. Both the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court and Beijing High People's Court refused to hear the case. [For more information on the ban, see "Censoring Publications" in Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's 2007 Annual Report.]

China's restrictions on the media continue to prevent or delay publication of stories officials perceive to be negative. According to a September 29 Chinese Human Rights Defenders report, a news story about milk tainted with melamine was not published in July because of a ban on "negative" news stories before the start of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games. In September, Party propaganda officials ordered major financial Web sites not to publish "negative" reports regarding China's stock markets amid an economic downturn, according to a September 10 SCMP article (subscription required).

For more information on how the government and Party censor China's media, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the CECC's 2008 Annual Report.