OPINION> EDITORIALS
Who is lying?
(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-10-22 08:47

Drivers say they were set up by "baits" employed by traffic control authorities in a district of Shanghai - they reportedly picked up passengers who used pitiable excuses to ask for a lift, and were caught "on the spot" when the passenger offered to pay for the favor, and ended up being fined up to 20,000 yuan ($2,940).

The traffic authorities have already responded, claiming that their officers had everything done perfectly according to the book. They clarified that no such thing as "baits" were used in their campaign against illicit business operations by unlicensed drivers.

One thing is certain now - one party is lying. Who is it?

To prove their innocence, some of the allegedly "baited" drivers sued. In a new heart-wrenching case, a disgruntled youth reportedly even cut off part of his finger to have his grievance known. The Shanghai traffic authorities, on the other hand, said their conclusion has the support of a "thorough official probe".

We all know there are "black cabs," or unlicensed vehicles doing taxi services. And few of us are against the authorities' endeavor to regulate the passenger transport market, for our safety and fair competition's sake. Yet public responses appear to be unanimously against the traffic authorities in Shanghai, even after their clarification.

This is not surprising. Not that our public has grown so cynical that some people often believe the very opposite of what officials say. But this is having an interested party proving its own innocence. The statement by the traffic authorities, instead of repairing their tarnished image, implicates them deeper in a credibility crisis.

We are not crying wolf. The crisis is clear and present in the face of the local law enforcement. In particular because more and more self-proclaimed victims are telling stories of being framed by what are suspected to be "baits" hired by the traffic authorities. And the stories are strikingly similar. Rumors have it that they even have criteria for qualified "baits."

While denying that such entrapment schemes were plotted and executed, local officials did acknowledge that they pay informants. Then the only other sensible explanation for the suspected "baits" is that the incentives inspired a special group profiting from such tricks. In either case, the local authorities have something to reflect upon.

In either case, the first step is to present a true picture of what had happened. The traffic authorities may know better than any other party about the truth. Not that we do not trust them. For the verdict to be fair and credible, however, we believe it would be more desirable for this to be done by a disinterested third party.

And even for its suspected involvement with official misconduct, it must be done. And, done in a truly thorough manner.

(China Daily 10/22/2009 page8)