As you can imagine, I was almost constantly torn by two competing desires during the campaign. On one hand, my desire to join in the fray was very strong because I felt my long journey was finally about to come to an end and justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself would finally be done. Specifically, I wanted to achieve a number of objectives with varying degrees of importance to me, such as (I did not have such a list on paper at the time, but they should be all somewhere in my mind.):
- Martin Liberals should be punished in the polls for the murder cover-up.
- Bush administration’s role in the murder cover-up and the utter deceitful campaign rhetoric by Paul Martin and David Wilkins should be exposed.
- Criminals should be brought to justice. In particular, there were, I believe, more than one suspects involved in Cecilia Zhang crime.
- Underlying issues should be discussed.
- I should get compensated and get my life back.
On the other hand, I also saw that both United States and Chinese governments were eager to battle it out over my story in the context of Canadian election. My instinct to de-escalate conflicts told me that I should keep one side away because, as a Chinese saying goes, one hand cannot clap. I could not do much about the Americans, so my only choice was to keep the Chinese from making any news during the election period. Waiting and seeing in the first couple of weeks, I gradually arrived at my decision of “limited participation” aimed toward the end of the campaign period as I figured my story would have a lesser chance of developing into a full-blown spat between U.S. and China during Canadian election.
My other two considerations against participating in the campaign were (1) the appearance of a conflict of interest; (2) my legal situation.
The appearance of a conflict-of-interest
As I wrote in the background section, Martin and Bush were on the same (wrong) side of the lineup around the issues of my story, while the Chinese government was on the right side. Still, I was surprised to see the apparent eagerness of Paul Martin to draw the Chinese government into the fray at the beginning of the election campaign. What’s more, Bush administration appeared to be ready to take on the Chinese government too, as reflected in Rice’s repeated emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in her article.
I dismissed Martin’s apparent eagerness (and Bush administration’s readiness) to bring China into the election as Martin Liberals’ campaign ploy. Indeed, I could imagine that China would become another punch bag for Paul Martin in that scenario. And if the campaign were to turn into an international spat, or, a “phony war”, between United States and China, the spat would necessarily take voters’ attention away from the real issues that mattered to them, i.e., Martin Liberals’ shameful record in Cecilia Zhang crime. At the same time, Martin could don the role of an international statesman because political theaters were his strength. (But remember, it was Paul Martin himself who made my story international by seeking help from Bush administration to prop himself up in the first place.) Finally, the deterioration of Canada-U.S. relations – real or not – could be blamed on me or China.
As for Rice’s implied suggestion that I was doing China’s bidding, my conclusion was that although there was not much substance in it, there was nevertheless an appearance of a conflict of interest on my part. The little “substance” they had against me appeared to have come from two sources: (1) Chinese government was very likely backing me; and (2) I wrote in late September a Chinese article Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. But to me, the appearance of a conflict of interest came about fundamentally because I wanted to be honest about my affection for China if it were to become an issue. (And it looked like it would become an issue if I joined the campaign fray.)
In my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself, I had always viewed myself as an immigrant trying to right a wrong. (I still do.) Canada’s interest was first and foremost in my mind. (It still is.) Actually, China never entered my mind until last summer. In fact, because of the verbal threat by Li Peng’s son, I had been afraid of going back to China for quite some time. (Note that only a month after my sister and her family landed in Canada I was harassed by New Westminster police. The defendants, in particular, Matthew Li, had to put pressure on me here in Canada once they realized that they could not easily carry out their threat – delivered by Li Peng’s son - against me or my family in China.)
When I realized Chinese government was backing me last summer, my feeling was mixed. On one hand, I was of course glad because I desperately needed support, even just moral support. On the other hand, I knew Chinese government’s backing of me was mostly based on a desire in my service and I had no interest in a career in politics. (I still don’t.)
Bush and Martin governments knew that Chinese government was backing me and at times sending me messages through Li Yang’s articles. They then suggested that I would do Chinese government’s bidding. It’s obviously that there was a gap in that reasoning. I did not point out their flawed reasoning until the rising tension across Taiwan Strait and the looming prospect of a real conflict because of legal considerations, which I will get to later in this section.
As for Rice’s suggestion that national interests were at play in this Canadian election, my interpretation was that Bush administration was trying to change the subject, from a political scandal of a murder cover-up by themselves to the grand topic of national interests. To me, Rice’s suggestion might not be as idiotic as Martin’s accusation that I – who else could it be? – would “split up” Pacific Gateway from the rest of Canada, it still was quite unsubstantiated.
Judging from the words of Paul Martin, Matthew Li and the mysterious figure “No.7” as I described in Chapter 5 of my previous report, the little evidence – or, 把柄, to use Matthew Li’s words – Bush and Martin government had against me seemed to have come from the Chinese article I published in late September, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. So let’s examine this article carefully as I had done many times myself.
I started writing that article in mid-September, after my email to the New York Times reporter did not solicit any response. As I mentioned before, my primary objective of writing this Chinese article was to try to establish some credibility for myself in the overseas Chinese community as I felt there was not much chance for my story to get onto the mainstream media directly. Actually, I had at least half a dozen potential topics in mind (or as computer notes). It’s just that I wrote too slowly that I only ended up with one and a half finished articles before the election campaign started.
Bush administration and Martin government knew my real purpose. As I noted in my previous report, the first time Mr. Matthew Li called in the interactive talk show on Channel-M in Vancouver in October, he bragged about his access to the Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in an apparent attempt to sound more credible and respectable in the Chinese community than me.
My article was about media bias, a topic I felt pretty heavy about. (Imagine if the media were truly free and unbiased, I would have been in the news in summer 2004!) In it, I guess I revealed two things that were “offensive” to Bush and Martin people. One was that I appeared to be rooting for the Conservatives. That was pretty serious because, to them, it was “oxymoronic” for me to do that. But I guess my real “crime” was that I was positive towards the idea of increased trade and better relations between Canada and Asian countries. (But as immigrants from these countries, who wouldn’t?) And that became their so-called 把柄 against me. They then extrapolated it to the limit and essentially accused me of either doing China’s bidding or splitting-up Canada. This is just, well, too far-fetched.
However, with Martin Liberals’ inflammatory campaign rhetoric, I could conceivably be asked to confirm my affections towards China. Therefore, although I could honestly say that there was no conflict of interest on my part if I joined in the campaign, I had to conclude that there was an appearance of it.
Legal considerations
My attempting to get on the news by climbing the Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government. The major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity.
The idea of climbing the bridge came from a Caucasian, who, I believe, has absolutely no connection to China. This person gave me the idea – solicited, I might add – on at least two occasions and during one of which there were at least two other witnesses.
The first time I got the idea from that person was, I believe, in September. If I had been doing the bidding for the Chinese government, I would have done it much sooner than October 31 because, as I said, from reading Li Yang’s articles, my feeling was that the Chinese government had wanted to see my story break as soon as possible.
October 31 was one of the last few days when I could do it without causing an “unwanted” winter election for Canadian public. It was very unfortunate that the police at the scene locked down my cell phone during my protest because I had established communication with a news outlet at one time. – If my story had broke before the election was called, there would not be an appearance of conflict of interest problem surfacing during the campaign. (But what more could I have done to get on the news? Haven’t I protested and fasted in minus 20 temperatures on the Hill? Haven’t I written (too) enough so that people could find a couple of 把柄 in my writings? )
