JPMorgan's Dimon Regrets Joking about CPC

Last week Dimon boasted JPMorgan would outlast the CPC 

There are jokes going around on social media about how the JPMorgan corporate communications department is now facing its biggest crisis management yet -- their CEO Jamie Dimon boasting that the investment bank will outlast the Chinese Communist Party.

He made the remarks on Tuesday this week at a Boston college series of CEO interviews.

"I made a joke the other day that the Communist Party is celebrating its 100th year -- so it JPMorgan. I'd make a bet that we last longer. 

Dimon visited Hong Kong quarantine free

"I can't say that in China. They are probably listening anyway," he added.

Can someone say oops to the infinitesimal degree?

Dimon said this while the Wall Street bank won regulatory approval in August to become the first full foreign owner of a securities brokerage in the country. 

The next day he quickly apologised in a statement: "I regret and should not have made that comment. I was trying to emphasise the strength and longevity of our company."

Uh huh.

And to further drive the message home, in another statement added: "It's never right to joke about or denigrate any group of people, whether it's a country, its leadership, or any part of a society and culture. Speaking in that way can take away from constructive and thoughtful dialogue in society, which is needed now more than ever."

On social media, the Twitterverse wondered how much Dimon would grovel for forgiveness from the Chinese, or that JPMorgan bankers could finally quit their jobs and set up that boutique hotel they'd always been dreaming about.

Hu says CPC far more successful than JPMorgan

As expected the Chinese were not impressed.

When asked about Dimon's comments in a news conference, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian replied: "Why the publicity stunt with some grandstanding remarks?"

Hu Xijin, chief editor of the Global Times tweeted: "You don't have to regret actually. The CPC has succeeded in its sphere far more than JPMorgan's. As a member of the CPC, I don't mind your company riding the wave of CPC's popularity."

Meanwhile Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor must have regretted approving Dimon's quarantine exemption last week when he visited the city for 32 hours via private jet. 

We wait with baited breath on what the fall out will be... 

HK's Press Freedom from Two Sides

The Foreign Correspondents' Club at crosshairs with Beijing

The Foreign Correspondents' Club may be in a perilous position after the Hong Kong office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the association of abandoning its professional ethics and "sowing discord" over the state of press freedom in the city.

The condemnation came after the FCC published a survey of 99 journalists, of which 83 said the working environment for the media had "changed for the worse" since Beijing imposed the national security law in June last year.

Media landscape changed after NSL enacted

More than 90 percent of respondents also had concerns about a looming law against "fake news", which the government wants to introduce to combat doxxing, hate speech and misinformation amid the coronavirus pandemic, and after the anti-government protests in 2019.

"We urge the FCC to stop sowing discord and refrain from interfering with the law-based governance of [the Hong Kong administration] and [the city's] rule of law in the name of press freedom," said the office of the foreign ministry's commissioner in a strongly worded statement.

"The FCC has walked away from its professional ethics. Its misleading report, based on just a few responses, is neither representative nor credible. Its smearing of Hong Kong's press freedom and playing up of the chilling effect are interference in Hong Kong's affairs."

FCC respondents concerned about reporting

However, on the club's website, FCC president Keith Richburg said the club would not respond to the ministry's statement.

The FCC survey found more than four-fifths of respondents had noted the challenges of finding sources willing to be quoted for news stories since the national security law was enacted, with even relatively neutral topics deemed too political by interviewees.

One FCC member said previously sources were more willing to speak on any topic within reason, while publications had no real concerns on what they could publish, or on protecting who would speak to them.

"Now, many people are reluctant or refuse to talk on sensitive subjects, and our organization, especially after the raids on Apple Daily, is much more cautious about data security and the ability to protect sources," the member said.

Apple Daily was forced to close earlier this year

Apple Daily saw its publisher Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and several executives and newsroom editors arrested on security law charges, and was ultimately forced to shut down earlier this year.

Fifty-six percent of survey respondents said they practiced some self-censorship or avoided reporting on what might be considered sensitive stories.

Another member added considering covering the topic of Hong Kong independence had to be carefully considered before covering it in detail.

"These results clearly show that assurances that Hong Kong still enjoys press freedom, guaranteed under the Basic Law, are not enough," Richburg said of the survey before Beijing's rebuke.

"More steps need to be taken to restore confidence among journalists and to make sure Hong Kong maintains its decades-long reputation as a welcoming place for the international media."

Richburg say confidence must be restored

However, the foreign ministry office said the survey's findings had "attacked the national security law", and countered that the legislation had protected the country, restored social stability and given people a greater sense of safety.

"Thanks to the law, Hong Kong could refocus on fighting Covid-19, revitalising the economy and improving people's livelihood," it said.

It should be pointed out that the survey's respondents are mostly expats, though it wouldn't be surprising to find local journalists feel the same, if not even more worried about the effect of the national security law on their reporting.

But the foreign ministry insists everything is fine in Hong Kong, if not better with the national security law, so the FCC perhaps is hoping to resolve the situation by agreeing to disagree. Though one gets the feeling that won't satisfy Beijing...

Foreign Ministry Overwhelmed by Flowers

Meng clutching a giant bouquet after landing in Shenzhen

 

With Huawei Technologies executive Meng Wanzhou given a hero's welcome back to China complete with red carpet, dozens of red roses, an army of drones creating messages in the sky, the highest skyscraper in Shenzhen illuminating messages too, and pretty much everyone excited that their "Huawei princess" was back home.

So the Chinese foreign ministry seemed surprised to be overwhelmed with dozens of bouquets for the businesswoman who was under house arrest for over 1,000 days in Vancouver. 

Foreign ministry says it is "a sea of flowers"

As the ministry thanked people for their flowers that were sent as expressions of national pride and gratitude to the government for securing her release, it asked that people stop sending anymore, as the ministry has become "a sea of flowers".

"We greatly appreciate your kindness. And we sincerely suggest that you stop sending flowers, although you are welcome to continue to leave messages," the ministry said.

Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday her colleagues were deeply touched by the gestures.

"These flowers represent the Chinese people's sincere support and affirmation of the [Communist] Party and the government's ability to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens and enterprises, and reflect the hearts of the Chinese people," she said.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all my friends who care about and support Meng Wanzhou and China's diplomacy."

Hua Chunying asks people to stop sending flowers

Right. Diplomacy. More like hostage diplomacy.

But a good way to soften the image is the flood of flowers at the ministry. 

Glad the florists are doing a roaring business these days in China...

The Two Michaels on Trial

Diplomats from 23 countries came out for Kovrig's trial today

 

This morning was the second of the "Two Michaels" trials -- Canadians Michael Spavor in Dandong in northeastern China, and then today Michael Kovrig in Beijing.

Diplomats from 23 countries came to the courthouse to attend the proceedings -- but were shut out on claims that it is a national security case. Kovrig was formally charged last June for allegedly spying and conspiring with businessman Spavor.

Last Friday diplomats from eight countries tried to attend Spavor's trial but were also denied entry, along with journalists in both cases.

Yang criticized the US during the Alaska talks

Both men have been held practically incommunicado since December 2018 in deplorable conditions and then were suddenly put on trial because officials from the United States were meeting with their Chinese counterparts in Alaska, the first meeting since the start of the Biden administration.

China probably hoped to gain more concessions from the US, but the two-day meeting ended in lots of verbal posturing and not much accomplished. May we add that for all of Director of of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Yang Jiechi's attacks on the US, his daughter Alice graduated from Yale...

But back to the urgent matter at hand.

Marc Garneau, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs said in a statement: "We are deeply troubled by the total lack of transparency surrounding these hearings and we continue to work towards an immediate end to their arbitrary detention.

"The eyes of the world are on these cases and proceedings and I want to thank our international partners for their continued support and solidarity."

Esteemed legal scholar Jerome Cohen wrote about the Spavor trial, saying it would be ridiculed by all democratic nations.

Spavor (right) and Kovrig were suddenly on trial

While questioning why diplomats and reporters were not allowed into the courtroom, and how was the trial conducted, did Spavor have any interpretation access or were there any witnesses called to testify, Cohen asks and adds:

"Is the handling of this case designed to demonstrate that China has stood up to the world judicially in a blatant exercise of a newly empowered 'sovereignty' that rejects conventional contemporary standards? What can its leaders be thinking? Are we back to the days of Chinese-Western conflicts over Imperial China's criminal prosecutions of Western sailors at the end of the 18th century or early 19th century?"

To Cohen the whole affair is terribly archaic.

Spavor's trial ended in less than three hours and no verdict was announced, while Kovrig's spanned the whole day before a verdict would be given at a later date. 

Meanwhile China's Foreign Ministry criticized the gathering of diplomats outside the courthouse. 

"Be it a few or dozens of diplomats trying to gather and exert pressure, it is an interference in China's judicial sovereignty... and not something that a diplomat should do," said foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying.

Guy Saint-Jacques says this is a political case

Former Canadian ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques said he expected the proceedings to be short.

"China does not even try to make this look like a real trial as evidence is not shared with the defence and the judge does not even take the time to review it," he said before Kovrig's hearing. "It just confirms that the process is preordained by the Communist party and this is a political case."

Saint-Jacques seems to be hinting the end result is not going to be good for both Michaels even though they have suffered more than enough already.

We can only hope they still have the will to keep hoping.

 

What Happened to Simon Cheng?

Simon Cheng works at the British Consulate, but went missing on August 8

Hongkongers are reeling after the news yesterday of local man who had disappeared after he crossed the immigration checkpoint at the West Kowloon terminus of the high-speed railway on August 8.

It seemed things were complicated by the fact that Simon Cheng Man-kit was also working at the British consulate in Hong Kong, which led to speculation that the UK was being dragged into a diplomatic spat with China.

Only yesterday did Cheng's family and Taiwanese girlfriend reveal to the media that he had been missing for almost two weeks. The 28-year-old had been traveling to Shenzhen on business and when he arrived at the station, he texted his girlfriend, saying "Passing through [immigration]".

And then she never heard from him again.

This afternoon, the Chinese Foreign Ministry finally confirmed Cheng was being detained in Shenzhen for violating a law.

"My understanding... about this person is that Shenzhen police ordered him to serve 15 days of administrative detention for violating public security management regulations," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, without elaborating further.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang

"I also want to stress that this worker is a Hong Kong citizen -- not a British citizen -- and he is Chinese. And this is entirely an internal matter of China."

This came after the British government sought answers about Cheng, saying it was "extremely concerned by reports that a member of our team has been detained returning to Hong Kong from Shenzhen".

Cheng has worked as the trade and investment officer of Scottish Development International at the British consulate since 2017.

Perhaps because he works at the British consulate, the media were able to get a response from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, because Cheng's family had hired a mainland-based  lawyer who could not find any record of him in any detention centre in Shenzhen or Guangzhou.

The Mainland Port Area is under Chinese jurisdiction

Regardless the case is shocking, as this is exactly the scenario people were worried about regarding China having an area of jurisdiction in the West Kowloon railway station.

Under the so-called co-location arrangement, the zone beyond the Hong Kong immigration checkpoint at the railway station is a mainland port area, where China's national laws are fully applicable.

On August 9 Cheng's girlfriend and his older sister contacted the consulate about him being missing and the consulate told them to file a report to the Hong Kong police and immigration authorities.

The following day the consulate and immigration department separately confirmed to Cheng's family that he was being detained but had no further details. On August 11, a Hong Kong police investigator assigned to the case couldn't get more information either.

To say this is frightening, shocking and terrifying is an understatement. Surely this is going to stop a lot of Hong Kong people from crossing the border into the mainland if they don't need to. International coverage of Cheng's story will not only put pressure on China, but also confirm suspicions the country is opaque in handling cases of a legal nature.

After his 15 days of detention, Cheng may not necessarily be released -- his family has been told a a criminal investigation could be launched.

What did he do wrong? Can someone tell us?

CY Leung won't Let Separatism Disappear

The Foreign Correspondents' Club is located in a heritage building in Central

The separatist group the Hong Kong National Party is getting way more publicity than it deserves, thanks to heavy handedness from the pro-Beijing side.

This time it's former chief executive Leung Chun-ying attacking the Foreign Correspondents' Club for inviting HKNP's co-founder Andy Chan Ho-tin to speak on August 14.

The FCC's poster advertising the talk

At first China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked that the talk be cancelled and the FCC politely said no. This is not unusual -- there have been several instances before when Beijing has asked for other talks to be cancelled because they don't like the speaker, such as former governor Chris Patten. And the FCC has said nicely that it will still go ahead with the talk and then the matter is over.

However, this time Leung has ratcheted it up several notches by demanding the FCC should give up its lease on Ice House Street in a heritage building and bid for the premises in an open market.

Chris Yeung Kin-hing, the chairman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association said: "Leung is essentially asking the FCC to cancel the talk by Chan and stop inviting similar guests in future, or else the lease might not be renewed or even be taken back earlier. That's blatant political pressure."

CY Leung is taking a very harsh stand on the controversy

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) echoed Yeung's statement, describing Leung's remarks as an attempt to "muzzle and publicly threaten an organization that strongly defends the media's role to hear from all areas of society and politics".

"The IFJ strongly urges Leung to retract the open letter and the threats made on the FCC over the right to occupy its current premises," said Jane Worthington, acting director of the IFJ in Asia Pacific.

Yeung also pointed out the FCC's lease was renewed under Leung's term as chief executive, which was last July.

Another former chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, also waded into the fray, saying the proposal to ban the HKNP was "reasonable and rational", as an advocacy of independence is not allowed. 

Tun Chee-hwa says the HKNP should be banned

Current Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has said inviting Chan to speak was "regrettable and inappropriate". Sounds more like a school master reprimanding its wayward students with a light rap on the knuckles.

Chan's talk is entitled "Hong Kong Nationalism: A Politically Incorrect Guide to Hong Kong Under Chinese Rule".

The FCC is still going ahead with the talk as scheduled as it should -- we're supposed to have freedom of speech here. Instead Leung and the pro-Beijing faction are going at it completely the wrong way.

He is giving Chan way more exposure in the media than he really should, and trying to lump in the FCC with him for giving the young man a platform to speak.

What a bizarre (but very mainland Chinese) way to get your point across. With that in mind, who's side are you on?

Appeals for Liu Xia's Freedom are Rejected

Liu Xia and Liu Xiaobo's last days together before he died last July

Liu Xia, wife of the late dissident writer Liu Xiaobo recently revealed she is losing her will to live. It was a plea in the hopes of leaving China, as she is currently under house arrest for a crime she did not commit.

One of Liu Xia's poems that she read in a video

Germany said earlier it would welcome Liu, who suffers from depression and believe to be in declining health, after a recording was released of her crying in desperation and indicating she has given up hope of being able to leave China.

"If I can't leave, I'll die in my home," Liu said during a recent phone call she had with her close friend Liao Yiwu, a writer who recorded their conversation.

In response the other day, over a dozen international writers and artists together with Amnesty International and PEN America have appealed for her release by issuing videos of them reading Liu Xia's poems.

Some of those reading the poem include Rita Dove, JM Coetzee, Paul Auster, and Khaled Hosseini.

However, China rejected this latest plea, saying Liu Xia's right to travel can only be determined by the Chinese government.

"It is a matter that falls within China's judicial sovereignty," Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said on Thursday at a regularly scheduled news conference. "She is a Chinese national [and] we of course handle the relevant issue in accordance with our laws and regulations."

Liu Xia is depressed and does not have the will to live longer

No matter how much attention Liu Xia gets from the outside, China refuses to back down -- it is determined to punish her along with her family for her association with Liu Xiaobo, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison for "inciting subversion of state power" in 2009. Before the Nobel laureate died last July of liver cancer, Liu Xia was only able to see him for a few days.

It is curious why the Chinese government sees Liu Xia as a threat and does everything it can to make her life nothing short of hell -- not being able to receive visitors, not being able to go out without being followed, and tapping her phone calls.

She has no choice but feel like there is no hope left for her except to die and rejoin Liu Xiaobo in another world. Surely Beijing wouldn't want that to happen?

Yellow Umbrella Nobel Nomination

Nathan Law, Joshua Wong and Alex Chow were nominated for the peace prize

Late last night the news broke that 12 US congressmen had nominated Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang and the Umbrella Movement for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is the first time there has been a nominee from Hong Kong.

As expected, Beijing and pro-establishment politicians were up in arms about it.

In a strongly worded statement, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in part: "Hong Kong's affairs are China's affairs, and China firmly objects to anyone intervening through any means.

Marco Rubio is one of the congressmen who nominated Wong

"We would urge the relevant congressmen to stop meddling with Hong Kong's affairs and China's domestic affairs. They should do more things that are conducive to the development of China-US ties, and not the opposite."

It's a reaction that was totally expected, but will this mean repercussions for Hong Kong?

A friend of mine asked me this today when she asked for my thoughts on the Nobel nomination.

Hong Kong would probably not be punished per say -- the activists have already done their jail time and further restricted in what they can do with their lives. No financial institutions want to open bank accounts with them nor employers hire them for jobs so they are pretty much confined in their livelihoods.

Also with Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor at the helm, Beijing has full confidence she has control over the city; protests of that scale will never happen again in the city.

Therefore it's a bit strange that these US congressmen who are critical of China choose to nominate the trio and the Umbrella Movement when it failed to achieve anything in the end. Some may point out things have gotten worse with the further politicization of issues and people. Even the colour yellow has political connotations.

The 2014 Umbrella Movement was unprecedented in its scale

Hong Kong residents didn't get one man, one vote. The government tried to ram electoral reform down their throats but the majority of people didn't buy it.

However a few good things came out of the movement. Young people became less apathetic and more interested in politics. Sadly they have been dismissed as decent political contenders in the upcoming by-election for seats in the Legislative Council -- we're thinking of Agnes Chow Ting here -- but that hasn't stopped them, even those in high school to be more politically aware of what is going on.

The other good thing about this Nobel nomination is that it reminds the rest of the world about the plight of Hong Kong. Some may vaguely remember the relatively peaceful protests that went on for 79 days, or others will learn about it for the first time. Drawing attention to Hong Kong is a good thing. Any publicity is good publicity.

We're assuming this news was blocked in China, and besides, Beijing should realize that anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel prize and it doesn't mean the committee will take all the nominations seriously.

Regardless, being nominated is a sign that Hong Kong's struggle for democracy is not forgotten.

Yang's Life Lesson

Yang Shuping talks about learning new things, like fresh air, freedom of speech

Mainland Chinese student Yang Shuping gave a graduation speech on Sunday at the University of Maryland praising the United States, which instead of receiving praise from her fellow countrymen, was scathingly scorned at.

During her speech, she recalled how she felt when she arrived in the US.

"When I took my first breath of American air, I put my mask away," she said. "The air was so sweet and fresh, and oddly luxurious. Democracy and freedom are the fresh air that is worth fighting for."

She is a psychology and theatre graduate from Yunnan province and came to study at the university five years ago.

Yang quickly learned to appreciate the air quality in the US

From her experience of living in the US she appreciated being able to speak freely.

"I have learned [that] the right to freely express oneself is sacred in America... I could even rate my professors online," she said. "My voice matters. Your voice matters. Our voices matter."

Yang also talked about watching her fellow students vote in elections, take part in political protests, and even watch a play about the 1992 LA riots that talked about the issues of racism, sexism and politics.

"I was shocked, I never thought such topics could be discussed openly... I have always had the burning desire to tell these kinds of stories, but I was convinced that only authorities owned the narrative, only authorities could define the truth," she said.

"Freedom is oxygen. Freedom is passion. Freedom is love. As the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once said: 'Freedom is a choice'."

One might think it was wonderful that a Chinese student not only received a good education, but also learned some values and culture that helped her to further understand the differences between the US and China.

The University of Maryland sticks by what Yang said

However, people back home were not impressed, criticizing her speech, saying she was kowtowing to the US, or that she already came from Yunnan, a relatively clean province in terms of air quality. The backlash resulted in tarring Yang as a traitor, that she did not love her country.

A group of Chinese students at the university were offended by Yang's speech and set up a social media campaign showing their support for their country.

The students behind the #ProudofChina effort said they hoped to correct "wrong stereotypes" of the country and show their "courage to speak up".

But patriots, particularly The Global Times claimed the university should never have given Yang the opportunity to speak at such event, and for sticking by her.

Even the foreign ministry weighed in.

I believe China will encourage and welcome the students as long as they love their motherland from the heart and are willing to make a contribution," ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, without directly criticizing what Yang said in her speech.

"Any comparable Chinese citizen should make responsible comments on any issue, not only about China but everything."

Yang is in her early 20s and has learned so much in the past five years that she couldn't wait to tell others what she had observed. But she mistakenly thought everyone else was on the same page as her.

Meanwhile her critics were so overly sensitive about her observations, but for the most part they are true. It just reveals yet again how the Chinese are so insecure about their country and its faults, but don't have the courage to face them because their government insists that everything is fine.

Eventually Yang had to back down, apologizing on Monday.

"The speech is just to share my overseas experience and comes with no intention to negate or belittle my country," she said on Weibo.

China needs more people like Yang to help develop the country from within; ostracizing her is not the way. And from now on, no Chinese student will dare speak out again, for fear of the wrath of the online patriotic police. It's all too easy to destroy someone when there is strength in numbers.

But Yang is the strong one who has the courage to speak for herself and her own thoughts.

China's Soft Power Setback

China's Wang Yi with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Did China's foreign minister Wang Yi start the day on the wrong foot last week when he castigated a Canadian journalist in Ottawa for asking about human rights and the jailing of Canadian Kevin Garratt, who has been charged with espionage?

The Middle Kingdom's top diplomat lost his cool and started lecturing the reporter for almost two and a half minutes (including translation).

"Your question is full of prejudice and against China and arrogance... I don't know where that comes from. This is totally unacceptable," Wang said.

"Have you been to China? The Chinese constitution has written protection and promotion of human rights and China has pulled some 600 million people from poverty.

Kevin Garratt pictured with his wife, is charged with espionage

"Other people don't know better than the Chinese people about the human rights condition in China and it is the Chinese people who are in the best situation, the best position to have a say about China's human rights situation."

First of all, the foreign minister is on Canadian soil, so he must abide by the rules, which means upholding freedom of the press. Is he naive to think journalists in Canada will ask a softball question like they do in China?

Journalists in Canada can ask whatever they want, and apparently those covering the press conference agreed that asking about Garratt's situation was the most pressing one they wanted answered.

Wang could have just replied with a string of so-called facts for five minutes and then end the press conference. Why did he get so testy?

The foreign minister's rant revealed plenty about him and about China's irritation and insecurity about being asked about sensitive issues.

The reporter may or may not have been to China, but does that matter? She was asking the status on a Canadian in Chinese custody. What is wrong with that?

Wang lectures reporters about China during a press conference

China may have the second largest economy in the world, and yet it gets annoyed when people ask about its human rights situation.

When he says the Chinese are in the best position to comment about the country's human rights, he really is asking for it. Does he really think all 1.3 billion will sing the Chinese Communist Party's praises?

Some say Wang may have already been annoyed before the press conference, as the Trudeau administration had asked about the case. It was also revealed that Wang demanded an audience with the Canadian prime minister which is not the proper protocol.

In any event, Trudeau has expressed dissatisfaction to both Wang and the Chinese ambassador to Canada with the way the journalists were treated.

Perhaps Wang has forgotten there is a new administration in Canada, that has a different foreign policy from the previous Conservative one led by Stephen Harper.

I had hoped Trudeau would reach out to the Chinese government soon after he came to power, but it has taken almost eight months for the meeting to finally happen.

Trudeau will be lauded at home for keeping the heat on Wang, though there's going to be turbulent waters ahead in dealing with China...

Finally Free -- For Now

The five women activists who were released on bail Monday evening

After months of lobbying internationally, including by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Chinese rights campaigners, five women activists were finally released on bail yesterday evening.

They were detained on the weekend of March 8, International Women's Day, when they were planning to demonstrate against sexual harassment on public transport. They were picked up on suspicion of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".

The campaign to get them released that featured the tag #FreeTheFive included strong words from American presidential candidate Hilary Clinton and Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations.

The quintet were released because prosecutors did not immediately decide to press criminal charges, and instead police asked that the five be charged with organizing a crowd to disturb public order.

Wei Tingting, 26, Wang Man, 32, Zheng Churan, 25, Li Tingting, 25 and Wu Rongrong, 30 have been released on bail, but would be monitored by the police for one year, and could not travel without informing the authorities. They could be detained by police at anytime and interrogated further.

On Friday, Kerry made a statement saying China should "immediately and unconditionally" free the five women.

"Each and every one of us has the right to speak out against sexual harassment and the many other injustices that millions of women and girls suffer around the world each and every day," he said. "We strongly support the efforts of these activists to make progress on these challenging issues, and we believe that Chinese authorities should also support them, not silence them."

On Monday afternoon, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that China "lodged representations" with the US over those comments and that "the Chinese legal authorities are handling this case in accordance with the law."

The actual campaign that they were organizing through We Chat was supposed to have people handing out leaflets and stickers on buses and subway carriages to call attention to sexual harassment on public transportation.

This crackdown on activists who weren't doing anything political, and instead trying to promote a civil society, is quite harsh, and perhaps is meant to scare other rights campaigners from continuing their activities. Or does the government consider them a threat because they are pointing out the truth?

These five women are not new to activism -- in 2012 they campaigned for more public toilets for women, and in 2013-14, campaigned against domestic violence.

They are only doing what they believe is right and just, though they are sticking their necks out to do so.

We are relieved they are released, though not unconditionally is worrying. These women are pushing for civil society, and they are trying to do this through non-violent means. So why detain them? What they are doing is for the good of everyone, and doesn't the Chinese government want its society to look just and equal?

Beijing is only creating more embarrassment for itself domestically and on the international stage...