The New York Times

229 W. 43rd. St.

New York, NY 10036

May 2, 2000

Dear Editors:

When a government tries to repress a traditional faith any discussion of its members' spiritual beliefs risks being used to justify that persecution. So if The New York Times critically examined Buddhism in Tibet or Jewish beliefs in Nazi Germany, it would be important not to have that discussion be used as an apology for what those dictatorships were doing. (And of course statements and behavior by practitioners of all those religions can easily be presented that way.) This means that a discussion of a spiritual faith that is being persecuted needs to be done accurately, sensitively and with balance. Unfortunately, the article "China Makes War on Mysticism" on April 30 by Mr. Craig Smith failed these criteria. Its distorted view of Falun Gong shifted attention away from the Chinese government's repression of a spiritual faith, ours and others, to blaming the victim. As a Falun Gong practitioner and the practice's voluntary spokesperson, I wish to shed light on a few aspects of Mr. Smith's own "cosmology" as it surfaces in his flawed and unfair analysis of our spiritual practice. The article represents a significant, surprising departure from the careful reporting on Falun Gong in China your paper has taken care to provide in recent months. I think your readers deserve to know the truth. Please re-read Mr. Smith's words closely: "Extensive media coverage of China's actions... has blighted the human rights reputation of the government." Let's look more closely: This implies that the press (i.e., your and others' coverage) is the problem and that China's "human rights reputation" has been "blighted" by external forces. Blighted? Are we to assume its reputation before the vicious crackdown on Falun Gong was saintly? One can hardly imagine anyone other than Chinese officials willing to support Mr. Smith's interpretation. It is China's own actions, not foreign media, which has damaged China's reputation.

Next, Mr. Smith states that practitioners are willing to die for their beliefs. This statement again seems bent on painting a portrait of fanaticism, rather than informing readers. Yes, many practitioners have died in custody, and indeed it has been reported that at least one of these deaths-by-torture followed the practitioner's refusing to renounce her practice (see "Practicing Falun Gong was a Right, Ms. Chen Said, up to her Last Day" The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2000). Why not interpret such steadfastness as being truthful and honoring what one knows to be true? Regardless, who would dare say the fifteen practitioners known to have died in custody chose death over life? It is safe to assume that each of these practitioners would much rather not have been beaten, starved, or electrocuted to death. Furthermore, Mr. Smith's affixing the word "alleged" to documented cases of death-by-torture enhances Beijing's apologias. The polemic tone of Mr. Smith's piece is further cemented as he blasts Falun Gong's so-called lack of "tolerance." His support for this statement comes not from Tiananmen Square or even from China (where practitioners continue to forbear cruel and arbitrary punishment), but instead from his own correspondence with a couple of American practitioners. Apparently, Mr. Smith felt offended by their challenging an earlier "expose" he wrote for The Wall Street Journal. That article was met with many letters to the editor, which detailed facts revealing the gross inaccuracy of Mr. Smith's reporting. What is most disturbing about Mr. Smith's claim is that it appears grounded in personal animosity which leads him to even name and incriminate two American practitioners. This hardly helps readers to know the plight of Falun Gong in China, much less its nature. I am one of those two, as Mr. Smith quoted me out of context as saying, "How does it feel to know that millions of Falun Gong practitioners in China know your name?" Yet Mr. Smith failed to mention the rest of my sentence: "... if you mislead them with your fabricated story on Mr. Li having a house in Brooklyn, which does not exist at all." I was only attempting to alert him to the fact that millions of practitioners know the truth and would most likely seek to inform Mr. Smith of his invented story; this is hardly intimidation. Originally, Mr. Smith wrote in his article that Mr. Li Hongzhi has a residence in Brooklyn. I made an investigation myself into the street address that Mr. Smith gave me over the phone and found out that the townhouse at that address had been occupied by someone else for over two years. This is why I called Mr. Smith about his false story. Mr. Smith compares protests at the Beijing TV station to his being publicly corrected by individuals for inaccuracies in his own reporting (e.g. "Falun Gong is no more tolerant of the Western press."). Does Mr. Smith consider himself the "Western Press"? Did a thousand or more practitioners surround The Wall Street Journal offices? Is Mr. Smith any more above criticism or challenge than China's propaganda organs when his reporting is just as misleading as theirs?

Finally, Mr. Smith distorts and sensationalizes Falun Gong, and apparently deliberately so. He selectively quotes from Mr. Li Hongzhi with a mocking tone that proves terribly unfair to uninformed readers. Readers lacking the whole picture might conclude that the l00 million people who practice Falun Gong for its many benefits are ignorant, gullible, and laughable.

Reality could not be more to the contrary. In China there are thousands of Falun Gong practitioners with Ph.D. degrees in the natural sciences and other disciplines, just as there are many professors, government officials, and business leaders who practice. At China's prestigious Tsinghua University ("the MIT of China"), for instance, there were over 300 practitioners, many of whom were faculty and post-doc researchers, as of last July. In North America, practitioners are an even more highly-educated group.

Millions of Chinese learned through the horrors of the Cultural Revolution to be far more critical than Mr. Smith gives them credit for. People who rejected the cult of Mao at that time dislike cults, regardless of what China claims and Mr. Smith sarcastically echoes. To smear Falun Gong with the dirty label "cult" is to tell your readers more about Mr. Smith's personal vendetta than about Falun Gong. If Mr. Smith wishes to keep tossing about the label "cult", I suggest he contact Harvard University's Center for the Study of Values in Public Life, which hosted a presentation this past week, which specifically addressed this and other misconceptions about Falun Gong; mistakes several other reporters have made, though perhaps without the same intentions. I think you and your readers need to be aware of these important issues.

I cannot help wondering why Mr. Smith fails to talk about the central teachings of Falun Gong: Truthfulness, Compassion, and Tolerance. Neither does he address the content of its exercises, much less their health benefits and how these have moved millions to practice Falun Gong. Therein lies a real story. Instead, Mr. Smith portrays the practice as something mystical, weird, and suspicious, as if it is a legitimate thing for the Chinese government to crackdown on tens of millions of Chinese civilians. I fear this deals your readers a major setback in understanding, and at an important time no less. Imagine what reaction Mr. Smith would have if he mocks at Christian or Jewish teachings in the same manner. Why is Mr. Smith still motivated to defame Falun Gong and its practitioners while millions of Chinese civilians are being persecuted? And how has he found in The New York Times a forum for parading his skewed opinions? I and others eagerly await your explanation of this unfortunate matter.

On behalf of Falun Gong practitioners,

Erping Zhang

Falun Gong Spokesperson