A Letter to the Worldwide Chinese

A Letter to the Worldwide Chinese
Regarding the Shing-Tung Yau v. The New Yorker Event


Hou Chengqiang

Lawyer, unregistered presently.
LL.B. Southwest University of Political Science and Law;
LL.M. Southwest University of Political Science and Law;
LL.M. University of Westminster.


The Chinese nation holds a long civilization history and a resplendent culture tradition. As a Chinese, no matter carrying on a Chinese nationality or other nationalities, each and everyone bears the incubation and influence of Chinese traditional culture to a more or less extent. We are proud of enjoying, inheriting and improving our great tradition. Nevertheless, at the same time, we have to acknowledge the fact that we are left behind in the last four or three hundred years which witnessed growth in each passing day and month. In this period of time our forefathers suffered, strayed and cried, fell down and fought up. Today we are still on the same road leading toward the revival of our great nation.

In the early part of the twentieth century, our forefathers clearly brought forward the core aim bedded in Science and Democracy. Yet almost one hundred years later to date, our science and research work still drop far behind, and the applied technology is not that broadly applied. At this particular moment of nearly thirty years』 national policy of reform and open-up, though we saw the growth of our economy and some improvement in the people』s living, we confront gigantic and enormous problems in our education and science. Those problems are doomed to be the obstacles on our march road.

One problem is that our scientific work is still grinding under a highly concentrated, low efficient administration in which the governmental power dominates the work of scientific research. Our limited resource for education and science is not distributed to the efficient hands doing the research in real need through effective competition. Hence comes another problem that the administration of education and science baffles the real research work by alluring the outstanding researchers into the administration list which has more power to the resource to derive private benefit. With this macro infection, dishonest behaviors in research and monopoly and abuse of research resources are, regretfully, inundated in current Chinese education and science.

We should have sincere determination and immediate action to reform our present regime concerning education and science. We need this long term strategy and this strategy should be an important part of our national revival cause. With respect to this, we should prohibit, expose and punish the dishonest behaviors and monopoly and abusive practices in the academia and these who perpetrated them.

Professor Yau is a prominent mathematician who achieved gloriously and is still working on the forefront of scientific research. He resides in the United States of America, yet he has contributed a lot and is still contributing to the Chinese mathematic community. He encourages the Chinese mathematicians to do work in the world level questions, and he also condemns the dishonest behaviors and monopoly and abusive practices in Chinese education and science. He strongly pointed to the fact that Beijing Daxue falsified in a considerable proportion in hiring the Changjiang Professors which should be subject to a nine months term. Beijing Daxue and its Changjiang Professors, by doing thus, grabbed the state fund into their organizations, event into their private purses. Professor Yau, particularly though not mentioning its name, criticized one of his former student for notoriously participating this sordid practice as he shared considerable benefit in his part. He tried to persuade that student not to do so, and he disclosed the institutional corruption in Beijing Daxue regarding education and science work, and by doing so he might present a good initiative to better our current education and science regime.

In June 2006 Professor Yau proudly announced to the Chinese media, two of his students, Chinese mathematicians Professor Zhu Xiping and Professor Cao Huaidong, gave a complete proof of the Poincaré and the Geometrization conjectures. Just in coincidence with occasion, the broadly subscribed American magazine The New Yorker publicized a 10,000 word news report which, without any verifiable clues, accused Professor Yau of discrediting Russian mathematician Perelman and undermining Perelman』s contribution, and it also included a caricature indicating Professor Yau was snatching the Field Medal for Perelman. This so called news report also made up a story that Professor Yau forced Professor Chen Xingshen (Shiing-Shen Chern), a great Chinese mathematician and former President of Hong Kong Mathematical Society, to step down so that Professor Yau could act as the heir and new leader of Chinese mathematic community. Even this writing had the audacity to advocate that Professor Yau, with one of his students, made a prior false claim of originality which other mathematicians believed was unwarranted. This so called news report, which was fabricated with shoddy journalism and in a gossip-telling manner, defamed Professor Yau, brought confusion to the world and Chinese mathematic community, and did incalculable damage to Professor Yau』s efforts to combat dishonest behaviors and corruption in Chinese academia.

Professor Yau decided to take the tool of law to defend against this insult as well as to restitute the tranquility of the world and Chinese mathematic community. He instructed his attorney and they together had sent a letter to The New Yorker and its related writers and fact-checker. We believe that the justice of law will give back a clear name to Professor Yau, as well as it will bring to justice those behaving dishonestly and unethically.

With a biggest but, we must recognize that the litigation between Professor Yau and The New Yorker and its well-known writers is a battle of an unpredictable scale. In particular, we should come to the reality that this litigation requires enormous resources to instruct established lawyers to strengthen Professor Yau』s claim, to map through the large volume of evidences, to retain witnesses to court to an adequate extent, to walk into the potential first, second, third trial, and to deal with social pressures and other issues. We do not have any doubt that Professor Yau is able to handle all these with his spiritual and physical capacity, but this does not allow us to walk away and watch Professor Yau fight the battle alone. We should, without any excuse or subterfuge, offer our support to Professor Yau, spiritually and economically.

Looking back to our great cause in science development and nation revival, we might find that the Shing-Tung Yau v. The New Yorker Event would probably turn out to be a milestone on the road to our cause. It might defend the good will of Chinese scientists; at the same time it might bring to justice those behaving against professional ethics and state law. We can not expect to win all just in this one battle, even we might have to meet deviation if we take into account the gaps between factors such as objective feelings, the factual and legal evidences, the legal standards and the power to represent the case. But this unavoidable litigation will clarify a lot of gossips and defamations, and it is also doomed to give lessons for our history and future as well as to lend strength to us to march forward.


Come united, all the Chinese in this world! Give my hand, your hand, his and her hand, and together with the hand of Professor Yau, let us drop this magnificent milestone!



September 22, 2006. Friday.


Addition：

I hope someone prestigious and trustworthy from commerce or academia will stand out immediately to set up bank accounts so that we can show our generosity on this occasion.

Welcome comments to the following email which is registered under my true name and permanently accessible:

houchengqiang@gmail.com

OK