News of American presidential candidate Donald Trump’s near-assassination last weekend has spurred reflections on political violence in China, namely the killing of Hu Youping. In June, Hu Youping was fatally stabbed while intervening in an attack on a bus taking children to a Japanese school in Suzhou. Her heroism earned her national admiration. Suzhou posthumously awarded her the title of “Role Model of Righteousness and Courage,” mourners left bouquets at the site of the attack, and major news outlets ran profiles of Hu. Online, many left tributes to her underneath on Li Wenliang’s Wailing Wall. Despite all this publicity, though, little is known about her attacker. Suzhou police identified him only as “surname Zhou (male, 52-years-old, unemployed new arrival to Suzhou).” 

That does not sit well with some. On WeChat, Peng Yuanwen, an experienced journalist who used to sit on the editorial board of the Chinese magazine Vista, published an article titled, “It’s Been 22 Days. Who Killed Hu Youping?” Peng compared the dearth of knowledge about Hu’s attacker to the emerging portrait of Donald Trump’s would-be-assassin, attributing the latter to American officials’ relative transparency and the greater space in the U.S. for investigative journalism. Peng concluded on a note of pessimism: in China, “apparently the right of over one billion people to be informed is worth less than a fart.” Censors deleted the essay.

CDT has translated Peng’s piece in full: 

 I have felt uneasy following the past two days of coverage about Trump’s near-assassination for one reason alone—it makes me recall the killing of Hu Youping on the 24th of June. 

Information about Trump’s would-be-killer was unearthed quickly: his name, age, academic record, family background, political leanings, work experience, and much more. The media interviewed his classmates and coworkers. While his motives remain unclear, a preliminary composite of the suspect has emerged. Take a look at this article published just one day after the shooting: “Barrage of Conspiracy Theories Follow Revelation of Shooter’s Identity.”

We already know so much about someone who attempted to kill the former president (and now candidate for president) of the United States, just one day after it happened. The more I learn about it, the more uncomfortable it makes me to think of Hu Youping, and I feel that I must say a few words. 

It’s been 22 days since June 24 and we still don’t know the name of Hu’s murderer. Why is that?

To those who claim that it’s “sensitive” information, it’s hard to believe that there is anything more sensitive than the near-assassination of Trump. The Americans published that, so why can’t we publish the name of Hu’s killer?

To those who claim that “investigations take time,” the Americans were able to publish basic information [about the Trump shooting] on the day it happened, and far more information the following day. What are our investigators still unclear about, 22 days after Hu’s death?

And for those who claim that it’s “incompetence?” Fine, that we can believe. Just tell us the [killer’s] name, age, hometown, and other basic information, and then turn over the investigation to the media and the internet public—we’ll handle the rest from there. 

There is absolutely no good reason not to tell us. The only reason is that apparently the right of over one billion people to be informed is worth less than a fart. I just posted to WeChat about this and a friend replied, “Soon Hu Youping will be forgotten.” It’s true. Whether for Hu’s memory or our own sakes, we must not forget. As such, we demand that you tell us—who killed Hu Youping? We must know. This is the humblest of demands. [Chinese]

It must be noted that American responses to Trump’s shooting also included erroneous identifications and conspiracy theories, but these are also commonplace in China’s more controlled information environment. “In fact,” China Media Project’s David Bandurski has written, “unverified information is often shared through social media channels in China precisely because controls on information are stringent, and citizens have little faith that CCP-controlled ‘mainstream media’ will factually report breaking stories that are clearly in the public interest.”