Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
File:Selfimmowflag.jpg A man identified in state-run media as Wang Jindong sits on Tiananmen Square as police stand nearby
Simplified Chinese	天安门自焚事件
Traditional Chinese	天安門自焚事件
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Tiān'ānmén Zìfén Shìjiàn

The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing, on the eve of Chinese New Year on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, stated that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners; they further stated that Falun Gong teachings explicitly forbid killing and violence, including suicide.

According to Chinese state media, the five people were part of a group of seven who had travelled to the square together. One of them, Liu Chunling, died at Tiananmen under disputed circumstances and another, her 12-year-old daughter, Liu Siying, died in hospital several weeks later; three survived. A CNN crew present at the scene witnessed the five setting themselves ablaze and had just started filming when police intervened and detained the crew. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television (CCTV). The coverage in the CCTV showed images of Liu Siying burning and interviews with the others in which they stated their belief that self-immolation would lead them to paradise, a belief that is not supported by Falun Gong’s teachings. Two weeks after the event, The Washington Post published an investigation into the identity of the two self-immolation victims who were killed, and found that "no one ever saw [them] practice Falun Gong."

Human Rights Watch (HRW) believed the incident was among one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing at the time to report on because of a lack of independent information available. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, and other views. Journalist Danny Schechter notes that the Chinese government's claims about the incident remain unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed.

The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. Posters, leaflets and videos were produced detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice, and regular anti-Falun Gong classes were scheduled in schools to expose the "dangers" of the practice. According to Falun Gong websites, the number of Falun Gong adherents tortured to death rose from 245 in 2000 to 419 in 2001.

Background

See also: History of Falun Gong

Falun Gong, a new religious movement based on the meditative practice of qigong, a form of physical and mental training, was founded in the People's Republic of China by Li Hongzhi in 1992 and by the late-1990s had attracted tens of millions of followers. When its teachings, influenced by Taoism and Buddhism, were denounced as unscientific by skeptic figures such as He Zuoxiu, practitioners took to peacefully picketing editorial offices to challenge what they believed was unfair coverage. Following one such demonstration in Tianjin where a number of practitioners were arrested, more than ten thousand practitioners congregated outside Communist Party of China headquarters in Zhongnanhai on 25 April 1999. That evening, then-Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin issued a decision to eradicate Falun Gong. On 22 July 1999, the ban on Falun Gong was officially announced by the Public Security Bureau.

The suppression campaign that followed was characterized by a "massive propaganda campaign" intended to justify the suppression by portraying Falun Gong as superstitious, dangerous, and incompatible with the official ideology. Tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents were imprisoned, and by the end of 1999, reports began to emerge of torture in custody. According to Ian Johnson, authorities were given broad mandates to eliminate Falun Gong and pursue the coercive conversion of practitioners, but were not scrutinized for the methods they used. This resulted in the widespread use of torture, sometimes resulting in death.

Following the ban, Tiananmen Square, which has been the central point for several major historical protests, was one of the prime locations where Falun Gong practitioners protested the ban. The Falun Gong protests were characterized as peaceful "appeals," and typically involved raising banners in defense of the group, or staging meditation sit-ins. According to Time, a Falun Gong website editorial instructed followers to step up demonstrations, "especially in Tiananmen Square" By 25 April 2000, one year later, more than 30,000 practitioners had been arrested. Seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the Square on 1 January 2001.

The incident

On 23 January 2001, the eve of Chinese New Year, five people on Tiananmen Square poured gasoline over their clothes and set themselves on fire; another two people were prevented from igniting the gasoline.

A CNN film crew, who were there on a routine check for a possible Falun Gong protest, observed a man sitting down on the pavement north-east of the Monument to the People's Heroes at the centre of the square. He proceeded to pour gasoline over himself and set himself ablaze. Police officers on the square noticed what was happening, quickly approached the man and extinguished the flames. Shortly afterwards, another four people on the square set themselves alight. The CNN crew was filming these events when military police stepped in and detained the crew. The authorities then put out the flames consuming the other four people's clothing. A police van came to collect the badly burnt man, and two ambulances arrived almost 25 minutes later to collect the other four. The square was completely closed, and security was tight the next day, the most important of the traditional Chinese holidays; police monitored public access to the square for the New Year celebrations, had fire extinguishers ready, and prevented Falun Gong members from opening banners.

Of the five people who set themselves alight, one, Liu Chunling, died at the scene; another, her 12-year-old daughter, Liu Siying, died in Beijing hospital two months later, in March; the other three were left severely disfigured.

People involved

The official news agency, Xinhua, gave the participants' details as follows:

Romanised name	Chinese name	Description	Outcome
Wang Jindong	王進東	Male, former driver	Hospitalised
Liu Chunling	劉春玲	Female, mother of Siying	Died on scene (circumstances disputed)
Liu Siying	劉思影	12-year-old girl, daughter of Chunling	Died two months after the event
Chen Guo	陳果	Daughter of Hao Huijun	Treated at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital; severely disfigured
Hao Huijun	郝惠君	Female, mother of Chen Guo, music teacher	Hospitalised; severely disfigured
Liu Baorong	劉葆榮	Female, former textile factory worker	Did not set herself alight
Liu Yunfang	劉雲芳	57-year-old male, part-time paint shop worker	Did not set himself alight

Xinhua further alleged that Wang Jindong had practised Falun Gong since 1996, Hao Huijin since 1997, and Liu Baorong since 1994.

Chinese state media reports

The Chinese authorities stated that the seven people who had come to Tiananmen Square with the intention of committing suicide were all from the city of Kaifeng in Henan province. The state-run Xinhua News Agency asserted that the self-immolators were "avid practitioners" of Falun Gong who had taken up the practice between 1994 and 1997, and that they fantasised during the preceding week about "how wonderful it would be to enter heaven". Six of them reportedly took the train on 16 January, meeting Chen Guo, the daughter of one of them, upon their arrival in Beijing. The seven agreed to light themselves in different parts of the Square at 2:30 pm on the designated day with gasoline smuggled there in plastic soda bottles; each had been armed with two lighters in case one would fail. According to the China Association For Cultic Studies website, Wang Jindong stated afterwards that the group arrived in Tiananmen Square by two taxis, and were dropped off at the south of the Great Hall of the People, from where they walked to the spot where they would ignite themselves. Wang said he was approached by police as he was splitting open the soda bottles, and ignited himself hurriedly without assuming the lotus position. A press release from the Chinese government says that Liu Yunfang felt that the police were able to stop him burning himself because he had not attained the required spiritual level.

Xinhua released brief details of the incident to foreign media hours after the self-immolation occurred. Xinhua then distributed a fuller press release seven days later on Tuesday, 30 January, in response to other media reports on the incident.

On 31 January, a 30-minute special edition of the current affairs programme Forum told the state's version of the events to the Chinese public. China Central Television aired footage, said to be taken by nearby surveillance cameras, of five people in flames.

Filming by the CNN crew on Tiananmen Square was stopped by the police almost immediately after it began. Articles in the Yangcheng Evening News and the Southern Daily reported that police had evidence that a few foreign reporters had advance knowledge of the incident, and suggested that such reporters could be charged with "instigating and abetting a suicide." State media claimed surveillance video showed six or seven reporters from CNN, the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse arriving just 10 minutes before the self-immolations took place; however, all three agencies denied advance knowledge of the incident—AP and AFP said they had no reporters in the square at the time, while CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordan, said the CNN crew were there on a routine check for a possible Falun Gong protest.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the lack of independent information and difficulties in ascertaining the extent of control of the information made the incident one of the most difficult stories for reporters in Beijing to report.

Falun Gong response

Composite image of a sequence of eight screen shots differentially highlighted to show the movement of a baton in relation to a person in military uniform

Stills sequence taken from CCTV footage allegedly proves Liu Chunling was killed by a man in military uniform, rather than by the flames. Frames 1–5 follow the course of a baton-like object (circled) first connecting with and then rebounding from her head; frames 6–8 focus on the soldier

Immediately following the self-immolation, the Falun Dafa Information Center denied that the self-immolators could have been Falun Gong practitioners, emphatically pointing out that Falun Gong's teachings do not sanction any form of violence, and that suicide is considered a sin.

Falun Gong sources overseas questioned the official Chinese government account of the event, and produced a critical analysis of the footage of the event aired on CCTV. Apparent inconsistencies in Chinese government's official narrative led to a hypothesis that the self-immolation was staged by the government to justify the persecution against Falun Gong by portraying Falun Gong adherents as irrational and suicidal. According to this hypothesis, the self-immolation participants were paid actors, and were presumably assured that the flames would be extinguished before doing real harm.

Falun Gong-affiliated New Tang Dynasty Television produced a programme called False Fire, pointing out the inconsistencies in the accounts of the event in the official Chinese media based on a review of CCTV footage. The programme purported to demonstrate that the self-immolators donned fire-proof clothing and masks, and raised the question of why the participants' hair and the apparently gasoline-filled bottles they carried did not catch fire. Falun Gong sources also noted that the self-immolators' behaviour, the slogans they shouted, and their meditation postures were not consistent with the teachings or practices of Falun Gong.

Three pictures broadcast by state-media, presented by Falun Gong as evidence that Wang Jindong "was played by different people".

Among the issues highlighted by the False Fire documentary is the conditions surrounding the deaths of self-immolators Liu Chunling and her daughter. A frame-by-frame analysis of the CCTV footage purportedly shows that Liu was not killed on scene by the flames, but by a deadly blow to the head from a man in a military overcoat. The documentary also addresses the medical treatment and ultimate death of Liu's 12-year-old daughter.

Falun Gong sources suggest that the reaction times of state-run television crews and police on Tiananmen Square demonstrates they had advance knowledge of the event. They observed that officers arrived almost immediately on the scene equipped with numerous fire extinguishers. Fire extinguishers are not standard equipment for police on Tiananmen Square, the nearest building that would house them was several minutes away from the scene.

The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong stated that the Speech Processing Laboratory at National Taiwan University analysed the broadcasts on CCTV, and claimed that the first 'Wang Jindong' on CCTV was not the same person who appeared in subsequent interviews

Third-party findings

The identities of Liu Chunling and her 12-year-old daughter, Liu Siying – both of whom died in connection with the self-immolation – and their relationship to Falun Gong, were called into question in a Washington Post investigation by Philip Pan. Reporting two weeks after the event from Kaifeng, the hometown of the Liu, Pan interviewed neighbors who said that Liu was troubled and had "psychological problems" Some neighbours told Pan that Liu "worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers." Another said she beat her mother and daughter. "None ever saw her practice Falun Gong," he concluded. According to David Ownby, a University of Montreal historian and expert on Falun Gong, Pan's portrayal of Liu Chunlin is inconsistent with the typical profile of a Falun Gong practitioner.

In his book Falun Gong's Challenge to China, Danny Schechter noted that a CNN producer on the scene also questioned the identity of 12-year-old Liu Siying, whom the Chinese government claimed had set herself on fire at the urging of her mother; the CNN producer said that she did not see any children among the self-immolators.

Several foreign observers have noted that foreign journalists were not allowed to interview the self-immolation victims recovering in hospitals. Even the victims' relatives were not permitted to speak with them, according to David Ownby. The survivors were interviewed by the state-run press, however. In one such interview, CCTV interviewed the 12-year-old Liu Siying. Government sources reported Liu Siying had undergone a tracheotomy shortly before the interview. Speaking through approved media outlets, she said that her own mother told her to set herself on fire to reach the "heavenly golden kingdom"; a pediatric surgeon said that if Siying had undergone a tracheotomy, she would not have been able to speak to the Chinese media so soon after the tragedy.. Schechter also reported the fact that Xinhua had released a statement on the self-immolation to foreign media only hours after the event occurred, in particular noting that this was unusual due to the fact that sensitive subjects are almost never reported in a timely fashion; Schechter would also note that the government-controlled media, "took a week of production before video footage was aired."

Questions were also raised over where the footage of the event came from, and the speed with which camera crews appeared on scene. Ian Johnson of the Wall Street Journal took a skeptical view, writing that "most of the evening news are vetted by noon, so the daily broadcast rarely carries reports from the same day." Chinese government media reported that the close-up shots in its video footage came from confiscated CNN tapes. CNN representatives argued that this was impossible, however, as their reporters were detained shortly after the event began. Philip Pan was also suspicious of the positioning of the cameras, and the fact that the close-up shots shown on Chinese television were taken without police interference. In addition, overhead surveillance camera footage seemed to show a man filming the scene using a small hand-held camera, rather than a large camera of the type used for TV news reporting. John Gittings of The Guardian noted it was common practice in many countries for police camera operators to be on hand when a public disturbance is anticipated, although Gittings also mentions the possibility that "authorities had advance warning of the self-immolation plan and let it go ahead."

Third-party observers also questioned why police were able to extinguish the flames so quickly. David Ownby wrote that "fire extinguishers are not standard equipment for most police officers on the beat, in China or elsewhere." An article in The Age commented that the "ready availability of fire-extinguishers and official TV teams and the lack of verification about the victims raised question whether Falun Gong was really involved, or whether the incident was staged" The article in The Age would write before the reportage of the self-immolation incident that, "Beijing's efforts to portray the Falung Gong as dangerous and predatory had fallen flat."

Links to Buddhist tradition

In contemplating the possibility that the self-immolation was an authentic protest, some scholars have noted that suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China; ter Haar (2001) postulated that former Buddhists may have brought with them the "respectable Buddhist tradition of self-immolation as a sacrifice to the Buddha".

On 1 January 2001, Li published "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance", in which he wrote that persecution of the Fa (meaning "The law")  – an expression used by Li Hongzhi to describe Falun Gong – by "evil" – meaning the Chinese Communist Party – could no longer be tolerated:

"Forbearance is absolutely not the limitless giving of free rein, which allows those evil beings who no longer have any human nature or righteous thoughts to do evil without limit. With Forbearance, one can give up everything for Truth. But Forbearance does not mean tolerating evil beings–that no longer have human nature or righteous thoughts–defying both human and divine laws as they corrupt sentient beings and Dafa's existence at different levels, much less is it ignoring terrible crimes ... If the evil has already reached the point where it is unsavable and unkeepable, then various measures at different levels can be used to stop it and eradicate it."

Some observers have speculated that desperate Falun Gong practitioners may have resorted to self-immolation in response to the publication of Li's new scripture. However, The Guardian notes Falun Gong in New York issued a statement 10 days later, admitting the scripture had caused confusion, and that "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations". A Falun Gong spokesman clarified Li's scripture to mean it was time to "bring the truth to light" about human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government. However, Jensen and Weston remarked it was clear from Li Hongzhi's messages that he advocated martyrdom over prudence, and that "if the Chinese authorities lit the fire, Li just as clearly fanned the flames." David Ownby believes that the brief message was "difficult to interpret": Ownby said it somewhat resembled a "call to arms" against what Li described as "evil beings", but nobody he talked to had seen it as a "green light" for violent action. He added that "a practitioner at the end of his or her rope in China could certainly see [the statements] as an endorsement for martyrdom, and perhaps choose his or her own means to achieve that." Gittings posited that the scripture may have confused Falun Gong followers, particularly in Mainland China. Matthew Forney wrote in Time magazine that Li's message had spread into China via the internet and informal networks of followers, and speculated that it may have galvanized more radical practitioners there.

Dispute

Following the incident, the details of why the individuals were involved has been and remains the subject of dispute between representatives of Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and other observers.

Danny Schechter argued in 2001 that the self-immolation was staged by the Chinese government. He notes that the Chinese government's claims about the incident remain unsubstantiated by outside parties, because no independent investigation has been allowed. Schechter went on to lament that many news organizations uncritically used accounts from Communist Party-controlled media to disseminate their story, and that they may have been "duped into becoming an uncritical transmission belt for Beijing's bullying" especially in light of newer questions and doubts expressed. Citing Schechter, PhD student Noah Porter wrote that "convincing evidence has been provided that the events described by the Chinese media are at least deceptive, if not a complete hoax," also stating "even if there were people who lit themselves on fire and considered themselves Falun Gong practitioners, they would not be representative of Falun Gong practitioners." Beatrice Turpin, a China correspondent with Associated Press Television, said of the self-immolation that "[t]here was a big brouhaha with Falun Gong protests and footage of police beating practitioners last Chinese New Year and it would certainly fit in with typical China strategy to stage an event this year [2001] and make the show their own."

Reviewing the divergent narratives on the identity of the self-immolation victims, David Ownby concluded that "although the arguments of Falun Gong practitioners seem cogent, it is very difficult to arrive at a final judgment about the self-immolation. ... there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money (which would go to their families in this case, one supposes, unless the authorities had promised to rescue them before the flames could do harm). Or the entire event could have been staged. But it seems just as possible that those who set themselves on fire might have been new or unschooled Falun Gong practitioners, had discovered and practiced Falun Gong on their own (and badly) in the post-suppression period, and, for whatever reason, decided to make the ultimate sacrifice."

Some observers entertain the possibility that the self-immolation was not as straightforward as the Chinese official media accounts suggested. In the National Review, Ann Noonan of the Laogai Research Foundation suggested that it was "hardly a far-fetched hypothesis" that the government allowed or staged the incident to discredit Falun Gong, as the government vowed to crush the practice before the eightieth anniversary celebrations of the Communist Party in July. Other human rights activists said that the five who set themselves on fire did so to protest the government's crackdown on Falun Gong.

Francesco Sisci, Asia editor of La Stampa, supported the possibility that the self-immolators were Falun Gong practitioners, writing in the Asia Times that "no one believed that the government could have paid a mother to torch herself and her daughter, or that she was so loyal to the Communist Party that she pretended to be a Falungong member and kill herself and her only daughter, even if Falungong master Li Hongzhi forbade suicide ..."

Time noted some of the confusion surrounding the conflicting views on the self-immolation; one Beijing Falun Gong practitioner interviewed appeared to accept that the self-immolators were practitioners engaged in protest, while Falun Gong organizations overseas denied any involvement. Time also speculated that the "lack of solidarity" in Falun Gong was contributing to the sense of desperation of Mainland Chinese practitioners who may feel out of touch with the exiled leadership. Guardian reporter John Gittings reported that some observers believed it was possible that the self-immolators acted in desperation and confusion.

The New York Times stated that conflicting claims were difficult to assess "[w]ith propaganda streaming in from seemingly opposite ends of the universe ... especially since the remaining Falun Gong practitioners have been driven underground." In Sisci's view, Chinese officials made a mistake by arresting foreign journalists on Tiananmen —"independently filmed news footage of the proceedings could have been the best proof of Falungong madness. Instead, when the government reported the episode, it looked like propaganda."

Aftermath

Media campaign and public opinion

The self-immolation incident was given prominent coverage in the official Chinese media as evidence of the alleged dangers of Falun Gong practice. Coverage of the event resulted in increased support for the Party's suppression efforts against Falun Gong, and eroded public sympathy for the group. According to Philip Pan, the Communist Party "launched an all-out campaign to use the incident to prove its claim that Falun Gong is a dangerous cult, and to turn public opinion in China and abroad against the group[...] Every morning and night, the state-controlled media carry fresh attacks against Falun Gong and its U.S.-based leader, Li Hongzhi." Posters, leaflets and videos were produced, detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice. The New York Times reported that the public was "bombarded with graphic images of the act on television and in newspapers." In China's schools, regular anti-Falun Gong classes were scheduled. Eight million students joined the "Anti-Cult Action by the Youth Civilized Communities Across the Nation". Twelve million children submitted writings disapproving of the practice.

Within a month of the Tiananmen Square incident, authorities issued a document entitled The whole story of the self-immolation incident created by Falun Gong addicts in Tiananmen Square, containing colour photographs of charred bodies. The State Council's "Office for the Prevention and Handling of Evil Cults" declared after the event that it was now ready to form a united front with the global anti-cult struggle. Meetings took place in factories, offices, universities and schools to educate people about Falun Gong. The Government announced that religious leaders from across the country had delivered denunciations of Falun Gong. In Kaifeng, the post office issued an anti-Falun Gong postmark, and 10,000 people signed a petition denouncing the group.

Time reported that prior to the self-immolation incident, many Chinese had felt that Falun Gong posed no real threat, and that the state's crackdown had gone too far. After the event, however, China's media campaign against Falun Gong gained significant traction. The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong reported that hostility toward Falun Gong from the general public escalated, the government had stepped up its campaign, and alleged that "hate crimes" targeting Falun Gong increased. One western diplomat commented that the public changed from sympathising with Falun Gong to siding with the Government, popular consensus seemingly shifted by human-interest stories and accounts of rehabilitation efforts of former practitioners. Østergaard believes that, in retrospect, the New Year scripture was Li's greatest gift to the state, as the self-immolations marked a turning point which ended domestic support for the movement.

Violence and reeducation

In the aftermath of the event, the government began sanctioning more severe forms of torture and punishment against Falun Gong adherents in an effort to have them renounce the practice. The Washington Post reported that Chinese authorities benefited from the turn in public opinion against Falun Gong that followed the self-immolation, seizing on the opportunity to sanction "the systematic use of violence against the group." According to the Post, authorities "established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace." The "reeducation" tactics employed included beatings, shocks with electric truncheons, and intensive anti-Falun Gong study classes.

According to a report published in the Wall Street Journal, in February 2001 the 6-10 Office "stepped up pressure on local governments" to implement the anti-Falun Gong campaign. In particular, it issued new, detailed instructions requiring that all who continued to actively practice Falun Gong were to be sent to prison or labor camps, and individuals who refused to renounce the practice were to be socially isolated and monitored by their families and workplaces. This was a shift from the past, when local officials sometimes tolerated Falun Gong on the condition that it was practiced privately.

Impact on Falun Gong's resistance

The self-immolation necessitated a change in tactics for Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square had been "permanently contaminated" as a venue for protest, according to journalist Ethan Gutmann, and Falun Gong's daily demonstrations in Beijing nearly ceased altogether. According to Human Rights Watch, practitioners may have concluded "the protests had outlived their usefulness for demonstrating Chinese abuses or for informing an overseas audience of Falungong's harmlessness." Diaspora practitioners living oversees focused their attentions on getting the word out about the treatment of practitioners by the Chinese government, issuing reports to the United Nations and human rights organizations, staging public marches and hunger strikes outside of China, and documenting human rights abuses on websites. Within China, practitioners used mass mailings and handed out literature to "spread the truth" and counter the government's charges against them. In an August, 2001 press release, the U.S.-based Falun Dafa Information Center noted this shift in strategy, and said that Chinese practitioners "sometimes also manage to post large posters and banners in major thoroughfares. They even set up loudspeakers on rooftops or trees around labor camps and in densely populated areas to broadcast news about the human rights abuses."

In 2002, Falun Gong practitioners in Changchun successfully broadcast the False Fire video on Chinese television, interrupting the station's scheduled programming for 50 minutes. Liu Chengjun, a Falun Gong practitioner who hacked into the satellite feed, was arrested and sentenced to prison, where he was allegedly beaten to death 21 months later. The remaining five individuals behind the television hijacking were also imprisoned, and all have reportedly died or been tortured to death in custody.

Fate of the self-immolators

Five of the people involved in the incident were tried in mid-2001. Liu Yunfang, named as the mastermind, was given a life sentence; Wang Jindong was given 15 years. Two other accomplices – a 49-year-old man named Xue Hongjun, and a 34-year-old Beijing woman named Liu Xiuqin who apparently provided the group with lodging and helped in the preparation of the incident – were sentenced to 10 and 7 years in prison respectively. Liu Baorong, who had "acknowledged her crime", escaped punishment because her role in planning the event was minor. The Guardian reported that on the last day of the one-month trial, Xinhua had, by mid-morning, issued a full report of the verdicts; the People's Daily had produced its own editorial by the afternoon.

After having long denied foreign media access to the self-immolation victims, in April 2002 the Government arranged for foreign press to interview the purported survivors of the self-immolation in the presence of state officials. The interviewees refuted claims that the self-immolation was staged, showing their burn injuries as evidence, and denounced Falun Gong while expressing support for the authorities' handling of the group. When asked why they set themselves on fire, Hao Huijun replied that she had realised the futility of writing letters and demonstrating by waving banners, "so finally, we decided ... to make a big event to show our will to the world. ... We wanted to show the government that Falun Gong was good." At the time of the interview, Chen Guo and her mother were said to still be in the hospital, both having lost their hands, ears and noses. Both her mother's eyes were covered with skin grafts. Wang Jindong, showing burns to his face, said he felt "humiliated because of my stupidity and fanatical ideas." Liu Baorong, who did not set fire to herself, spent months in "reform through labour and reeducation."

External links

• falsefire.com (Falun Gong site about the incident)
• Facts.org.cn (website of China Association For Cultic Studies)