SCMP provides an update on Dongzhou.

The curfew on a Guangdong village where police shot dead at least three people last month has been lifted amid rumours that the central government has appointed a team to investigate the incident.

Relatives of one Dongzhou villager killed yesterday said police checkpoints had been removed and the curfew lifted, but authorities were still looking for some village representatives allegedly involved in the demonstration that sparked the shooting.

A brother of Lin Yutui , who was shot dead along with two other men on December 6, said police had released some villagers.

"I heard that the central government had sent officials to Guangdong to investigate the shooting. But they did not come to our village and stayed in Shanwei instead," he said.

...

Hong Kong's Chinese language Asia Week this week reported that an oral report on the shootings by Guangdong provincial party secretary Zhang Dejiang was not accepted by the Politburo's Standing Committee.

The report said Mr Zhang had sidestepped responsibility for the shootings, blaming the deaths on local officials.

The rumoured investigation by the central government probably provides the best rationale for the reports ESWN provides in his post on Guangdong Party Chairman Zhang Dejiang that the construction on the electricity generating plant has halted, instead of the explanation that ESWN provides of Zhang Dejiang being chastened. ESWN provides no analysis at all of the most important struggle to keep a political job on the mainland, factional support from higher ups. And he ends it with this whopper of an absurd false dilemma.

So what are the choices? A chastened Zhang Dejiang who will be motivated to work extra-hard to save his endangered career? Or a brand new faceless bureaucrat?

What is this? Open mic night at The Comedy Connection? Like a faceless bureaucrat will rise to the rank of Provincial Party Secretary in the CCP. And these are the only choices ESWN, the blogger some have termed the Best of Hong Kong, can come up with? Or is it just the false dilemma that a marketing careerist wants to frame the question and influence his readers with?