Prohibition against Pajero Import: Japan-made Myth BrokenOn September 15, 2000, Huang Guoqing, a driver in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, came across a safety problem caused by a sudden braking failure as he drove the said Japanese vehicle. This incident cried for an immediate investigation. Some time later, accidents caused by the same problems of Pajero V31, V33 had occurred one after another in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region and Yunnan Province since last September. A case in point, which has aroused great concern across China, is victim Lu Hui of a Pajero accident. She was run down by a Pajero V31, which was driven by Li Zhiming, in Changsha on December 25 last year. Now Lu still suffers and her life hangs in the balance. An on-the-spot investigation showed that the accident was caused by a sudden failure of braking. On September 29, 2000, the State Exit-Entry Inspection and Quarantine Bureau of China formally required Mitsubishi Motors to carry out a comprehensive inspection of its Pajero vehicles. On February 8, 2001, it called for a halt to importation of such vehicles from Japan and asked Mitsubishi to make a public apology, replace the products and pay compensation for the deaths caused by hidden problems according to relevant laws. From February 10, Pajero V31, V33 users in China began to have their vehicles examined in the 44 designated service stations of Mitsubishi. As sources say, there are altogether 72,000 such Mitsubishi vehicles in China, about 30,000 of them are running in Yunnan Province. Of the over 700 vehicles examined in the first week in Yunnan, 10 percent were found with safety problems. On February 12, Mitsubishi made a public apology and announced that it would recall all the Pajero V31, V33 vehicles for examination. However, it refused to pay indemnity. It quibbled that the safety troubles stemmed from the terrible road condition in China. It claimed that investigations should be made to find out the cause of the accident and negotiations should be held between Mitsubishi and its clients for a final settlement, but it gave no definite answer in relation to the matter. On February 14, Mitsubishi declared that it would change the components free of charge for the Chinese consumers. Undoubtedly, Chinese consumers are dissatisfied with the "passive" attitude of Mitsubishi Corporation. However, they flew into a rage at hearing Mitsubishi's announcement to call back 1,500,000 vehicles with potential problems across the world, including over 400,000 vehicles in Japan and the 237,000 vehicles withdrawn last year. The call-back program estimated at a cost of US$170 million led to a fall of 6.3 percent in its stock prices. However, the 72,000 Pajero V31 and V33 land-cruisers are excluded. According to China's Law on Protecting Consumers' Rights and Interests, Mitsubishi Motors shall not only call back all the Pajero V31, V33 land-cruisers, but shall also pay compensation to its consumers. With the backing of related Chinese laws and regulations, the China Consumers' Association (CCA) urged Mitsubishi to respect Chinese consumers' rights and asked it to deal with the problem seriously during an interview with an official in charge of Mitsubishi Beijing Office. CCA made repeated representations to Japanese Mitsubishi regarding the serious safety problem: Japanese Mitsubishi should make a public apology, replace the shoddy products and call back its Pajero V31, V33 cross-country cars. Besides, it should also pay compensation for deaths caused by the safety problem according to relevant laws. CCA encourages Chinese consumers to safeguard their interests by using available laws and regulations as weapons. The association also explained in detail how to sue the Mitsubishi Motors and what kind of aid CCA can provide through Chinese TV program. The release of numerous media reports has sparked general complaints and blames to Mitsubishi Motors. Facing the pressure from all quarters, Mitsubishi Corporation sent four representatives to Beijing for detailed negotiations with the CCA on February 19, to once again express their apology to Chinese consumers. In regard to some victims of the crashes caused by Pajero safety problems, Mitsubishi asked for thorough investigation in coordination with the persons concerned. For the "Lu Hui accident", Mitsubishi promised to give a reply in two months (before February 22, 2001). From September 29, 2000, when the State Exit-Entry Inspection and Quarantine Bureau of China formally informed Mitsubishi Motors of the need to carry out a comprehensive inspection of its Pajero vehicles, to February 2, 2001, when China finally decided to stop importing Pajero V31s and V33s land-cruisers, Mitsubishi had had more than four months to deal with the safety problems inherent in its products. Since the same phenomenon emerged in Japan last year, it should have taken the issue seriously. However, Mitsubishi failed to deal with the matter. Concerned personages with the China State Exit-Entry Inspection and Quarantine Bureau told the media that there is no room for bargain regarding the revocation of the permit and prohibition against importation. Only when the quality problem is solved satisfactorily, can Mitsubishi hopefully regain its license for business in China. After the first safety problem was revealed, Mitsubishi did not admit its mistakes, but instead, slandered that China's road condition was too bad. When realized the gravity of the issue, it still refused to pay compensation to Chinese consumers. Besides, as mentioned above, it announced its decision to call back the 1,500,000 Mitsubishi vehicles with potential problems across the world, but excluding the 72,000 Pajero V31 and V33 land-cruisers in China. Mitsubishi's practice deviated from their so-called perfect professional ethics which they have always taken pride in. Meanwhile, their action violated the international commercial rules and regulations and harmed the clients' interests. If Mitsubishi fails to respect Chinese consumers and abide by Chinese laws, it will lose the latter's confidence in the company and consequently lose large numbers of Chinese clients. Some Chinese people, especially urban residents, may still clearly remember the recent Toshiba notebook event. The Toshiba Corporation paid the Americans US$1.05 billion for compensation for the loss caused by its faulty program while offering the Chinese only a patch for updating the program. Personages with the CCA admitted that Chinese consumers have had difficulty in safeguarding their rights in many similar incidents in the past, such as the cases related to Toshiba and Mitsubishi. However, the Pajero issue this time tended to end with a different result. First, the Chinese people are well aware that they can use existing laws and regulations to protect their rights and interests. Second, more Chinese understand to collect pieces of convincing evidence to back their lawsuit. Third, CCA provides strong support to Chinese Pajero users. Besides, coordination between the State Exit-Entry Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, the CCA, the mass media and individuals did help find out the truth and brought pressure to bear upon Mitsubishi Corporation. Now there have been a few Chinese consumers who prosecuted Mitsubishi Motors and asked it to compensate for their losses. When the Pajero V31, V33 vehicles will be allowed to come back to China is still unforeseeable. By PD Online staff member Du Minghua |
| People's Daily Online --- http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/ |
