Recently, the tragic rear-end collision that occurred on the Yuncheng Expressway in Shanxi on the afternoon of April 26, resulting in the deaths of three people, has garnered widespread attention. The vehicle involved was a black Huawei Wenjie M7, purchased on January 14 this year, just three months before the incident. A netizen with the username “Three MuMu” stated that the three individuals in the car were her husband, 2-year-old son, and younger brother. Her brother and son perished in the fire because the car doors couldn’t be opened.
She questioned: When they purchased the car, they were told that the vehicle supported AEB automatic emergency braking, GAEB automatic emergency braking for irregular obstacles, battery flame-retardant materials, and thermal runaway protection technology. But when the accident occurred, where were these functions? What happened to the safety airbags?
Facing the families of the victims’ questioning, Huawei Wenjie began shifting blame, claiming that the accident model was not the autonomous driving version and did not have Huawei’s advanced intelligent driving assistance system, but used a Bosch AEB solution. Bosch, the company being accused, immediately responded saying that the involved vehicle didn’t have their intelligent driving system. So, who is lying? What system was actually used in the accident vehicle? It’s difficult to clarify, isn’t it?
On the 28th, 21st Century Business Herald published an article titled “Reflection on the Wenjie M7 Accident: ‘Exaggerated Promotions’ Backfire, The Cost of Being ‘Far Ahead’ Should Not Be Lives Lost,” questioning whether Huawei exaggerated its promotions, if Wenjie itself had safety issues, and Huawei’s response after the accident. The article specifically pointed out that “after the accident, why didn’t the hidden door handles pop out was not mentioned by Wenjie.”
Undoubtedly, the primary goal after any major accident is to save lives. However, in this accident, the inability to open the car doors evidently hindered rescue efforts. The fact that Huawei Wenjie failed to address this issue likely indicates they are aware internally but are reluctant to disclose. According to the Wenjie M7 owner’s manual, all models are supposed to support automatic unlocking after an accident. Yet in this incident, the opposite happened. Why did Huawei Wenjie lie?
As media and the public continue to question Huawei Wenjie, some self-media outlets revealed issues with the AEB in Huawei Wenjie’s intelligent driving system supposedly supplied by AB, with Fukutaiek being the actual supplier. Both Fukutaiek and Bosch provided components for the M7, forming the AB supply chain. It’s known that car manufacturers using different suppliers for similar components is not uncommon, but Wenjie failed to inform buyers.
Speaking of Fukutaiek, it’s impossible not to mention Li Shufu, the chairman of Geely, as he is a major shareholder in Fukutaiek, holding up to 90% of shares, and Fukutaiek is a supplier to Geely. Quite a tangled web, isn’t it?
Even more chaotic is that the Wenjie M7 incident implicates not only Fukutaiek and Geely but reportedly, the supplier for the non-popping door handles is BYD. Although it’s uncertain if other accessory companies were involved later, the involvement of Huawei, Geely, and BYD in a car accident provides much to ponder. As the situation escalates, as usual, voices of criticism online are being muted one by one.
Starting with the deletion of “Three MuMu”s videos and pictures advocating for rights, followed by the removal of posts by supporting netizens, on April 29, 21st Century Business Herald issued a “withdrawal letter” requesting various websites to delete their articles. “Three MuMu” uploaded a statement, tearfully asking for removal of “false reports” online and to stop disturbing her and her family.
In fact, even during media interviews, “Three MuMu” expressed that after the accident, neither Huawei, Wenjie, nor Saicilys had contacted her. She mentioned that initially, she believed that the matter would be handled properly, but after various incidents, she sensed that the (automaker’s side) might try to suppress the matter. Her premonition proved right.
Why is Huawei striving to silence dissent? As mentioned in the article “Reflection on the Wenjie M7 Accident,” “through marketing and promotions, Huawei Wenjie gained market share and profits. However, once an accident occurs, they will pay the price for their overstatement.” It’s damaging to their reputation and bottom line that Huawei is most concerned about.
Clearly, with Huawei’s influence, erasing unfavorable information from the internet, threatening the families of victims, and media coercion are easily achievable. Given Huawei’s ties to the Chinese military and national security, it is the world’s largest manufacturer of wireless network communication equipment such as base stations and antennas. The data carried by its network can assist in controlling other countries’ power grids, financial markets, transport systems, and other critical infrastructure.
Over the past decade, Huawei has enabled abuse, not only in assisting the Chinese Communist Party in stealing foreign political, economic, military, and technological intelligence but also in using advanced technology to help the regime monitor its citizens. According to the book “The Real Jiang Zemin,” Huawei once participated in Jiang Mianheng’s “Golden Shield Project,” also known as the “Great Firewall” led by Jiang Zemin’s eldest son. Later, the project was upgraded to the larger-scale “Safe Cities” comprehensive surveillance system. Internal reports from Huawei revealed they were still a primary hardware provider for such systems.
In 2018, after the arrest of Huawei’s deputy chairman and CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada for violating US sanctions on Iran and the Export Control Act, the CCP spared no effort to bring her back to China, as she held sensitive information about the ties between the CCP and Huawei.
This kind of Huawei easily silencing ordinary people without a background is quite straightforward. Even though their reputation may be tarnished, given the Chinese people’s short memory, it won’t be long before calamities like this are forgotten.
Moreover, the car accident has also drawn in Geely and BYD. Geely’s boss Li Shufu once received support from the then-Zhejiang Communist Party Secretary Xi Jinping. Public reports indicate that in 2002, shortly after assuming the role of Communist Party Secretary of Zhejiang, Xi Jinping visited Geely, the province’s sole car manufacturer, and expressed strong support.
With many private enterprises divesting assets and land, even being taken over by authorities, Geely Group, which spent over $10 billion on overseas acquisitions, and Li Shufu, who mentioned “June 4th,” remain unscathed, indicating their extraordinary relations with the top echelons. Clearly, Geely would also prefer swift suppression of unfavorable questioning.
Thus, another tragedy caused by false advertising from car manufacturers quickly fades from public attention within three days. The truth behind the accident, much like past events including the “Iron Chain Woman,” “Tangshan Barbecue Shop,” Zhengzhou floods, etc., is likely to be covered up or scapegoated. This once again tells the Chinese people: without the removal of the Chinese Communist Party, they will never have a sense of security.