Today is the annual March 15th—everyone knows that March 15th is World Consumer Rights Day, designated in 1983 by the International Consumer Alliance. The purpose of this day is to raise awareness about consumer rights protection and ensure that it receives due attention worldwide, thereby fostering cooperation and exchanges among consumer organizations across countries and regions and better safeguarding consumer rights on an international scale.

In the public sphere, this day goes by another name: “Anti-Counterfeiting Day” or “Consumer Rights Protection Day.” The idea is that this day is specifically dedicated to fighting counterfeiting and safeguarding consumers’ rights and interests. Simply put, on this day, consumers can happily—and with great satisfaction—expose and denounce various upstream manufacturers.

Seriously speaking, the geology community is an upstream industry characterized by creative thinking—seemingly not all that closely connected to festivals that are so closely tied to downstream consumers (though, honestly, this statement isn’t very serious at all~~~). Still, as a struggling grassroots geologist, if we set aside the dozens of geological hammers we’ve used over the years—hammers that broke in two after barely even tapping a few rocks—what else could we possibly tear into on this day?

As the saying goes, “Truth becomes clear only through debate; falsehood cannot be eradicated without confrontation!” As intellectuals engaged in fundamental science—and at the same time as frontline field workers in an upstream industry—we’re naturally ready to tear apart knowledge, dismantle systems, challenge reports, and even—why not?—tear apart rocks!

But absolutely, absolutely, absolutely—do not tear the book! Do not tear the book! Do not tear the book! I’m emphasizing this important point three times.

So, the very first thing we need to fight for today—our right to defend our own interests—is the theory of continental drift.

1. The Theory of Continental Drift

The theory of continental drift was proposed in 1910 by a German meteorologist named Alfred Wegener—this gentleman shown in the picture below.

Of course, there’s also the formal, uncropped, two-inch photo of someone dressed in a suit and tie—there are so many people who’ve already seen it that I won’t post it here.

Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift after casually examining world maps at the time and noticing that the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic Ocean appeared to fit together seamlessly—almost as if they were pieces of a puzzle! (A bit of a “puzzle obsession,” perhaps?) He then went on to study in greater detail the geological structures, mineral rocks, and fossil remains found along both sides of the Atlantic, discovering that these geological features on either side were strikingly similar.

Guided by the scientific spirit of boldly hypothesizing and carefully verifying, Wegener proposed that all the continents on Earth were originally connected to form a single supercontinent. It was only later, due to incompatibility and the breakdown of their relationship, as well as the influence of various external forces, that they separated and took on their present configuration.

This caused a sensation throughout the geological community at the time, with equally strong voices both in support and opposition. Soon after, the opponents identified a fatal flaw in Wegener’s theory of continental drift: How could continents, deeply embedded as they were, possibly drift tens of thousands of miles? What was the driving force behind continental drift?

Wegener had no answers to these two questions.

Thus, half of the geological community launched a vigorous campaign to debunk Wegener’s theory of continental drift.

However, as time went on, this hypothesis began to seem increasingly plausible. Fifty years after the theory of continental drift emerged, a new theory—the “seafloor spreading hypothesis”—was proposed by American seismologist Dietz and further elaborated upon by Canadian scientist Hess.

The continents are drifting, and the ocean floor is expanding—thus, another important theory is on the verge of being born.

Eight years later, the theory of plate tectonics was introduced.

From “continental drift” to “seafloor spreading,” and finally to “plate tectonics,” the theory of continental drift has undergone a dramatic transformation—from initially being a target for debunking to later becoming a cornerstone of geological theory.

As the saying goes, “When falsehood is taken for truth, even truth becomes false; when nothingness is treated as if it were something, something can even turn into nothing.” We tend to enjoy stories like these—stories of academic debate moving forward and of progress achieved through inheritance.

Having torn apart the knowledge, let’s now take a closer look at the system itself. The advantages and disadvantages of socio-political systems typically manifest themselves concretely in their impact on an individual’s life—this is precisely the person we’ll be discussing next: Ong Wenhao.

2. Wong Man-hao

Weng Wenhao (1889–1971), whose pen names were Yongni and Que Shi, was born in Yin County, Zhejiang Province (now part of Ningbo).

Born into a family of gentry and merchants, he studied in Belgium at the end of the Qing Dynasty, specializing in geology and earning a Ph.D. in science. He returned to China in 1912. As a renowned scholar during the Republican era, he was one of China’s earliest and most celebrated geologists. He made outstanding contributions to various fields, including geological education in China, mineral exploration, and earthquake research.

He holds many “firsts”: China’s first PhD in geology, the compiler of China’s first “Geology Lecture Notes,” the first Chinese scholar to write a monograph on China’s mineral resources, the creator of China’s first colored national geological map, the first Chinese scholar to study earthquake disasters and publish a monograph on earthquakes, one of the founders of the first “China Mining Bulletin,” and the first geologist to represent China at an international geological conference.

He was a pioneer in China’s geological endeavors. He braved mountains and rivers, endured the elements, and roamed across the land of Huaxia, exploring its mysteries and conducting surveys of mineral resources. In 1922, he and Professor Li Siguang were elected vice presidents of the society. Many of his scientific achievements continue to be used today—for instance, the notion that more than 100 million years ago, during the Mesozoic Era, China experienced a large-scale “orogenic event,” which he illustrated with the Yanshan Mountains north of Beijing and named the “Yanshan Orogeny.” This term, along with its underlying implications and the mechanisms behind mineral formation in eastern China, remains widely recognized and passed down within the geoscience community to this day.

His career began as a lecturer at the Geological Research Institute, within the Geology Division of the Mining Bureau under the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of China. As he excelled in teaching, he was soon appointed head of the Mineral Resources Section of the same institute. In 1931, he served as acting president of Tsinghua University; in 1933, he became the Secretary-General of the National Defense Design Committee of the Republic of China; and in 1935, he took on the role of Secretary-General of the Executive Yuan. In 1938, he was appointed Minister of Economic Affairs and concurrently served as Chairman of the Resources Commission. Then, in 1948, somewhat by accident, he found himself appointed as President of the Executive Yuan.

The six-month-and-two-day tenure as Chief of the Cabinet was the highest political achievement that Ong Wenhao ever attained. After that, however, society’s political system began repeatedly “exposing his alleged fraud.”

In 1948, at a symposium chaired by prominent officials of the Chinese Communist Party, Weng Wenhao was listed as the 12th among the 43 war criminals headed by Chiang Kai-shek and thus became a war criminal himself.

In 1949, under the threat of assassination by the Kuomintang’s secret agents, he left Hong Kong temporarily and went to Paris for refuge.

In 1951, he left France and returned to Beijing via Hong Kong and Macao.

In 1954, nominated by Premier Zhou Enlai, he was elected as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

In 1956, recommended by Shao Lizzi, he joined the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Nationalist Party and later served as a member of the Central Standing Committee.

During the decade-long Cultural Revolution, he ultimately could not withstand the onslaught of the political tide. In 1971, after his beloved son, Weng Xinyuan, was coerced into confessing and subsequently persecuted to death, his spirit finally returned to heaven.

In the tortuous journey—from geologist to Premier, then to war criminal, and finally to member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in the new China—of this patriotic and outstanding intellectual, how much there is to evoke our memories, honor his legacy, and prompt us to reflect! And how can mere debunking or a single rehabilitation ever truly compensate for the way political history has mocked and trampled upon an individual’s life?

It wasn't until 1982, at the Beidaihe Conference marking the 60th anniversary of its founding, that the Geological Society of China finally announced: The four renowned geologists—Zhang Hongzhao, Ding Wenjiang, Weng Wenhao, and Li Siguang—are recognized as the founders of China's geological endeavors.

Next, the document we’re about to tear up is directly linked to our salaries and bonuses—whether we have it or not, our boss’s paychecks will definitely differ. This is precisely what geologists see as the embodiment of wisdom and youth combined, the very epitome of heroism and chivalry: the geological report.

3. Geological Report

As for the issue of falsified geological reports, I don’t know whether it’s happened before—anyway, it’s happening now.

As a geology newcomer with only partial knowledge, I’m unaware of the Canadian Century Gold Mine exploration scam, nor do I know when the earliest instances of geological fraud began.

But I know that, typically in our country, the outcome of dealing with falsified geological reports is as follows:

That’s right—administrative punishment.

The most sensational news story about fabricated geological reports I’ve ever seen was the 2015 CCTV report titled “How Fake Documents Were Turned Into Real Certificates.”

The report details how an iron mine in Ulanqab City, Inner Mongolia, obtained a mining permit from the Inner Mongolia Department of Natural Resources by submitting falsified documentation. This report has subsequently sparked a debate over whether the land and resources authorities should conduct a formal review or a substantive review when issuing administrative permits such as mining licenses.

Shortly after this report—around October 2015—the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China issued the "Reply of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Whether the Geological Engineering Survey Institute and Other Entities Performing Surveying Duties, as well as Their Staff, Can Be Considered Criminal Subjects Under Article 229 of the Criminal Law," officially incorporating the falsification of geological reports into the criminal law.

But, but, but—in this discussion that has virtually swept across the entire geoscientific community, very few people have addressed one question: How much compensation has Zhao Moumou received for the losses incurred due to purchasing the mine???

No one knows the answer to this question, or perhaps this question will never have an answer.

I’m not saying that it’s pointless to “share some well-known cases, then solemnly point out N management loopholes in the administrative departments, and finally offer N suggestions for improvement.” What I’m getting at is this: If our discussions don’t provide any substantial help to the victims, shouldn’t we take a step back and ask ourselves—do the methods, approaches, or even the very direction of these discussions perhaps have some fundamental issues???

Therefore, the editors of Mining Online are very eager to report on cases of falsified geological reports; and they are equally enthusiastic about reporting on efforts to debunk such false geological reports.