Yesterday, the Beijing police responded to public questions regarding the thallium poisoning of Zhu Ling, pointing out that they first received the report in May of 1995 - five months after the poisoning occurred, due to the extended illness and lengthy diagnosis. Because of a lack of evidence, the case was never resolved. The Beijing police said yesterday that they "feel deeply sorry" that they couldn't solve the case, and deeply sympathize with Zhu Ling's family. Meanwhile, the police also insisted that investigation was totally independent, with no interference.

Instantly, some netizens on Weibo refused to accept the statement made by the Beijing police and raised more questions. It seems that the police response could not quell public emotions.

This may be the reason why officials sometimes prefer "low-profile" approaches. They believe that public emotion can slowly be cooled down if left alone, but communicating with the public stirs up more questions.

How should we view the police statement? Given the huge public attention, it's not likely any officials would dare issue a statement with false content. Neither individuals nor institutions would be able to take such dangerous risks. It conceivable people deliberately stayed silent, however this would be totally different from cheating under the public's watchful eyes.

Officials' authority and credibility are not sufficient to quell public questions, which is a big problem faced by official departments. It is already difficult for the Chinese public to place a high degree of trust in officials.

This is not because of faults of the Beijing police or any lack of skill when responding to the case. They Beijing police are paying the price for the credibility deficiency of officials.

The Beijing police cannot satisfy the public no matter what they do. The questions are a result of public distrust.

It is very difficult to deal with issues like this when their complexity is coupled with people's sympathy for Zhu's family.

The response by the Beijing police was quite slow on this occasion. Current communication mechanisms are still weak, though officials cannot respond to every question.

A lack of credibility is the root cause of small-scale events becoming national debates. If officials can strengthen their credibility it will greatly reduce the cost of social governance. This is a huge systemic process which must be done, but it will be difficult.

In fact, because of the remarkable achievements brought about by China's reform and opening up, governments have the right conditions to improve their credibility. However, governments should make efforts in their daily lives to promote this process.

The resolving of this problem requires efforts from both governments and mainstream social forces.

The unresolved Zhu Ling case has been a scar for all of society. Although it remains unresolved, the pain brought by this scar is already sufficient to push us forward.