An 88-day investigation finally brought justice for Zhao Dengyong, who was initially accused of setting off a bomb in Qiaojia county, Zhaotong of Yunnan Province on May 10. The explosion killed four people including Zhao and injured 16. The provincial public security department said late Monday night that they have arrested two people thought to be behind the attack. They allegedly paid Zhao 100 yuan ($15.70) to carry a backpack with a bomb into a government office building and then detonated the bomb by mobile phone.

From the very beginning, there were doubts over why Zhao was singled out by the police as the suspect, since the explosion happened when land compensation agreements were about to be signed between local villagers and the government over the demolition of their homes, while Zhao was not involved in the demolition and had no apparent motive.

The investigation result should have helped appease the incident. But it was reported yesterday that the local people were told not to discuss the case after the police publicized the investigation results, leading to another round of public criticism.

Controversy and rumors surrounded the case from the beginning, including whether land disputes were related to the attack and whether Zhao was the culprit. Public skepticism was fueled after police hastily dismissed the claim that land disputes were involved.

Four days after the explosion, Yang Chaobang, police chief of Qiaojia, said he would bet his job on the conclusion that Zhao was the man responsible for the explosion. Now the results of the case showed that he was wrong. Many voices are calling for the police chief to be held accountable.

When a criminal case occurs, grass-roots police are under a great deal of pressure to solve it. As in the Qiaojia case, the police mistakenly pointed the finger at Zhao and the local government tried to underplay the role of local land disputes. However, facing great public pressure, they finally presented the public with the truth. 

But it will only worsen the situation if local authorities ask people to stay silent. Public supervision and questions have long been the driving force behind judicial progress. Trying to control public opinion only shows the outdated administrative style of officials. Needless to say, in the Internet era, controlling public opinion is impossible.

Grass-roots administrative progress needs criticism as well as encouragement. There are some deficiencies in grass-roots governance. The pressure of public opinion could help local governments reflect on their improper actions, but sometimes acknowledgement of their improvement may be more inspiring.