AN advert featuring outspoken China critic Wong Yuk-man has been banned by local pro-Beijing newspapers. The advert, for a 'Chinese-language digital personal assistant', ran in Wen Wei Po for only one day last month before being dropped. It has been widely seen on local television and in the Chinese press, except Beijing-backed newspapers. Manufacturers Meijin Seiko (HK) Ltd planned to advertise in Wen Wei Po and the New Evening Post. Wen Wei Po dropped it after one day, sources said, and it did not appear in the New Evening Post. One source in Meijin Seiko said: 'One of the papers said we should know well enough why they couldn't run the advert. And they also told us other pro-China papers in Hong Kong would not run this ad either.' He said when the company asked why, they were told 'the higher level won't let them run it after they saw the ad in Wen Wei Po'. 'I asked who is the higher level - they said Xinhua (the New China News Agency),' the source said. He said the advertising campaign was purely a business activity, and he could not understand why the pro-China newspapers would ban it. It is understood the company has decided against complaining about the ban, fearing persecution and the closure of its mainland factory. The company wanted to target both local and mainland Chinese because the product boasts a digital diary and a dictionary, and includes pen-input technology for handwritten Chinese characters. The source said advertising in pro-China papers was crucial as they were sold on the mainland, but the company did not regret featuring Mr Wong because he was popular in both Hong Kong and China. The source said the ban did not surprise him, adding: 'The stubborn Communist Party or those who want to shoe-shine the Communist Party will do things like that'. Wen Wei Po denied the advert was dropped because of political reasons. A spokesman said the paper had the right to choose which adverts to run. And general manager of the New Evening Post's advertising department, Michael Kwong Chun-wai, said the advert was not suitable for the paper, but declined to elaborate.