Since severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) first appeared last November in Guangdong Province before spreading via Hong Kong to the rest of the world, officials at all levels in Beijing have been deceiving their own people and the outside world. The curtain was not lifted until after the Chinese Communist Party's general secretary, President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), met with Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) on April 12 in Shenzhen. Following that meeting, Hu went to Guang-zhou and publicly announced that he was "anxious" about this contagious disease.
Hu's recent tour to the south recalls Deng Xiaoping's (鄧小平) southern tour in 1992. At that time, Deng had already retired from all of his posts. He had even handed the chairman's position at the Central Military Commission to former president Jiang Zemin (江澤民). But Jiang perversely engaged in "opposition to peaceful evolution," and it became difficult for Deng to exercise his influence in Beijing. So Deng went to Guangdong and spoke to the rest of China, calling for reform and also declaring that anyone who didn't undertake reforms would have to step down.
The circumstances of Hu's recent tour to the south were very strange. He left Beijing on April 10 with the primary intent of understanding the SARS problem, but his first stop was in Zhanjiang. Only after that apparent feint did he double back to Shenzhen and Guangzhou.
Meanwhile, back in Beijing, Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was still claiming on April 13 that the epidemic was under control and telling people not to worry about travelling. It isn't clear whether Wen was deliberately deceiving people or whether he was also kept in the dark about Hu's real reason for travelling to the south. After Hu had spoken out in the south, however, Wen immediately fell into step with the new line . This shows that they are still, at least, cooperating.
Since preventive measures came too late and the government's credibility is nil, it is understandable that people are fleeing Beijing in a panic and trying to stockpile supplies, even as relatively accurate statistics on death and infection emerge. The strange thing is that in confronting this major crisis of the post-Tiananmen era, only a few leaders are stepping forward to take action. On April 17, Hu presided over a meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee to discuss the SARS problem, and he forbade under-reporting of the epidemic -- in a pointed response to the falsifications by military hospitals.
But of the Politburo Standing Committee members, only Hu and Wen have stepped into the foreground. The only other person to take a clear leadership position has been Vice Premier Wu Yi (吳儀), who is not a member of the Standing Committee and is a relative political lightweight.
Jiang's trusted proteges, who are squatting on the Politburo Standing Committee, did not taken a stand, which added to the weird atmosphere. These people only reacted on April 25, and probably then under pressure. On that afternoon, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress met in small groups to review a SARS work report delivered by Wu Yi on behalf of the State Council. National People's Congress Standing Committee Chairman Wu Bangguo (
On the same day, Jiang's protege, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin (
And on April 20, the CCP announced that Health Minister Zhang Wenkang (
On this point, one inevitably wonders what Jiang is doing, given that he stepped down at the CCP's 16th National Congress but kept his post as Chairman of the Central Military Commission and still has the last word on major issues.
On April 21, Hu met with a delegation of US senators visiting Beijing headed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Given Jiang's love of the limelight and the great importance he attaches to Sino-US relations -- not to mention the fact that the senators had just come from Taiwan -- a meeting with Jiang should have been obligatory, but he never appeared.
On April 22, First Vice Chairman Cho Myong-rok of North Korea's National Defense Commission, visited Beijing. As chairman of the Central Military Commission, Jiang naturally should have met this soldier from an allied country, but once again he didn't appear. Where has Jiang gone?
In the April 24 edition of Hong Kong's Sing Tao Daily, a columnist by the name of Lu Jun (
If one recalls that Mao Zedong (
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization can find no evidence of a cover-up in Shanghai, although medical personnel have revealed to Time magazine that there has indeed been one. Apparently, more sophisticated tactics have been used in Shanghai, and with Jiang personally taking charge, they have been bolder as well. Developments in the Politburo may ultimately take a shocking turn.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US