Around the time of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) 15th National Congress in 1997, an unusual atmosphere arose within China. This had to do with the intensifying the policy of "reform and opening," and promoting the benefits of globalization.
The publishing world could let a hundred flowers bloom, selling books with capitalistic and even democratic leanings.
By the time of the 16th party congress in 2002, this atmosphere was still there.
With Chinese President Hu Jintao's (
But what happened was the opposite of what people had hoped. It turned out that the ones in the gold-rimmed glasses aren't always the good guys: After Hu and Wen had come to power, they left less and less space for freedom of speech.
This was done under the idea of "creating a harmonious society." Harmony was to be achieved by forcing critics to keep their mouths shut, with the notion that if there were little criticism, society could be harmonious.
With the start of the 17th party congress last month, people had very low expectations about political reform. Hu's political report to the congress was again a reason to sigh in despair. Hu did not speak of "reform of the political system" anymore. Instead, he talked about a "socialist democracy." He also dug up the long-forgotten concepts of "one central task, two basic points"and "four basic principles."
The four basic principles are keeping to the socialist road and upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the Communist Party, and the promotion of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.
From such content, it looks like any changes in the system are all in the small details, and they only allow more freedom in areas that had already been relaxed at the time of the 15th party congress.
In the election of the members of the Central Committee, only 8 percent of the candidates were eliminated. The meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress was still closed, and no questions could be asked. The situation has reverted to that at the time of the 13th party congress in 1987.
The media had been given the good tiding that the 17th party congress would be more open to the media. But, as it turned out, they were only fed small morsels of news and insignificant information. Before the 17th party congress started, China already drew the line for the media as to what they could write about.
This is a clear indication that the control China exercises over the media is getting more sophisticated. The government tries to win the media over by giving them something they want, but at the same time it gets an ever tighter grip on them, as if it wants to insist on the "four basic principles."
If China gains an ever tighter hold on its media, any hope for political reform by the government will be lost.
Some people say that the reforms that former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) promoted were a "minimalizing of political reform," but at least Jiang talked about reform of the political system and not so much about the "four basic principles."
By comparison, the group of leaders that Hu now leads not only exercises tight control over the media and freedom of speech, it is not even willing to put "reform of the political system" in the title of their political report.
It looks like Hu is even less likely than Jiang to put such a policy into effect. Not only did he confine the reforms to the Cabinet, he also plans to reform only small details and implement reforms in the name of the "four basic principles."
Apart from the fact that he did not repeat the phrase that China should "not copy the model of the Western political system," Hu did not show he had any reason or real intention to promote political reform. But according to the logic of some Taiwanese academics, who say that "the ones with the gold-rimmed glasses are the good guys," that Hu didn't reject copying the Western model is probably enough reason to continue to expect him to push for political reform.
Li To-tzu is a doctoral student at Tsing-Hua University's Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
RSS