Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) has attracted the attention of every media outlet after winning this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Every word he ever uttered has become an indicator of China’s political direction. However, if we really want to judge the impact of Liu’s award on Chinese politics, we must look into other changes in China. Some other news might be even more significant and should not be ignored.
For example, Boxun News Network reported that some former senior officials within the system, led by Li Rui (李銳), a former secretary to Mao Zedong (毛澤東), and Hu Jiwei (胡績偉), a former president of the People’s Daily, submitted a joint open letter to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Oct. 11. The letter was titled “Implement Article 35 of the Constitution, abolish pre-publication censorship and implement citizens’ speech and press freedom.” There is nothing special in the letter itself, since such calls are often heard, but a look at the cosigners implies that things are indeed changing.
In addition to Li and Hu, the signators include some former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials who have constantly advocated democracy, such as Jiang Ping (江平), a former president of People’s University of China, and Zhong Peizhang (鐘沛璋), a former director of the Theory Bureau of the Publicity Department. More deserving of our attention, however, were the names of some former high officials that also appeared on the list. They were all new faces that had never before participated in such calls for political reform.
These included Zhou Shaoming (周紹明), a former deputy director of the Political Department of the Guangzhou Military Region; Zhang Zhongpei (張忠培), a former head of the Palace Museum; Hu Fuchen (胡甫臣), a former director and editor-in-chief of the China Worker’s Publishing House; Wang Yongcheng (王永成), a professor at Shanghai Jiaotong University; and Yu Yueting (俞月亭), a former director of Fujian Television.
Perhaps the appearance of these new faces was a result of the “Liu Xiaobo effect,” greatly encouraging the pro-democracy camp in China. Thanks to the international community’s firm support, they now have great confidence in their call for democracy and have greater courage to achieve it.
We know that totalitarian regimes use the trick of spreading fear among the public. Following this line of reasoning, if the public one day loses its fear and tears off its mask, that would be the end of the totalitarian regime.
This is why Liu is so important: He has bravely sacrificed himself to win global support, and by doing this, he encourages and inspires others. This letter is a sign of it.
Wang Dan is a visiting assistant professor in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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