When US radio reporter Mary Kay Magistad recently reported on how the rise of online political humor in China is helping spread subversive messages through parody and satire, she explained an important way Chinese netizens could copy what happened in the Soviet Union when “the walls came tumbling down.” As more and more Russians in the 1970s and 1980s heard the call of freedom and democracy, humor in the USSR grew by leaps and bounds — and served an important purpose in giving the masses a way to both release stress and express their yearnings for a post-communist future. And this was long before the Internet ever existed.
Now, the same thing is happening in China, but aided and abetted by the Internet, according to Magistad, who reports for The World, an online radio show sponsored by Public Radio International.
“When the situation is getting tougher, the humor is getting stronger. That has always been the case,” Xiao Qiang (蕭強), who runs China Digital Times, a Web site that follows news and Web trends in China, told Magistad.
He said that as Chinese authorities tried to step up control in the wake of pro--democracy revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa last year, China’s online humor had, if anything, gotten sharper.
“Because especially when it comes to political and social matters, where there’s always a sense of repression there, speaking truth to power requires a lot of courage, and there’s risk involved,” Xiao told Magistad. “But humor can smooth that out.”
Examples abound: When two high-speed trains collided last summer, killing dozens and creating headlines worldwide, a former journalist named Liu Dongdong (劉咚咚) took a classic Chinese rock song and rewrote the lyrics to create a satirical critique of government mismanagement — of both the high-speed train project and of the tragic accident. The song, according to Liu, got millions of hits online.
“These days in China, people are under a lot of pressure and sometimes they feel helpless,” Liu told Magistad. “I hope doing these songs helps relieve some of that pressure — and maybe even gets a little attention from the authorities so they do something about the problems.”
Magistad also interviewed a Chinese satirical singer named Chuanzi (川子) and said she found the singer’s behavior, often at the behest of his professional handlers, to be incongruous with his sharp and witty work.
“I’m poking fun at the difficulties in our life, the difficulties we need to face,” he told her. “By poking fun, we gain a certain amount of momentum or a certain amount of power to change our lives; but the system, I don’t think we can change. I think I’m a very small potato. I think I’m too weak by myself to change things, but if we stick together — we artists — it’s possible to change society, and even the system, and to push it forward.”
Here comes trouble? Yes, and Chuanzi’s agent became a bit agitated, Magistad reported, saying the manager took her mobile phone and walked out of the restaurant to make a call. She came back and pulled Chuanzi aside and spoke to him. Guess what?
When he rejoined the interview, Magistad reported: “It was like a politically correct clone had taken his place. I asked what needed to change in the system to bring about the social change he desired.”
“I think this is a question for the State Council and the National People’s Congress to resolve,” he told Magistad in a new tone of voice, with the invisible government straitjacket firmly in place all of a sudden. “We ordinary people have no right to speak on this.”
What happened to the Soviet Union is being mirrored today in China and while everyone said the USSR could never collapse, it did. And there’s a lesson here for China, too.
Dan Bloom is a writer based in Chiayi.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers