Without doubt, the most significant social development in China at the moment is the emergence of weiquan (維權) civil rights movements. There are those who see this as a positive development, a mark of the emergence of civil society in China and the result of many years of brooding dissatisfaction with the way society operates. However, there are also many people who have their reservations. The issues they choose to tackle, say their detractors, are rather peripheral, and do not target core social problems. Not only that, but they are also limited to certain cities and counties, and generally are successfully resolved by the government either throwing money at the problem or agreeing to temporary compromises. The point of the detractors is that this is not the way to instigate change through people power.
It is questionable whether this is an accurate appraisal, and anyone who has such a pessimistic view of the situation should take a close look at the latest civil rights movement: The protest against the construction of a PX (p-xylene) petrochemical plant in the Zhenhai district of Ningbo city.
As part of this movement, which successfully forced the Ningbo city government to halt construction of the PX plant, the Internet played an important role in mobilizing people and encouraging public debate on the issue. The city residents’ grievances were summarized into 10 points and posted on a Web site, increasing awareness of the issue in the area.
These 10 points included the basic demands of the protesters, such as “Halt the PX petrochemical project, and don’t allow any more petrochemical projects into [Ningbo’s] Zhenhai district” and “Do as they do in advanced Western countries, introduce garbage recycling laws and set up local garbage recycling centers in Zhenhai.” There were others too, including three that are particularly worth emphasizing. Point No. 6 called for more honesty in news coverage and not suppressing negative news; the eighth was for local electoral reform, and to allow TV debates at the grassroots level and election slogans for the candidates; finally, the 10th point said that the local government was responsible for keeping residents informed.
Clearly, these demands have gone way beyond the realms of issues concerning people’s everyday lives and have encroached upon the political realm. Neither is this an isolated case. More than a year ago in the Wukan Incident (烏坎事件), the several thousand villagers who were protesting made overtly political demands, calling for human rights guarantees and elections. The Wukan Incident ended, too, with a directly political result: a representative council formed of members elected by the villagers themselves.
These examples demonstrate that, although the majority of the demands made by the civil rights movements in China concern issues to do with the practicalities of everyday life, it is generally understood in China that every single issue is political. Therefore, when the demands have moved from issues concerning everyday life to those involving political demands, it is clear that progress is being made.
There are many examples of how democracy, civil empowerment and the emergence of civil society in various countries have started with peripheral issues, such as environmental protection, food safety and public security. The Snails Without Shells (無殼蝸牛運動) social housing movement that started in 1989 in Taiwan is a case in point. It is in these kinds of social movements that political power is crystallized over time, and this, unless it is an exception, is where the civil rights movements are headed in China.
Wang Dan is a visiting associate professor at National Tsing Hua University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with