This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution, but little attention has been given to the commemoration of this major historical event in Chinese official or unofficial spheres.
The Cultural Revolution was a major turning point in the evolution of China’s state socialism from the Maoist era to the Reform period. As with other developing countries, China’s quest for modernization was immensely painful because of the compressed timescale and the intense endogenous and exogenous pressures for change.
Founded in 1949, the People’s Republic of China has distinguished itself in its extensive use of power to remodel politics, society, economy and culture. Neither a mere reproduction of the Soviet Union model nor a reincarnation of the Confucian empire, the Maoist state created numerous institutional mechanisms to impose strict top-down control over and surveillance of the population. It advanced socialist ideology and enforced oppressive policies at all levels, dominating political, socioeconomic and cultural domains in an unprecedented scale.
Yet, the Cultural Revolution that set out to activate popular radicalism and revolutionary fervor in support of Mao Zedong (毛澤東) against his political opponents almost brought down the communist regime. The state only survived by suppressing the popular outpourings that Mao had encouraged. Since then, communism as a belief system and a behavioral norm collapsed utterly, materialism and pragmatism prevailed under former Chinese president Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) and his successors. From the 1980s onwards economic growth has become the only hope and desire among ordinary people, and thus the road to the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy.
Relying solely on the transformative power of a market economy and the stability of authoritarian rule, the communist leaders have introduced, adapted and manipulated specific tenets of capitalism, such as welcoming foreign investment, deregulating the labor market and building urban infrastructure, while maintaining strict control over government institutions, the military, public security, and people’s access to the Internet. Accompanying the nation’s remarkable economic growth are dictatorship and domestic conflicts, not liberalization and democratic transition.
Because of explosive grievances exacerbated by the state’s top-down development strategies and its reluctance to reform its autocratic rule, a 21st-century China that dismisses the historical lessons of the Cultural Revolution and denies equality and freedom is bound to push discontented groups to mobilize against the state. In this volatile situation, unprecedented growth only gave China a temporary reprieve, because the state is still trapped in a perceptual cycle of discontent and unrest.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry