As an official’s son visiting the UK back in 1989, Xiao was afraid to talk about the crackdown on democracy activists in Tiananmen Square. However, in January, as word spread among his friends that a Wuhan doctor had contracted the virus sweeping the Chinese city, he spoke up.
“Situation is very ill-condition in Wuhan. Take care of yourself! The case this time could be even worse than 2003,” he wrote on the messaging app WeChat, referencing the SARS outbreak 17 years earlier.
Xiao wrote the message partially in English to evade official censors, as Chinese authorities still had not acknowledged human-to-human transmission.
Now, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) member says he is still angry over the local government’s attempts to cover up a disease that has now killed more than 170,000 globally, including more than 4,600 in China. Like many who endured the 11-week lockdown in Wuhan, Xiao believes the government must become more transparent and more receptive to people’s concerns.
“There’s nothing to be afraid of speaking out on the right things,” said Xiao, who asked that his full name not be used. “My purpose of expressing my opinion is not to overthrow a regime. I’m not debating anyone, but hoping to make the nation stronger.”
RARE CRITICISM
Three months after the COVID-19 outbreak unleashed a rare outpouring of criticism of China’s government, doubts linger about how much the CCP’s secrecy and censorship contributed to the crisis. Even as China seeks to revive its economy under a host of restrictions meant to prevent another outbreak, some are urging looser limits on speech.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) allowed some criticism of local officials during the height of the outbreak, including mass expressions of grief for whistle-blowing doctor Li Wenliang (李文亮), who died on Feb. 7 after contracting COVID-19.
During a visit to Wuhan on March 10, Xi told local officials to “understand, tolerate and pardon” some outbursts after the long period of quarantine.
Still, Xi has declared the party’s handling of the virus “correct” and complaints about the central government remain off-limits.
Outspoken property tycoon Ren Zhiqiang (任志強) was placed under investigation earlier this month after he was widely associated with an anonymous article denouncing the country’s “great leader” as a “clown with no clothes on who was still determined to play emperor.”
The risk of dissent boiling over during the outbreak-induced economic slowdown has been driven home by incidents of unrest as the government lifted lockdowns in Hubei Province, which encompasses Wuhan.
Dozens of small shop owners protested outside one of Wuhan’s biggest shopping malls to demand a cut in rent earlier this month, days after violent border clashes as police in Jiangxi Province tried to keep Hubei residents out.
Some prominent academics are advocating for a system that allows for more dissenting views without threatening a regime many Chinese credit with the country’s return to global wealth and power.
Earlier this month, 25 academics from the nation’s so-called New Confucians (新儒家) intellectual movement posted an article calling for relaxing Internet controls and creating a channel to allow for people to share blunt feedback with the government.
“Although the country is emerging from the disaster brought by the coronavirus plague, the trauma and pain are enormous,” wrote the academics, including professors Guo Qiyong (郭齊勇) of Wuhan University and Bai Tongdong (白彤東) of Fudan University in Shanghai. “In this process, many problems facing the state governance manifested. We hope these problems get serious reflection and are addressed.”
The self-described “moderate” academics said that such systems have a long history in China, with Confucius more than 2,500 years ago praising a minister for opening public spaces for discussion and tolerating dissent.
Invoking one of China’s most influential historical figures is intended to be less threatening to the CCP, which early on in Xi’s tenure banned the promotion of “Western values,” including multiparty democracy and freedom of the press.
In the years since, Xi has expanded controls on social media, requiring real-name registration of accounts, criminalizing the spread of rumors and punishing influential commentators with millions of followers.
The Wuhan outbreak exposed the cost of such controls, with Li and several other doctors reprimanded for sharing warnings about the coronavirus infection risk in WeChat groups in late December last year.
Zhang Hai (張海), who took his 76-year-old father to Wuhan for surgery on Jan. 17, said the army veteran who worked on China’s early nuclear program might still be alive if they had known the coronavirus was contagious before the trip.
Officials would not acknowledge the threat of human-to-human transmission for another three days.
By Feb. 1, his father, Zhang Lifa (張立發), was dead from complications related to the virus.
“I am very patriotic, don’t get me wrong. I very much support what the central government has done,” said Zhang, who has been fighting rules requiring him to be accompanied by officials to collect his father’s ashes. “But as for the local government — they were trying to cover up the fact in the beginning by saying this virus is containable and it’s not contagious among human beings.”
‘IT’S ALL FAKE’
Last month, Chinese social media users defied censors by reposting an interview with Ai Fen (艾芬), a whistle-blowing Wuhan doctor, by posting dozens of coded versions of the text in scripts ranging from emoji to Klingon. The original link was restored the next day.
Other incidents have exposed cracks in government efforts to manage public opinion. Some occupants of a Wuhan apartment block shouted “it’s all fake” during a visit last month by Chinese Vice Premier Sun Chunlan (孫春蘭), a protest that state media attributed to the community’s failure to deliver food to residents as promised.
“Some well-educated, middle-class people discovered that their insecurity is eternal under this regime, but I don’t think a majority of them want to challenge the political regime,” said Chenchen Zhang, a lecturer in politics and international relations at Queen’s University Belfast. “This time, it’s possible that the system of disease control will be reformed, but as a technocratic reform without political reforms.”
Besides replacing the party chiefs of Hubei and Wuhan, Xi’s government has censured local police who disciplined the whistle-blowing doctors. The national health commission has since honored some, including Li, as martyrs.
Xiao said the episode showed that some in the government had forgotten that their job was serving the public.
He said he was “really pissed off” when the city government asked residents to express gratitude to the CCP during Xi’s visit last month.
“What is the president responsible for? It’s serving the people,” Xiao said. “The government officials should offer help to the people when we are in trouble because we pay our taxes. Then, why do you want us to be grateful?”
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS