Former Chinese premier Li Keqiang (李克強) died on Friday last week at the age of 68, reportedly of a heart attack. Considering the medical care available to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders and the fact that there had been no sign that Li had any particular health problems, people have been wondering about the real cause of his sudden death. Even the Chinese public do not believe the official story.
There is even a rumor circulating among Chinese online groups that Li’s obituary was written the day before he died, causing still more people to believe that his death might have been “brought about.”
There is good reason to doubt that Li died of natural causes, just as there are reasons to doubt whether a string of former top officials, including former Chinese minister of foreign affairs Qin Gang (秦剛), former navy commander Li Yuchao (李玉超), former Chinese minister of national defense Li Shangfu (李尚福) and even former Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), who have all disappeared, are still alive. After all, the sudden disappearance, death or suicide of high-ranking officials is not uncommon in totalitarian China.
A look at how many Hong Kong protesters died or disappeared in strange circumstances during the 2019 to 2020 protests, and whose cases the government summarily dismissed as “not suspicious” while secretly blocking news about them and preventing them from being traced, makes it clear that “being suicided” has never been an empty rumor, but rather a common method that dictators use to get rid of their opponents.
Li Keqiang was actually in quite a weak position even when he was in office, so after he stepped down prematurely, his political power was obviously even more ephemeral. Unlike a general in the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, he did not hold a gun in his hand, so in theory he was not much of a threat to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
However, comparison can be a challenge in itself.
Although Li Keqiang’s talents were questionable, his economic ideas, known as “Likonomics,” are somewhat in demand during the economic collapse caused by Xi’s protectionism. There were frequent calls of “up with Li, down with Xi,” so no wonder Li Keqiang became a thorn in the dictator’s side. Furthermore, Li Keqiang was also one of the main representatives of the Communist Youth League faction and the “reformists,” two groups that Xi has been trying to eliminate for years.
Shortly after the news of Li Keqiang’s death, many Chinese spontaneously mourned for the “people’s premier.” The Chinese regime has always had a taboo about mass gatherings, especially since 1989, when large numbers of people gathered to mourn former CCP general secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦), who also died of a heart attack. These public remembrances lit the fuse for the 1989 democracy movement that culminated in the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Although Li Keqiang’s political achievements can hardly compare with Hu Yaobang’s, his death is enough for the suspicious Xi to worry that the masses might use this opportunity to vent their discontent and anger against him, but after so many years of brainwashing and tight control of opinion and expression, Chinese society has long ceased to have the basic conditions for a new wave of campaigning for democracy.
Hong Tsun-ming, originally from Hong Kong, is a specialist in the Taiwan Statebuilding Party’s international section.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS