Political Crossfire Forums

[Leader]

Intellectuals in China Under fire, again

Dec 9th 2004 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

Free expression worries the authorities

IN AN Orwellian obfuscation of its role, the Chinese Communist Party's Propaganda Department prefers to translate its name these days as the Publicity Department. But one of its main tasks remains that of issuing secret directives to the state-controlled media telling them what not to report. And among its latest prohibitions is any encouragement for “public intellectuals” in China.

In recent years, the party had become more relaxed about intellectuals. Outspoken academics helped fuel the campus fervour that eventually erupted into mass protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But the crackdown, followed a couple of years later by an economic boom, dampened demands for political change. The party began to worry more about unemployed workers and disgruntled peasants, and less about intellectuals—many of whom, anyway, were turning their attention to making money.

More recently, however, the rapid spread of the internet and the increasing commercialisation of the Chinese media have given intellectuals new avenues of expression. A few, including economists, social scientists and lawyers, have become well-known among the chattering classes for their critiques of social ills (though prudently, in most cases, not of the party itself). The term “public intellectuals” has crept into the media, encouraged not least by a Chinese translation last year of “Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline”, a book by an American judge, Richard Posner, examining the role of such commentators in America.

The Propaganda Department lost its patience after a magazine in Guangdong Province, Southern People Weekly, published a list of 50 Chinese public intellectuals in September. The market economy, said an accompanying commentary, had caused the rapid marginalisation of intellectuals. “But this is the time when China is facing the most problems in its unprecedented transformation, and when it most needs public intellectuals to be on the scene and to speak out.”

If the 50 had been loyal party stooges, all might have been forgiven. But among them were several who are decidedly not, including Zhang Sizhi, a defence lawyer who has argued in the trials of some of China's best known dissidents; Cui Jian, a rock singer whose irreverence has irritated the authorities since his heyday in the Tiananmen era; Bei Dao, a poet who has been forced to live in exile since the 1989 unrest; and Wang Ruoshui (who died in 2002), a senior journalist and member of the party's inner circle who turned dissident. A scathing commentary on the list, published last month by a Shanghai newspaper and republished by the party's main mouthpiece, People's Daily, said that promoting the idea of “public intellectuals” was really aimed at “driving a wedge between intellectuals and the party.” The window for free debate that opened a crack over the past couple of years, as China's leadership shifted to the “fourth generation” of leaders, is closing again.

Oddly, perhaps, given the supposed indifference of urbanites to politics, two of the bestselling books in China this year have been about the “anti-rightist” campaign of 1957, during which half a million of the party's intellectual critics were persecuted. One of the books, “Past Events Have Not Vanished Like Smoke”, was banned by the Propaganda Department. The other, “Inside Secrets of 1957: The Sacrificial Altar of Suffering”, is still for sale. Though probably not for long.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3475951

[eynon]

yep...the gov s*cks pretty bad over here, when it comes to that whole human rights thing....

[Poon]

Although I've never lived there for any respectable amount of time, it seems that the CCP is almost always aimed at maintaining party control rather than listening to suggestions to strengthen China, through economic improvements and raising people's standard of living. A healthy and vibrant populace will automatically translate to a strong nation IMO.

[eynon]

Danpt2000 wrote: Although I've never lived there for any respectable amount of time, it seems that the CCP is almost always aimed at maintaining party control rather than listening to suggestions to strengthen China, through economic improvements and raising people's standard of living. A healthy and vibrant populace will automatically translate to a strong nation IMO.

that's my belief...the goverment will allow any reform as long as it doesn't threaten their position of power....

[kingcourage]

Eynon81 wrote: Danpt2000 wrote: Although I've never lived there for any respectable amount of time, it seems that the CCP is almost always aimed at maintaining party control rather than listening to suggestions to strengthen China, through economic improvements and raising people's standard of living. A healthy and vibrant populace will automatically translate to a strong nation IMO.

that's my belief...the goverment will allow any reform as long as it doesn't threaten their position of power....

your belief is right. that's the cancer of China polity.

because it's impossible to do so, so the polity will fail at last.

it's very simple ,but that guys never understand it and make mistakes again and again until the polity fail.

[eynon]

kingcourage wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Danpt2000 wrote: Although I've never lived there for any respectable amount of time, it seems that the CCP is almost always aimed at maintaining party control rather than listening to suggestions to strengthen China, through economic improvements and raising people's standard of living. A healthy and vibrant populace will automatically translate to a strong nation IMO.

that's my belief...the goverment will allow any reform as long as it doesn't threaten their position of power....

your belief is right. that's the cancer of China polity.

because it's impossible to do so, so the polity will fail at last.

it's very simple ,but that guys never understand it and make mistakes again and again until the polity fail.

good stuff King :-D But China has a very bright future....my students are amazing people and by in large have a greater respect for freedom and human-rights then their American peers. It's been a real treat teaching them. But I think that when their generation comes to power in about 20 years, things will begin to change quickly here.

[desaview]

good stuff King Very Happy But China has a very bright future....my students are amazing people and by in large have a greater respect for freedom and human-rights then their American peers. It's been a real treat teaching them. But I think that when their generation comes to power in about 20 years, things will begin to change quickly here.
----------------------

Eynon,

At least you are right this time about the Chinese spirit. But not only this generation of young. The Chinese spirit has always been alive. Peasants have always fought injustice and fought for human rights for miliniums. Revolutions are a constant in China. How do you have revolutions unless people are prepared to die for thier beliefs?

But what you cannot see is the difficulty in ruling a country such as China. All you see is oppression. What you cannot see is that the alternative is chaos . And nobody wants chaos.

Intellectuals in China has always lead precarious lives. This is true not only now but have been since eternity. The 1957 incident refered to above is known as the Let the Hundred Schools of Thoughts Flower campaign. It was short lived. Intelluctuals like to reflect on that period.

Hu and Wen should turn out to be more compassionate leaders and with less emphasis on pure growth compared to Jiang and Zhu. The ideal model both want to follow is the Singapore model. Intellectuals who exhibit responsibility will be respected, irresponsible intellectuals will be persecuted. This will continue. It is not about human rights. It is about ruling China the way it is deemed fit and proper.

[desaview]

IMHO if the CCP rules China based on Western experts, and comments as found here, China would have been thrown into chaos a long long time ago and already went into pieces. Perhaps this is what the west wants eh? lol.