Why does it seem like censorship is getting worse?

You are correct. Over the past decade, the rapid development of the Internet has led people to believe there will be more space for speech. But the constraints [on the press] have actually gotten tighter. Fortunately, journalists are resisting. Otherwise, it would be worse. Now, the government’s domestic strategy is to maintain stability. Hu Jintao once said China should learn from North Korea, and sent people to investigate the Eastern European system. Although this trend began in the Jiang Zemin era, the Hu and Wen administration furthered it, regardless of the cost. For example, they bought the most advanced Internet surveillance technology, say, from CISCO. Internet companies like Sina and Tencent have struck a deal with the authorities—or you might call it collusion. In order to secure their business interests, they spend huge amounts monitoring social media. The […] space society has carved out for free expression is being constricted. Moreover, the “stability maintenance” system is making social management crueler. For example, the way law enforcement handles petitioners and property demolition is becoming ever more gangster-like. Although the media tries to fight, it can’t be a counterweight to the giant “stability maintenance” machine.

[…] Do you think new media, such as social media, can further China’s freedom of speech?

New media by itself is a tool. What is more important is how it is used. The government definitely wants to use it to control and steer public opinion. And, indeed, they are spending hugely on it. People in society hope social media will expand the space for expression. It’s not clear how things will turn out. New media might become society’s tool if society uses it more aggressively. For instance, in the current Southern Weekend and Yanhuang Chunqiu cases, new media played an important role. Without new media, it would have been unimaginable for the propaganda department’s work to have been exposed.

See also Yu Jianrong’s recent critique of China’s rigid “stability maintenance” system via CDT.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Chang Ping, cisco, freedom of information, freedom of speech, Hu Jintao, Internet surveillance, journalists, media censorship, news media, petitioners, reform, sina, social media, Southern Weekly, southern weekly protest 2013, stability maintenance, tencent, Xi Jinping, Yanhuang Chunqiu
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

A widening discontent was evident this month in the anticensorship street protests in the southern city of Guangzhou and in the online outrage that exploded over an extraordinary surge in air pollution in the north. Anger has also reached a boil over fears concerning hazardous tap water and over a factory spill of 39 tons of a toxic chemical in Shanxi Province that has led to panic in nearby cities.

For years, many China observers have asserted that the party’s authoritarian system endures because ordinary Chinese buy into a grand bargain: the party guarantees economic growth, and in exchange the people do not question the way the party rules. Now, many whose lives improved under the boom are reneging on their end of the deal, and in ways more vocal than ever before. Their ranks include billionaires and students, movie stars and homemakers.

Few are advocating an overthrow of the party. Many just want the system to provide a more secure life. But in doing so, they are demanding something that challenges the very nature of the party-controlled state: transparency.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: air pollution, CCP, censorship, economic growth, freedom of speech, Guangzhou, middle class, new york times, Shanxi, Southern Weekly, southern weekly protest 2013, transparency, water pollution
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Li wore a black face mask in silent protest at his Chengdu book signing.

On January 11, popular writer and critic Li Chengpeng reported on Weibo that he had received orders not to speak at his book signing in Chengdu the next day. Li was also prohibited from asking questions of the audience. Even special guests, among them prominent writers who have clashed with the authorities before, were forbidden from speaking:

@lichengpeng: Someone sent me strict orders from the higher-ups in the middle of the night: At my Chengdu book signing on the 12th, readers are forbidden to ask me questions; I am forbidden from speaking or making opening remarks. I can’t even say “Happy New Year” or “thank you.” I am forbidden from introducing Liu Shahe, Ran Yunfei, and all other special guests; I cannot ask them questions, and they cannot say a word, not even “Happy New Year.” They can only sit in the corner… This deeply violates my understanding of respect. They are insane. Thinking…

@李承鹏：深夜有人匆忙传达上峰死命令：12日成都签售，不准读者向我提问、不准我说话，不准我致开场白，连“新年好，谢谢你们”也不准说，不准介绍流沙 河、冉云飞及所有嘉宾名字，不准向他们提问，也不准他们说话，连“新年好”也不准说。他们只能坐在角落…我深觉这这违背了我对尊严的理解。他们疯了。思考中…

His new book, The Whole World Knows, is a collection of essays on contemporary Chinese society. It tackles sensitive issues like the “tofu dregs” schools which collapsed in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and the disastrous corner-cutting laid bare by the Wenzhou high-speed rail crash.

Li later reposted a weibo from a reader at the book signing:

@lichengpeng: RT: @alexandermoo: At the scene where these notices were given, I’ve heard the voices of Li Yawei, Ran Yunfei, and many others. I can verify that two Xinhua Bookstore staff are present as well… Right now I’m still on the phone with bookstore comrades. My thoughts: this shows the utmost disrespect to the readers, some of whom rushed all the way from Shanghai just for this event. They don’t want to look at a bunch of taciturn prostheses. The latest news: the authorities have notified the speakers that they may not utter a single word.

@李承鹏：回复@拉斯文_本德:接到通知的现场，有李亚伟冉云飞等数人听到，两位新华书店也可证明…现在仍与书店同志电话中。我认为：这完全无视读者的尊严，有读者专门从上海赶来。他们不想看到一群觉沉默的假肢。最新消息：上级通知，绝不许说一句话。

Weibo fans rallied to Li’s side:

@joylovingheart: If they don’t let them speak, they might as well tape their mouths shut.

@爱乐的心: 不让说话，那就用胶布把嘴贴起来签售

@ziyueqingye: They get sent to the firing squad for saying “Happy New Year”? This expands my understanding of limiting freedom of speech.

@owlmoon豆丁兔：说新年好会被枪毙吗？我对限制言论自由的理解又高一层了

@youyi009: What are they [the authorities] afraid of? What exactly is it that they dread?

@幽壹：它们怕什么？究竟在惧怕什么？

@xieliang7: If they can’t speak, can they tweet? They can communicate via Weibo at the book signing.

@谢良7：不说话可以发微博吗 现场用微博交流

@Billsaid: Looks like Li Big Eyes should change his name to Li Don’t Speak. That’s sure to catch on.

@Billsaid：看来李大眼得改名叫李莫言了，这个笔名一定火。

@MountainUncle: I urge the higher-ups to offer free packing tape!

@山宅大叔：强烈要求上峰免费提供封口胶~！！

@ligelongClingclang: What the higher-ups mean is that the interests of the individual can’t influence the interests of the party-state. We must be united with absolute sincerity.

@李哥隆咚锵：上峰的意思是个人的利益不能影响党国的利益，要精诚团结

@nky888nky: Only after repeated prohibition is one unstoppable. They wish to cover you up, but instead you is all the more obvious. This is all free advertising. The voiceless is even more victorious in making his voice heard.

@可人如昱：屡禁才能不止，欲盖反而弥彰，这一切都是免费的广告。无声更胜有声。

@Wchengbo: The dynasty has changed, but the way of thought is unchangeable.

@W成波：朝代换了，思维换不了

Read more about the book signing kerfuffle from CDT and Global Voices.

Via CDT Chinese.

© Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, Chengdu, freedom of speech, Li Chengpeng, Netizen Voices, sina weibo, weibo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

“I would hardly be here to buy Li’s book if not for what happened to him on Sunday,” one young man said. “I just came here to show my support for Li, a liberal-minded critic.”

[…] Meanwhile, dozens of protesters, most in their 40s or 50s and some wearing Mao Zedong badges, gathered outside the building.

One of the protesters said he was outraged by some of Li’s recent comments, such as labelling those who took to the streets in anti-Japanese demonstrations in Shenzhen “brain damaged”.

“Li is a typical traitor who does nothing more than distort history and mislead the public, particularly the young,” he said.

Also at the South China Morning Post, Laura Zhou had previously described Sunday’s altercation, over which Li is reportedly considering legal action.

Li Chengpeng, a former journalist, was punched in the head during an afternoon signing of his new book for readers at the Zhongguancun Bookstore in Haidian district, and another man was filmed throwing a packaged kitchen knife at Li.

The man who punched Li claimed to have a strong aversion to the content of Li’s new book, The Whole World Knows. The assailant was taken away by Beijing police, according to a post on the public security bureau’s microblog that night.

The new book is a collection of essays that include sensitive topics such as the shoddy quality of school buildings that collapsed and killed thousands of students during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and the alleged cover-up of the 2011 Wenzhou train crash.

The knife incident, in which a man waited in line to present Li with the threatening “gift”, and then threw it at him when it was apparently rejected, was caught on video (via SCMP’s John Kennedy):

Click here to view the embedded video.

In contrast with the action in Beijing and Shenzhen, Li’s signing in Chengdu on Saturday was markedly subdued. Li had been ordered not to address the audience and wore a mask over his mouth in protest. Global Voices Online translated a weibo post Li sent before the event, together with a selection of other users’ reactions:

Someone just delivered a strict order: at my book signing event, I’m not allowed to talk; the readers are not allowed to ask me any questions; I can’t even introduce myself or say “ Happy New Year, Thank you”. I’m not even allowed to introduce the names of other guests at my event; they are not allowed to talk or answer any questions. They can only sit in the corner. I deeply feel it’s against my understanding of dignity. They are crazy.

王金明小伙[zh]: It’s the most depressing signing event I’ve ever experienced. There were many people on the spot but no sound. The policemen were guarding each corner. Li wore a mask and signed his book with the wrong date. His guests only appeared very shortly before being asked to step down. There were tears on Li’s face.

I suddenly discovered that the Communist Party has made creating a buzz into an art. Li Chengpeng’s book signing was just a small ordinary event, but after the Communist Party’s handling of it, it became a work of performance art that has spread throughout the world.

Bruce Humes and Sascha Matuszak blogged their accounts of the Shenzhen and Chengdu signings, respectively.

Scuffles between leftists and liberals also broke out outside the offices of the Southern Weekly newspaper, during protests over censorship of its New Year greeting. Li was particularly outspoken about the Southern Weekly affair. From an interview at Japan’s Asahi Shimbun:

To me, this feels as if the insult toward freedom of speech has been lifted up a level. I cannot stand it, and I believe many other people feel the same.

China’s Constitution recognizes freedom of speech. The new party leadership advocates the rule of law. It should therefore sponsor freedom of speech–but doesn’t. The reality is different.

[…] I’ve felt pressure. I’ve been braced to see my blog shut down. Yet, we are not challenging the government. We just want China to become a better country.

The fact that many people have raised their voice this time has great significance. This is the first step on a long road toward achieving freedom of speech.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2013. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2008 Sichuan earthquake, anti-Japan demonstrations 2012, Beijing, books, Chengdu, freedom of speech, leftists, Li Chengpeng, Mao Zedong, rule of law, Shenzhen, Southern Weekly, southern weekly protest 2013, train crash, wenzhou, writers
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

CCTV reported on the People’s Daily article “The Internet is Not Outside the Law” on its prime-time news show.

When CCTV aired V for Vendetta, uncut, last Friday, netizens thought it was a sign that reform is truly on its way. They were a bit crushed, then, to read a signed article in Tuesday’s People’s Daily entitled “The Internet is Not Outside the Law.” The official media should at least hold itself to the same standards as netizens are now being asked to, savvy commenters complain. Some worry the article marks an official response to a series of “Internet anti-corruption” efforts in which human flesh searches and vocal complaint about abuses of power have forced the government’s hand. Everything from luxury watch collections to bedroom antics have been exposed online, costing a number of officials their jobs. Will the censors now crack down on Internet justice?

From Weibo:

author-blessing: The Internet is not outside the law? In that case, please respect the constitution; do not delete comments as you please, do not detain people as you please, and do not wield labor re-education as you please.

作家-天佑:网络不是法外之地？那请你们尊重宪法，不要随便删帖，不要随便抓人，不要随便劳教。

JinningMantouMonster: On the one hand, you people take in an astronomical amount of advertising money, and on the other, you enjoy lucrative government funding. On top of all that, you retain exclusive privileges to the Spring Festival Gala and special rights to broadcast your news show over every local satellite channel every day from 7-7:30 p.m. You’re half government and half business, and yet you have the audacity to talk to me about the rule of law? Piss off!

馒头妖在金宁：你们，一边收着天价的广告费，一边享受着财政拨款，还占着除夕晚会的特权、每天19:00-19:30强制地方卫视性转播你家新闻的特权，半官半商，居然还有脸给我说法制？死滚！

ZhaoChu: CCTV’s News Simulcast publicized a People’s Daily article about how “the Internet is not outside of the law.” Not bad. According to the universal, modern principles of the rule of law, nothing should fall outside the boundaries of the law. However, I wish to inform CCTV and People’s Daily of the following: every office of every level of the Party and the government, all heavily guarded secret government locations, and even the two of you, which are government-funded and operated, should even more so not exist outside the boundaries of the law.

赵 楚 : CCTV新闻联播高调转发《人民日报》文章，说什么“网络不是法外之地”，不错，按照普世的现代法治原则，没有任何地方应该成为法外之地，但是，我想在这 里告诉央视和《人民日报》：各级党政的办公楼以及各种戒备森严的官家秘密场所，连同你们两家以公帑运营的媒体，更不应该成为法外之地。

HeBin: So CCTV is the only one outside of the law?

何兵: 央视才是法外之地？

Evan_Chen: Government officials should not do their work outside of the law, yet your corruption is impossible to ignore. News Simulcast should not speak outside the law, yet you continue to spew nothing but lies. No offense, but my level of acceptance for this government and this TV station is zero.

Evan_Chen的微博：国家公务人员也不是法外职务，但你照贪不误；新闻联播不是法外之言，但你依旧谎话连篇。不客气的说，我对这个政府和这个电视台的认可度是零。

PoliteYoungMaster: Totally, man! It’s only the government that is outside the effing boundaries of the law!

和气大少爷：那是，那是！官场才是尼玛法外之地！

chuyoo: What the crap… I’m a law-abiding citizen! But are you sure you’re in accordance with the law?

chuyoo：卧槽，我可是遵纪守法滴。。你们有没有按照法律来呢？

NanQianZhu: In today’s China, justice is found mostly online. Democracy is found mostly online. Law-abiding citizens, for the most part, I’m afraid, are found mostly online. The Internet is virtually the only channel through which Chinese can freely access information. The Internet and the country’s citizens aren’t outside the law–that’s the domain of the government and corporations.

南千住：现在的中国，最多的正义在网上，最多的民主在网上，最守法的公民怕也多在网上。网络几乎是唯一可以自由得到信息的途径。法外之地不在网络不在民众，在官在商。

HeartwoodLife: For the most part, signed People’s Daily articles don’t actually represent the work or views of an individual. Even though an author’s name is given, it name obviously represents the combined views of a given organization. For example, take Zhong Xuanli. That’s obviously the Central Propaganda Ministry’s Indoctrination Bureau. And Zhong Zuwen is the Central Organization Department. Actually, precedent for this kind of tactic dates back to ancient times.

心木生活：人民日报的署名文章一般都不是代表个人，尽管都有署名，其实这个署名一看就知道是某个机构的谐音。比如仲轩理，就是中共中央宣传部理论局，仲祖文就是中共中央组织部。其实这种传统古而有之。

China Media Project all points out that the name of the article’s author, Mo Jinjin, is likely a fictional commentator representing an entire government department.

WenZhige: These fucking mouthpieces… First they say the law is not a shield, and then they say the Internet is not outside the law. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this?

文止戈：这些狗日的喉舌，一会儿说法律不是挡箭牌，一会儿说网络不是法外之地，这是什么狗屁逻辑？

Accener: Those watch brothers and house uncles must be scared now.

Accener：表哥房叔们害怕了

LiZhiyongLawyer: Can’t take it anymore?

李志勇律师：受不了了？

ToriWine: Of course they’ve come out with an article like this. All those watch brothers are really taking a hit from Weibo.

东篱把酒V：这是必然的，微博已经严重影响各种表哥的发展。

LeisurelyFuton: In that case, I want to say something too: the Communist Party should not retain the special right to override the constitution.

悠闲居士的蒲团：那我也想说一句。共产党不是凌驾宪法的特权政党。

Read more untranslated comments at CDT Chinese.

Translation by Little Bluegill.

© Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: CCTV, censorship, freedom of speech, Internet freedom, Internet stars, Netizen Voices, people's daily, propaganda, propaganda department, rule of law
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Chen’s lawyer, He Huixin, wrote a lengthy defense of his client, citing an argument put forward in support of Chen Duxiu, a Communist Party co-founder charged with similar crimes by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist regime in 1933: that criticism doesn’t necessarily equate to subversion. The government’s case against Chen didn’t seem to prove that he sought to bring down the system, says [Joshua] Rosenzweig: “The underlying weakness was the underlying weakness in most inciting subversion cases—the tendency to see criticism of the Communist Party and its polices as an attempt to undermine the entire political system.”

[…] Still, a widespread relaxation in the way China handles such sensitive cases appears unlikely. “Chinese courts don’t set precedent in the way they do in common-law jurisdictions, so the way this case is handled doesn’t necessarily bind [other] judges,” says Rosenzweig. Sadly, the Chen verdict may prove to be a rare happy outcome.

In a previous report in September, Ramzy described some of Chen’s writings:

[…] Prosecutors in Lanzhou identified 34 in particular as evidence of the charge of inciting subversion. The titles include “I Can’t Bear Humiliation in Silence,” “The Call to Overthrow the Dictators Has Sounded” and “I Want Freedom, Respect and to Live Like a Normal Person.” They all bear the distinct voice of an educated man who once held a respected position in society enraged by the abuse he endures as an outcast hustling for a living on the streets. “Yesterday I saw a gang of fierce, imposing chengguan who drove away a middle-aged shoeshine man,” he wrote in a 2010 essay called “A Weasel Serves the Chickens.” “That shoeshine man wasn’t doing anything to inconvenience pedestrians, so why did they drive him off? If it weren’t for family difficulties or a lack of money, who would subserviently shine shoes like that?”

Chen places much of the blame for the injustices he faced on authoritarian system, and by endorsing the Arab Spring last year he made himself a target for the crackdown that followed in China. In an essay from February 2011, titled “Study the Egyptians, We Don’t Want to Be Fooled Again,” he wrote, “I’m convinced that if we didn’t have the [Communist] Party’s leadership, this society would finally be harmonious and peaceful.” […]

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Arab Spring, chengguan, freedom of speech, incitement, Lanzhou, online publishing, police, subversion
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

ShiShusi: U.S. Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis: “It is hazardous to discourage thought, hope, and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government.”

石述思：美国联邦最高法院大法官布兰代斯：对人们自由思想、未来的希望及想象力的吓阻是危险的；因为恐惧会导致自由的压抑，长期之压抑将导致怨愤，而怨愤将威胁政府的稳定。

Portrait of Louis Brandeis by Andy Warhol.

The quotation comes from Brandeis’ famous defense of freedom of speech in the 1927 case of Whitney v. California. California had convicted Anita Whitney under the Criminal Syndicalism Act in 1919 for her role in establishing the state’s Communist Labor Party, which it alleged encouraged the overthrow of the government. The case went before the Supreme Court for possible violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the court unanimously agreed that California had not violated the amendment, Brandeis spoke out against the presumption of guilt for association with an organization that it merely alleged taught violence. The quotation is part of a larger argument in favor of any speech which does not pose “clear and imminent danger.”

Brandeis’ words as no less powerful out of context. Many readers find Brandeis, and in turn Shi, inspiring. Others scoff at seeing this quotation from journalist for one of China’s oldest government mouthpieces. From CDT Chinese:

PoliticalCommissarq: Mr. Shi’s citation is quite right. I hope the government can design a channel for people to vent their anger.

政委q：石兄代言的相当正确，希望政府能设计出一个泄愤的通道

Evanxin: reply@PoliticalCommissarq: This already exists. It’s called Weibo.

evanxin：回复@政委q:已经有了，就是微博啊

VMicroViewpoints: I guess this theory doesn’t hold in countries like North Korea and West Korea?

V微观点：这理论用在朝鲜类国家失效了吧？

argence: Don’t they understand these principles? The only thing they demand is that the current government maintain stability for the time being.

argence：这些道理难道他们不懂吗？他们只要本届政府能压住能暂时稳定

liqiao68: Gradually getting used to servility and repression, that’s what to be feared.

坚定地活着：就怕慢慢习惯了奴性和压抑

BeiYesUtopia: Everything that ought to be said has been said, we just refuse to believe it!

北野的理想国：人家把该说的都说了，可是不信！

No1EconomistIsMe: That’s America.

第一经济人是我：那是美国

Silver1502: Not every government has this concern.

Silver1502：不是所有政府都会有这种忧虑

Qiaochuba: Discontent is spreading among the people. The consequence will be serious. We don’t even know who to turn to if we have differing opinions. @XinhuaViewpoint @PeoplesDaily

乔楚爸：群众民怨起，后果很严重。现在都不知道有意见跟谁提？@新华视点 @人民日报

BoYuanYongAn: American words aren’t useful in China.

柏源永安：美国人说的，在中国不管用。

BearTailang 1115: My mom basically doesn’t eat or drink anything she hasn’t tasted before. In other words, she firmly resists unfamiliar lifestyles and ways of thinking. She essentially has no understanding of freedom or democracy; her independent thinking is almost at zero; Xinwen Lianbo is the truth of the world. There are billions of submissive people like her. Changing their mindset is not something that can be done overnight.

熊太郎1115：我妈基本上不吃她没吃过的东西，基本上不喝她没喝过的东西，就是说她坚决抵制不熟悉的生活和思想方式。自由民主她基本不懂，独立的思考基本为零，新闻联播就是世界的真相。像她老人家这样的顺民当以十亿计，若想改变他们，绝非一朝一夕之功！

MidnightWanderingGod: The Corruption Party practices authoritarianism on others but liberalism on themselves!

午夜游荡神：腐败党专制别人，自己自由！

wb30058889: “Hate” fits our current symptoms!

说真话难：怨愤适合现在症状！

Jiashidao: This is the opinion of every patriot. Too bad that those thugs and bandits don’t think this way. They want to dredge for money, power, and sexy ladies. Those who are somewhat better will at least think about their offspring. The funny part is that these hypocrites lecture to you about patriotism! Jeez, you’ve all become America’s dependents!

贾世道：这是每个爱国者的想法，可惜流氓土匪们不会这么想。他们想捞钱、弄权、美女，好点的至少也要想想后代〜滑稽的是这帮伪君子给你讲爱国!尼玛，你们都成美国家属了！

Rocp: Spread it.

董永雷：扩散

Read more comments at CDT Chinese. Translation by Mengyu Dong.

Note: Many naked officials move their families and assets to the United States. Back.

© Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: freedom of speech, Netizen Voices, sina weibo, stability maintenance, United States, weibo, Xinwen Lianbo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Incriminating? T-shirt proclaiming “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Netizens were dumbstruck by Global Times Chief Editor Hu Xijin’s November 21 weibo in favor of free speech:

HuXijin: I hope the long-term impact of the Ren Jianyu case in today’s Internet age is the establishment of precedent that will end the political and cultural tradition of the  “criminalization of speech.” Political speech and the propagation of [other’s] speech which does not infringe upon the rights of others and does not precipitate concrete action should not be criminalized. In other words, if “comment deletion” must continue for a time, then a resolute end should come to the “criminalization of comment posting.” This is a key pathway to achieving a higher level of free speech.

胡锡进：希望任建宇案在互联网时代产生判例的长远影响，终结“因言获罪”的政治和文化传统。不涉及侵权和无任何实际行动的政治性言论和言论传播应获得绝对不 被治罪的权利，换句话说，如果“删贴”还不得不维持一段的话，那么各种“因帖治罪”应彻底结束了。这应是通往更高言论自由的一个关键性台阶。

Ren Jianyu, a young village official in Chongqing, was sentenced to two years of re-education through labor last August for reposting critiques of Chongqing officials on Weibo. This was just months before Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai’s protracted fall from grace. Authorities claimed that T-shirts found in Ren’s apartment emblazoned with the slogan “Give me liberty or give me death” (不自由，毋宁死) proved his intent to stage a coup. Ren was released early from detention on November 19.

Hu Xijin, known as a Party apologist, has been notably outspoken in defense of Ren. He wrote a weibo in this vein in October, before Ren’s appeal court hearing (translated by Tea Leaf Nation):

HuXijin: The appeal hearing of Pengshui University student village official Ren Jianyu’s sentencing to re-education through labor for Weibo retweets has begun. I believe he’ll win. Because [what he did] didn’t harm any individual person, and it was pure speech that didn’t create any social conflicts–the era when these kinds of commentary could be punished for being ‘against the Party [or] against socialism’ needs to come to a thorough conclusion. I hope that when this case is rectified, it will [cut down] the last straw of a thousand-year political tradition of criminalized speech. China needs to move forward.”

胡锡进：重庆彭水县大学生村官任建宇转发微博被劳教申诉案开审。我相信他能赢。因为不带来个人伤害、也不带来社会冲击的的纯言论——无它这些言论多么“反党反社会 主义”——而被治罪的时代该彻底结束了。希望这个案子的纠正成为压倒“因言获罪”千年政治传统的最后一根稻草。中国要往前走。

But netizens shouldn’t get too excited about this about-face. As @waynebabywang (@韦恩卑鄙) points out, Hu still supports censorship through deletion of offending posts. Could it be that Hu thinks this is necessary in a slow move towards real freedom of speech, or merely that he opposes violent punishment for speech “crimes”? Even if Hu does advocate for eventual freedom of speech, he won’t touch the core problem. @yrjang says it right, “ If there is no check on power, sooner or later we’ll backtrack.” Indeed, just one week before Ren’s release, another netizen was arrested for his activity on Twitter, beyond the Great Firewall but not the reach of the police.

CDT Chinese has collected some of the comments Hu received:

HowToThank: Whoa! The harmonious society has begun, eh?

谢怎么：哟，和谐社会开始了是吗

WhiteRiverFishForMen: Is Chief Hu experiencing temporary consciousness? Regardless, you have to give him credit for this one.

白河钓叟：胡总临时性清醒？无论如何要赞一个

yrjang: Keep dreaming. If there is no check on power, sooner or later we’ll backtrack.

yrjang：做梦，权力不受制约，迟早还得倒退。

kejinjin: Certainly, I must have opened up my weibo incorrectly or something. This can’t be Hu Xijin, right? His account must have been compromised.

肥羊高翔 ：一定是我打开微博的方式不对这货不是胡锡进，一定是被盗号了

BlueDanube01: Heh heh, you can see which way the wind is blowing from Editor Hu’s weibo.

蓝色多瑙河01：呵呵，从胡编滴微博可以看看风往哪边吹。

UnoilyRapeseed: I support this! Re-education through labor must be abandoned!

菜籽不油：支持! 勞教惡法必須廢!

EternalFatLegEra: Editor Hu, what happened to you? Could it be that political reform is actually on its way?

永远是大腿时代：胡编你肿么了？莫非真要政改了？

HappilyTravelHorizon: I applaud Chief Hu this time. Freedom of speech is a legal right of all citizens, given to us by the constitution. It’s written down on paper.

逍遥天涯行：这一次赞扬胡总。言论自由是公民的法定权利，宪法赋予的，写在纸上的。

FishWantsPotatoesNBeef: Why can’t our government earn international respect? Because our government hasn’t respected its own people.

想吃土豆烧牛肉的青鱼：为什么我们政府得不到国际的尊重？是因为我们政府没有尊重自己的人民。

Cadenza: I bet the central authorities had you test water for them, right?

華彩_Cadenza：是中央让你来放口风的吗？

Silentcnm: Did he give his password to someone else?????

沉默cnm：密码给别人了??????

HappyEarthlyPerson: Now this is a humane thought! Reposting. Could it be that Chief Editor Hu is a moral bisexual?

逍遥地人：这条像点人话！要转。难不成胡主编是人格上的双性？

MESSIAH-: He’s moving faster than the higher-ups. Isn’t he afraid of being criticized?

MESSIAH-：步调比上面快了，不怕挨批吗？

waynebabywang: He’s just kissing ass in a new way. He still mentioned that comments will continue to be deleted, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

韦恩卑鄙：舔菊新方向而已，着重表示删帖继续，你们管不着

Westernwuhuapiao: A Nobel Peace Laureate is still in prison

西部五花膘：那还关着一个诺贝尔奖获得者

Read more comments here.

Translation by Little Bluegill.

© Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, Chongqing, freedom of speech, Global Times, Hu xijin, Internet censorship, Netizen Voices, netizens, political reform, re-education through labor, Ren Jianyu, sina weibo, weibo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

FT Chinese’s Zhang Lifen asks the Weibo public what they would like to ask the Party Congress representatives.

The Chinese Communist Party 18th Party Congress begins tomorrow. Today (Wednesday) at 4:30 p.m. I will attend an “18 Big” news conference for Chinese and foreign journalists in the Golden Hall at the Great Hall of the People. Yesterday evening, I posted a weibo soliciting questions from Chinese people from all walks of life. I received nearly 600 replies, touching on all kinds of issues regarding political and economic reform during China’s social transformation, national welfare and the livelihood of the people, which may serve as a reference of Chinese popular will before the congress of the ruling party. Below are a selection of the questions posed by the public.

OldmanNotUseless: This old fellow has a question: How much are the annual membership fees paid by the 80-million-plus Party members nationwide? Could the total income and expenditure be made public during the congress?

老夫尚未朽：老夫有一问题：全国八千多万党员每年度共缴纳多少党费？总计收入与支出可否在会期公布？

VastUniverseWorld: Disclose officials’ personal finances, round up criminals and the corrupt and start a democratic system! The whole country wants just these three things!

苍茫天地人间: 官员公开财产，围捕贪腐罪犯，进入民主制度！全国人民就这三条！

ForeignFriendV: When will we have multi-party elections for the Politburo Standing Committee and president? At least catch up with Vietnam.

外国友人V：政治局常委和总书记何时能实现差额选举，最起码赶上越南的水平。

ShenzhenHugang: One question: How do eliminate corruption in a one-party system?

深圳胡纲：问一个，如何在一党制下消除腐败？

LiAn_NaDu: Can we not get domestic news from foreign media?

李安_纳度：能不能不从外媒得知国内新闻？

Llqrjl: I have an academic question: How do you learn to bullshit without blushing?

黄金镖：我问个学术性的，说瞎话不脸红是怎么锻炼出来的？

Chengqingui: When will we change parties? When will we have a referendum?

啸傲昨天：什么时候换党，什么时候全民公投啊。

Lanfenglin: My question is what the peasants should do whose life savings are not enough to buy homes for their sons to settle down in the cities. Is their life of hard work obliterated by inflation? Or who is stealing it?

芝林工作了：问一下那些一辈子为了让儿子在城市里留下攒钱买房子到最后还买不起的农民怎么办？他们一辈子辛勤的劳动被物价的上涨给抹杀了？又是被谁窃取了？

LindaNeil: The threshold for individual income tax should be raised and the price of land should be lowered. This will cause housing prices to fall.

LindaNeil：个税基数应该再调高，土地价低点，房价就降点。

macrocrazier: When will political reform go forward?

macrocrazier：政治改革何时进行？

XuShaolin: So I’ll only ask this once and it’s not a complicated political reform question. I just want to ask why you had to close the morning markets near some residential neighborhoods for a meeting. Can’t you hear how loudly the old folks are cursing over this? If you treat ordinary people like thieves, what’s the point of holding this kind of meeting anyway?

老徐时评: 那我就问一次。也不问什么高深的政改问题了，只问问开个会为啥要把一些小区附近的早市关了？可听到那些大爷大妈骂得多难听。像防贼一样防百姓，开这种会还有什么意义吗？

WitheredCucumber: As a Party member, I hope our Party activities won’t disturb the lives of the people who are outside the Party, and I don’t want the funding for our activities to come from tax payers outside the Party. Can these these two hopes be fulfilled?

霜打的黄瓜：作为党员，希望我党的活动不要干扰党外民众的正常生活，也不希望活动经费来自非党员纳税人，这两点可能实现吗？

Hongyu79: Could we increase education spending, and especially ensure proper compensation of teachers in rural areas? A little tip: fine corrupt officials and invest the money into education in their jurisdictions.

城北书生：能否大力度加大教育投入，尤其是农村地区的师资待遇能否得到有力保障？小建议：把罚没贪腐官员的钱款资产专门用于该地区的教育投入。

Lya402: The question I want to address is that people are demanding reform of the political system, but it cannot be pushed through if we do not have freedom of speech. I want to ask: What specific plans do the new leaders have in terms of allowing freedom of speech?

雷村人：我想问的是，政治体制改革民间呼声很高，问题是没有言论自由的开放是无法推进政治体制改革的。 请问，在言论自由开放方面，新一届班子有什么具体打算？

WangKaiyueA: I want to ask if there will be any substantial actions in reform, and how those naked senior Party members and government officials will be dealt with.

王凯悦A：我想问关于改革这届有何实质举措 关于党内政府高层裸官问题政府怎么处理？

SkirtChaserVSWildKid: How much did you spend on this meeting?

裙下之臣VS野孩子：开个会，花了多少钱？

WangYuanchengr: When will officials disclose their personal finances??

王元成知青农民工：官员财产公示啥时搞？？

FlyGerry: A question for the press spokesperson: How many people in your family live in the U.S.?

gd老男孩：请问新闻发言人，您家里有几口人在美国？

DingYoucai: What “-ism” is in place today? Is it state capitalism, or crony capitalism, or what? How are we going to push political reform?

丁友才：现在是什么主义？是国家资本主义，还是权贵资本主义？还是什么？怎样推进政治改革？

Tiangengg: Pay attention to workers laid off by state-owned enterprises and the pension problem.

天根gg：关注国企下岗工人的生存及养老金问题。

NongZaiTianya: Where is the Party leading the country and the people? Any plans? Any goals?

农在天涯：党将把国家、民族引向何方？如何规划的？我们的目标?

WatersideCampanula: The agenda and timetable for judicial independence, please?

在水一方风铃草：请问司法独立的时间表?

Laofang001: How can you give the people true freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association?

SP老方：如何真正使人民获得言论、游行及结社等自由？

ZhouBuchen: When will the billions of peasants truly have equal health care?

木匠周不沉：亿万农民何时有真正的平等医疗福利！！！

WanderDrunkDream: When will the taxi window cranks be reinstalled? I feel carsick.

漂泊醉梦：出租车窗户的手摇啥时候装回去？我晕车。

FreedomState789: A quick question: what’s the standard for the conference meals? Could you broadcast it on TV?

自由的境界789：问个小问题：大会的宴用标准是啥？能拍个视频播放一下吗？

SettingSunLightsRoad: I’m asking where my ballot is. Who is representing me?

夕阳照路：问下我的选票呢？哪去了？谁代表我了？

Mryehaiyan: Will you continue to use “serve the people” and “public servant” as your slogans? Who does “the people” specifically refer to? Do you feel pressured?

叶海燕先生: 依然会用为人民服务及公仆宣传用语吗?人民具体是指什么人？压力大吗?

Maobaochun: Remove the Internet block.

慕容水火：网络屏蔽解除。

NationalAnthemSlave: When will one-party rule end?

唱国歌的奴隶：一党执政到何时?

Hongliholly: Nothing to ask, ’cause the answer will be fake anyway.

hongliholly：没什么可问的，反正答案也是假的

Daxue0755: You tell the spokesperson: Actually, we know everything. If you don’t believe it, just ask me.

daxue0755：你跟发言人说，其实我们什么都知道，不信，你问我。

Anzai: The questions we want to ask are the ones you don’t dare to ask; the questions you want to ask are the ones we have no interest in!

安仔：我们想问的你都不敢问，你想问的我们都没兴趣！

Translated by Mengyu Dong.

© Anne.Henochowicz for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 18th party congress, CCP, education, Financial Times, freedom of speech, health care, leadership transition, netizens, Politburo Standing Committee, political reform, state capitalism, state-owned enterprises, Vietnam, weibo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

First I would like to welcome Mr. Sima Nan for coming to Hainan University. I am also a student here. I want to make a few points. First of all, I have read about Socrates, who once said, I know nothing except that I am ignorant. Secondly, I need freedom and democracy is a means to protect freedom. Thirdly, I have to say, your talk against democracy has invaded my freedom. We are not equally able to exercise our freedom of speech. The four points that you have mentioned, I cannot go against them because of political correctness. Even if your talk is not good, you can go back to your hotel. If I argue against it, certainly I will be locked up in a tiny dark room. Please don’t interrupt me. You should have the manners not to interrupt me. Here comes my question, can I throw my shoe at you? As my freedom is harmed in this country, I am here to protect my freedom.

Lam also translates another student’s account of the incident and a selection of online reactions, which varied from praise and concern to condemnation:

古月照兰芳: You don’t like Sima Nan’s talk, you throw shoes; I don’t like He Weifang’s talk, I throw eggs; You don’t like Kong Qingdong’s talk, you throw mud; I don’t like Zhao Qulai’s talk, I throw rocks; You don’t like Zhang Hongliang’s talk, you throw tear gas; I don’t like Lao Yung’s talk I throw bombs; You don’t like Han Deqiang’s talk, you throw nuclear bombs — can we have democracy by throwing things at each other?

Another netizen, however, argued that shoe-throwing should be considered a gesture of protest rather than a genuine attack. ‘Father of the Great Firewall’ Fang Binxing was pelted with eggs and shoes at Wuhan University in May last year, while Wen Jiabao was targeted during a 2009 visit to Cambridge University in the UK. Sunday’s incident also propels Sima Nan into an international club including George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (twice) and Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

Brian Spegele explained the political backdrop to Sunday’s episode at China Real Time Report, including the new left’s varying fortunes following the fall of figurehead Bo Xilai and a recent altercation between new leftist Han Deqiang and an elderly man who had “disrespected” Mao Zedong.

The incident marked the latest case of ideological tension between new-left activists seeking to roll-back economic reforms of the past three decades and those looking to leave behind the economic and political experiments of the Mao era. Last month, at the height of massive anti-Japan protests that saw the unexpected emergence of Maoist imagery, another leading new-left activist scuffled in the streets with an old man who derided Mao’s legacy.

[…] Following the incident, Mr. Sima took to Sina Corp’s Weibo microblogging platform, where he has more than a half-million followers. He cited the execution of Socrates in ancient Greece, democracy’s birthplace, after a trial on charges of impiety.

“Democracy can also give rise to tyranny,” read one of Mr. Sima’s posts.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: anti-Japan protests, Bo Xilai, democracy, Fang Binxing, freedom of speech, George W. Bush, Hainan, He Weifang, Kong Qingdong, maoism, new left, protests, shoes, Tony Blair, Wen Jiabao
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

The formal topic of discussion was “China and Democracy”; in effect, it was a debate about whether China was nearing the limits of its current authoritarian single-party guided-growth model, or whether it was still gathering steam and had plenty of success still ahead. I am biased, because the subject is of great interest to me and because I was on stage as moderator / referee. But I thought this was an unusually clear, informed, and vigorous airing of contrary views on China’s present and future. They pretty much agreed about its past.

Seriously, if you would like the most concise introduction to the case for concern about China’s development, you can listen to Minxin Pei’s side of the argument in this 80-minute (including audience Q&A) discussion. If you would like an unusually forthright statement of the “China knows best, and don’t lecture us when you have such troubles of your own” perspective, listen to Eric Li — and watch the way they parry each other’s arguments. “Debates” at high-toned conferences are often something more like polite seminars. This was an actual contest of views, perfectly civil but with no softening of the hard edges of disagreement. Check it out.

A show of hands suggested that few in the audience had been swayed from their initial positions by the end, but that more had swung towards Li than away from him. Asked by an audience member whether a similar conversation could take place in Beijing, he insisted that it could, though many others could not. But, he said, he wanted to “break the spell of so-called freedom of speech”: “speech is act”, he said, it “has harmed since time immemorial”, and should be managed and regulated accordingly. Pei also said that the conference could take place in Beijing, but that the US government would have to rescue him immediately afterwards.

J J Gould summarised the arguments at The Atlantic, and the complete video is embedded below. See also past articles by Minxin Pei and Eric X. Li, via CDT.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: CCP, Chinese democracy, democracy, eric x. li, freedom of speech, James Fallows, Minxin Pei
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Q: Since economic reform began in 1978, the Communist Party has had a strong record of growth and poverty reduction. Does this provide legitimacy for continued one-party rule?

Mao: No, it’s not enough. The government is under big pressure.… Most people think that political reform is lagging behind. We should first have freedom of speech. I think that is probably the most important [reform]. Only in this environment can people supervise and oversee the government. After freedom of speech [there is] the right to choose the government. In China’s case, the leaders aren’t chosen by the people. They chose themselves, and we have nothing to say. That is a dangerous relationship ….

What is the biggest challenge to the ­leadership over the next five years?

That would be the clash between vested interest groups and social justice. The law can’t control [these groups]. They have special freedom. They get extra income because of … privilege power. Big state enterprises are vested interest groups. They collude with politicians.

Mao also discusses the surprisingly strong reaction to his iconoclastic essay on Mao Zedong last year. A focal point of the outrage that followed was the leftist Utopia website, where users looked forward to the economist’s “annihilation”. But when Utopia was forced offline following Bo Xilai’s fall from grace, Mao spoke up in its defence. From his Sina Weibo account, on March 28th:

当局把乌有之乡等网站封了。不过我还是希望他们有说理的机会。我虽然不赞成他们的观点，但是发言权是不可剥夺的。我也希望他们不要诽谤别人，说某某人是汉奸，也不可鼓动别人去杀人，去抢别人的财产。给人发言权是为了讲清道理，不是去害人，也不是发泄情绪。这些都不是一个良好的社会应有的现象。

The authorities have shut down Utopia and other sites, but I hope there will still be a chance to reason things out. Although I disagree with the Utopians’ points of view, their right to express them is inalienable. [But] I also hope they will no longer libel people, saying that they’re traitors to China, and urging people to kill them and steal their property. The point of freedom of expression is for one to clearly set out one’s points of view, not to harm others or to vent one’s spleen. These are not desirable social phenomena.

Mao was recently awarded the 2012 Milton Friedman Liberty Prize by the Washington-based Cato Institute, which said that “the arc of his life has been one of well-measured action in the pursuit of liberty.”

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Mao Yushi, Mao Zedong, maoism, political reform
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Public governance courses are offered with a mind to improving students’ acceptance and understanding of our existing political and administrative system, but in fact there’s little way of knowing what impact these courses actually have. My understanding is that most students have a strong aversion to the courses. Those opting to take them do so only to satisfy basic requirements for the conferment of their degrees, and the teaching methods employed by course instructors are necessarily dull, constricted as they are by political necessity — if instructors attempt teach more openly and creatively, they risk “breaking with form” and are courting trouble. Instead, teachers stick rigidly to the rigid course materials.

Even more serious is the fact that the inflexible theories taught in these courses do not engender in students the idea that the study of politics is a process of truth seeking and rational exploration. Inevitably, certain precepts cannot be questioned. Facing a chasm between theory and practice, in fact, we’ve all become two faced. We engage in a kind of double-dealing, paying lip service to one set of facts and ideas, and harboring a completely different one in our hearts.

This disconnect concerns the mental integrity and health of everyone in our country, and this is an issue we should all confront.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: freedom of speech, He Weifang, political reform, public governance
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Liu Xiaobo Shocks Chinese Society by Winning the Nobel Peace Prize

By Ai Mi

Liu Xiaobo’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the Tiananmen Incident and Charter 08 can be traced to the same origin. From this, Chinese society has acquired a representative for dialogue with the institution. Upon hearing the news that Liu Xiaobo received the award, many wept silently. Even more gathered in celebration at restaurants. The sound of fire crackers echoed from Beijing and Shandong universities. At the Central Academy of Fine Arts, student Wei Qiang hung a banner telling people the Nobel laureate was still in prison.

4:50, 4:55, 4:59 … The journalist beside me feverishly refreshed Twitter on a cell phone. Constant refreshing rendered the screen unclear.

5:00! The news simultaneously popped up on the screen: “Liu Xiaobo receives the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

In the Beijing taxi, the radio program was still discussing the Nobel Peace Prize when it suddenly became a pop song. It was like a drama. Tiananmen was just outside the window of the cab.

Twenty-one years ago, troops aimed machine guns at the unarmed students in the square. Even today’s premier (Wen Jiabao) couldn’t prevent the tragedy. Young, hot blood left a harsh and shameful stroke on the history of the republic. Until today, this stroke has remained unfinished.

Twenty-one years later, the death witnessed on the square, the systematic violence he met with constantly, he, however persisted as the cry for the rights of the common person, putting forth the Charter 08 and insisting the people of China “have no enemy.” And with the same honor as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Desmond Tutu, he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

5:00 on Oct. 8, 2010 is a moment worth writing into the annals of history. This page of history is so unique, it could be a novel, or even a prophesy.

As they saw the name on the computer screen, or heard it on the phone, many wept silently. Among them were scholars, corporate-types, entrepreneurs, as well as officials. Just as Liu Xiaobo had, many of them experienced the disillusionment of their youth on that square, from then on remaining silent among the crowd.

Many raised a glass and drank bitterly. They gave an Internet-age name to these “celebrations” or “criticisms” – activities for the first Chinese national to receive the Nobel Peace Prize – calling it “eating until drunk.” Among them, many were youth born after 1980. Twitter or the blogosphere is the source of their information. Most know Liu Xiaobo from the documentary “Tiananmen” they saw online, or Charter 08. They don’t know anything about him but believe he is a good person. They identify with his effort for freedom, democracy and constitutional power.

Firecrackers sounded from unknown origins at Beijing University and Shandong University. At the graduate building of Beijing Normal University, a small scale celebration was held for former classmate Liu Xiaobo’s award. At the Central Academy of Fine Arts, student Wei Qiang hung a banner telling people the Nobel lauriat was still in prison. Beijing Film Academy professor Cui Weiping received numerous text messages from students and young friends, expressing a “mixed feeling of grief and joy.”

There were also many who became abnormally busy upon hearing the news.

At No. 9 South Yuyuantan Road, a cordon of dozens of police and sentries cut off a seething crowd of more than 100 foreign journalists. Audio recorders, cameras and lenses extended toward the police line. Norwegian, American, British, French, Japanese, Hong Kong and Taiwanese … Journalists from every major news media outlet were pointing their microphones at the inapproachable building 17.

This is Liu Xiaobo’s home. His wife, Liu Xia could not move an inch without three national security officials accompanying her.

Passersby could not understand what was happening here, and would not stop inquiring. Finally one would tell another who Liu Xiaobo is, what he did and what happened tonight. At the scene, a youth told the reporter he told five people who Liu Xiaobo is, and also taught them how to evade online censorship to see the news.

Police in Beijing’s eastern district hastily extinguished an “Eat until Drunk” activity near Tandong Gate. The young scholar Xu Zhiyong, online friends Wu Gan and Wang Lihong and others wore yellow ribbons and raised a placard saying “Congratulations Liu Xiaobo on winning the Nobel Prize” in a small park near Tandong Gate. They even carried a personal stereo and played the five-minute Internationale, explaining to passersby who Liu Xiaobo is. This kind of behavior was called “disturbing the public order” by authorities. No less than 20 police stormed a small restaurant and, taking with them the crowd of 10 who had created the disturbance. Many spent a day and a night in the police station before being released. Wu Gan, Zhao Changqing and Wang Lihong all received administrative detention. One of the online friends just released told Asia Weekly he didn’t think he had broken any law, yet the police had appeared very impatient.

“They had been so lazy they didn’t check to see if the address I had written was real, so lazy they didn’t confirm my real identity. An officer even asked, “Who is Liu Xiaobo? What university is he at?”

At Shanghai’s People’s Square, another “Norwegian dinner” was extinguished by the Huangpu Police Department. Media person Shi Feike, scholar Wang Xiaoyu and another journalist were taken away while waiting to eat. They were released six hours later.

Portal posts censored late at night portal

The lights in an office building in Zhongguancun were on until 3 a.m. At 3:00 p.m. Big portal sites like Sina, Sohu and NetEase received instruction from the Network Management Office to remove all Nobel Prize news from homepages by 3:10. Several hours after the peace prize ceremony, the blog departments of big portal sites were notified that all news concerning Liu Xiaobo winning the peace prize must be strictly deleted.

Insiders described to Asia Weekly dozens of people who burned the midnight oil for the occasion:

“Our site’s entire auditing department was put into action. Starting in the evening at least 50 people auditing and deleting, post by post. Some worked until 3 or 4 in the morning before going home. First thing in the morning, at 7 or 8, they came back and continued to delete.”

He estimated, from the time the news was released until the evening peak hours, more than 30 percent of blogs were transferring information on the Nobel Peace Prize, with an estimated hundreds of thousands of posts on the topic at the big portal sites.

Overwhelmed censors stopped blog site search engines and let their computers directly block “Liu Xiaobo”, “6.4” and other first-degree sensitive words. They set “Nobel” as a second-degree sensitive word. When a second-degree word appears, behind the scenes auditors are notified at the site. They read each post and individually delete ones that don’t meet their criteria. Regulators also request big blog sites to provide a “black list” of the sources of the information. An insider who wished to remain anonymous said “Here we see the site officials’ conscience. Getting by (without providing the names) is quite easy.”

With a population 1.3 billion, how many Chinese know Liu Xiaobo? As one ordinary white-collared worker said: “I found out about this yesterday.” Just as my heart was turning, I was struck by the fragmented indifference of those around me. It pinned me down.

But the peace prize still made this young quiet intellectual feel that it was worth it.

The story is kept secret but the undercurrent is swelling everywhere.

At this moment, I’m afraid the quietest place is the prison in Jinzhou, Liaoning, 500 kilometers from Beijing.

On Dec. 25, 2009, the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison and a two-year deprivation of political rights on an inciting state subversion charge. This Nobel Peace Prize receiving prisoner, who is incarcerated in the Jinzhou prison, will not be released until June 21, 2020.

Both the celebration and indifference on the evening of Oct. 8 has no relation with Liu Xiaobo. He had been in the Jinzhou Prison 10 months. He had seen his wife a total of five times – an hour each time. He still didn’t know he won the prize.

Under full monitoring by State Security, Liu Xia saw Liu Xiaobo for the sixth time on Oct. 10.

Liu Xiaobo’s wife is put under house arrest

At 9 that night, Liu Xia told online friends via Twitter that she had been put on house arrest. But she had already seen Xiaobo. He had learned from prison guards on the evening of Oct. 9 of his award. Liu Xia’s good friend Wang Jinbo confirmed on Twitter that the news described above had been sent by Liu Xia. He said: “(Liu Xia) was told by police that she could not see the media or friends. Liu Xiaobo told her the prize was for souls lost at Tiananmen Square first. He cried.”

Liu Xiaobo cried. His wife knew they weren’t tears of joy, but tears for the souls of Tiananmen.

Those who understand Liu Xiaobo know the significance of the Tiananmen Square Incident to him. Before 1989, he was the most popular instructor at Beijing Normal University. In a conversation with Li Zehou, he quipped that Liu Xiaobo is the “dark horse” of the literary world.

In May of 1980, Liu Xiaobo prematurely ended his visit to America’s Colombia University and returned to Beijing. He hopped to reason with the students at Tiananmen Square and avoid the possibility of a tragedy. But it was temptation of ideal that surpassed pure reason. To the sound of the Internationale on the square, he decided to support the student activity by fasting. Liu Xiaobo, Zhou Duo, Hou Dejian and Gao Xinzhe, “The Four Princes of Tiananmen” put forth the “June 2 Fast.” And in their “Fasting Declaration” they suggested for the first time “We have no enemies,” “Don’t allow hate and violence poison our wisdom and the Chinese people’s road to democracy.”

Two days later, troops and tanks entered the square. Even though the “four prices” straightened their backs and negotiated with the military at the last minutes, and did the utmost to convince the thousands of students to safely leave the square, young blood was already spattered across the square, never to wiped clean.

This was a turning point in Liu Xiaobo’s life. Zhou Duo recalls, in 1991, not long after Liu Xiaobo had been released from prison, his friends took him out. As their car passed Tiananmen, he didn’t dare face the square, but turned and wailed.

Zhou Duo said “This is Xiaobo’s character. He is not a simple person. Once could even describe his personality as complicated. His heart is stuck on the battle between heaven and earth, in eternal introspection, in repentance, like a saint, never compromising with himself.

I’d rather go to jail than seek survival by leaving the country

Since then, he has identified himself as a “6.4 survivor.” He bears the cross of departed spirits, slowly moving forward by the bravery of martyrs; his road has been particularly lonely. From 1989 to 1991, he was sentenced for “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement” and was imprisoned. From 1996 to 1999, he was sentenced to three years of reeducation through labor for “disturbing social order.” Aside from these, he was frequently under residential surveillance and house arrest. He has never had full freedom after 1989, through the eleven years up to this specific prison sentence. His name has become a sensitive phrase, and friends have suggested to him that he become like Lu Xun by taking on several pen names to continue to write articles in China. He has refused, stating that he will never change his name or surname. Liu Xiaobo only hopes that there will be a day in China when [people] will be able to speak forth loudly and clearly. He refuses to leave China, and refuses to hide.

After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize on October 8th, Liu Xia represented Liu Xiaobo by thanking friends who have shown concern for him. She spoke cautiously that this prize was not only an honor, but also a greater responsibility. “Liu Xiaobo still has a long road ahead. Everyone, strive hard together in order to realize the ardent hopes of Chinese democracy and freedom!”

Liu wrote: “Gulag, not a noun. Auschwitz, not a noun.”

Then he rewrote his life’s “6.4” — for both the individual and the country, it was even less a noun.

The pen never finished writing 21 years ago. Eventually it will. But when?

The struggle for peace seen as a compromise

According to Zhou Duo, the Peace Prize, the Tian’anmen Square incident, and Charter 08 are all connected by the same artery. He says: “Before 6.4, very few of these kinds of voices spoke: Opposing the Chinese Communist Party in past decades was always imbued with class struggle, was a clearly black and white issue, and needed a peaceful transformation. We raised this issue on the Square, and many people said that our hunger strike declaration was of milestone significance. But till today, Liu Xiaobo has said “I have no enemies,” yet there are people who still say you are making compromises with the enemies.

On December 23rd, 2009, Liu Xiaobo presented his “I have no enemies: My final statement” in court during his final trial. He said: “I stand by the belief I expressed twenty years ago in my ‘June Second hunger strike declaration’ — I have no enemies, and no hatred … For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy.”

“Such new ideas regarding governance deeply accord with the aims of the Nobel Peace Prize.” Zhou Duo believes that the Peace Prize’s appeal can win over most people’s hearts, “The CCP no longer needs to use ‘anti-Chinese power’ as a reason to deceive people. The Peace Prize is extremely moderate, and gives the CCP a lot of wiggle room and ample opportunity for self-improvement.”

“This may of course have some impact on China’s political reform,” said Zhou Duo. “This system is already overworked, leaders’ self-selection has increased in frequency. Before, this would have been an inconceivable situation. The Nobel Prize will surely shake up deadlocked factions. But which faction will prevail is hard to say.”

Lack of consensus among the people

He is worried by the lack of consensus among China’s people, and even more by the lack of a path to realizing such a consensus. “A peaceful transformation requires positive interaction between the ruling party and the opposition. However, I’m not too optimistic on this point.”

Just like the “89 generation,” former police officers during the Tian’anmen square incident were jailed for supporting students. After they were released from prison, they engaged in business, wrote books, and produced much below the radar research. Writer Ye Fu is quite optimistic about this.

Ye Fu and Liu Xiaobo have known each other for over 10 years. When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman said Liu Xiaobo blasphemed the Peace Prize, he found it hilarious: “A totalitarian society’s rulers and its people are at odds with each other. Our expenditures on maintaining internal order are reaching the expenditure costs for our outside military. Is this not ‘a quasi-state of war’ All Xiaobo did was do his best to end this state of affairs, requesting a peaceful transformation — not like how it was on June 4th, but a real harmony.”

Yefu says: “As for this peace prize, if we look at it from the perspective of hindsight, I think [it] will take on a very profound meaning.” He agrees with Zhou Duo’s statement that “[civil society] lacks consensus”: “Our civil society has not truly developed. It is still under the iron fist of the controlling apparatus. Civil society’s slight growth might get struck hard. For example, right now, [if one wants to have] reform, the central authorities must talk with its people, and talk with whom? Our people do not have a [civil] leader. India had Gandhi, Burma has Aung San Suu Kyi, South Africa has Mandela, the Czech Republic has Havel. We don’t have anyone. In order to improve, speaking from a technical standpoint, we need an interlocutor.”

The Peace Prize has created such an opportunity. Ye Fu says: “Think about it. If there were no Peace Prize, who would this interlocutor be? Perhaps the person would have already been beaten to the point where he could not continue. Now the Peace Prize confers to Liu Xiaobo — rather, this prize is given by the Chinese Communist Party, this is the interlocutor the Party has chosen. If it weren’t for those 11 years in prison, if not for the harshest methods, this would not have led to this point. The Peace Prize’s prestige allows Liu Xiaobo to become the interlocutor of the few dissidents. Historically speaking, I believe this time and this moment will bring about a profound influence.”

From the annoying official to the interlocutor, what gives Ye Fu hope in this kind of transformation is this era’s great wave of change.

Some people have said that Liu Xiaobo has won the prize, and will excite the system’s internal conservative strength, thus taking reform several steps back.

Ye Fu does not agree. He believes that the times are already different. “Take a look at our ruling party. Now, they are using underground Party tactics to manage this country. For example, clamping down on your [hypothetical] book. [The party] will not dare to issue a document, or allow for transparency. Liu Xiaobo’s situation was quietly leaked online, and was not mentioned. By using secretive measures to rule a country, the ruling party has represented itself as an underground political party. It itself has a guilty conscience. China is no longer the China of 20 years ago; it has entered into the world, and cannot withdraw. The army can no longer open fire on people.”

In the article Liu Xiaobo wrote prior to going to prison, he wrote: “Even if I live every day under strict surveillance, but [I] have an optimistic belief in China’s future because I got the sense, after dealing with policemen, that this inhuman regime has a guilty conscience. Even its dictatorship tool cannot be regarded as being in the right.”

Liu Xiaobo’s good friend, scholar Mo Zhixu feels the same. “For many years, we have passed on this type of thinking: This is how the world is, it’s a world in which losers are always in the wrong, in which profit overrules justice. The Nobel Peace Prize tells us that the world is actually not this way. This world has a moral baseline, and justice.” He believes that the Peace Prize has an encouragement effect, “just like a snowball.”

Can this snowballing Peace Prize bring greater change?

Ye Fu excerpts a Song dynasty Zen poem on his blog: “A fishing line casts a thousand feet deep in the pond, once a ripple flows, ten thousand follow.” It is a “prophetic poem.” After the Nobel Peace Prize was given, it has already been shown that “ten thousand follow.”

On October 11, Li Rui, Hu Jiwei and other elder CCP leaders published an open letter “Enforce Article 35 of China’s Constitution, Abolish Censorship and Realize Citizens’ Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press: A Letter to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress” to the NPC Standing Committee.

The open letter avoids talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, but it directly echoes Premier Wen Jiabao’s CNN television interview in which he talked about governmental reform. It criticized the absence of freedom of speech from state leaders down to the people, called for a media publishing law and to remove the censorship system, asked for the propaganda department to comply with trends, to change functions, and to honor the constitutional promise of “freedom of speech and press.”

After the open letter was published, on October 13, Nanjing’s “Modern Express” and Hunan’s “Xiaoxiang Morning Post” had full-page coverage of Wen Jiabao’s CNN interview content, and also invited Central Party School professors to analyze the reform’s more difficult areas, and directly criticized moneyed, influential figures. This was seen as the Chinese media’s heartfelt response to the open letter.

“Think about it a little bit. In today’s China, if a peaceful improvement like the one in 1989 recurs, what will the outcome be? It doesn’t matter if it’s the international atmosphere, or the people’s preparation, or the CCP’s own transformation — all of these are the same. A true interlocutor will appear in the public square, and history may be reversed.” This is what Ye Fu says, though he also notes that “reformers are not the best leaders. Rather, the country’s elite come from within the system. Therefore, the final change will happen within the system. This is the historical pattern, and the role of public enlightenment. Sun Yat-sen was a revolutionary, but the ruler was still Yuan Shi-kai.”

The Nobel Peace Prize continues to move along these undercurrents.

Liu Xiaobo, from Linzhou prison, has already entered history alongside Mandela, Havel, and Mother Teresa.

On March 1989, he wrote in an article: “I cannot retreat, or jump from cliffs, or be destroyed. [If] I want freedom, I must face this impasse.”

He fulfills the idea of freedom, but at the same time he reminds himself of “freedom’s” true meaning — “Whether it is compliant, or rebellious, the victims of totalitarianism are an accomplice to these regimes to some degree.” “If one day, Mainland China intellectuals have all gone through the experience of hardship and struggle for the rights of freedom of speech, then they retaliate against those who censored, and put pressure on those who purged [controversial content], then we will have struggled, but will not have broken the vicious cycle of speech dictatorship: violence for violence, censorship for censorship, oppression for oppression. Freedom of speech and public opinion will then never seen the light of day.”

This is the page in the history books, and it will change. Or will it reincarnate? The secret lies within.

© cdtstaff for China Digital Times (CDT), 2010. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: authors, civil society, freedom of speech, Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

On October 11, 23 Chinese Communist Party elders known for their pro-reform positions, including Mao Zedong’s former secretary Li Rui (李锐) and former People’s Daily editor-in-chief Hu Jiwei (胡绩伟), submitted an open letter to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, formally China’s highest state body, calling for an end to restrictions on expression in China.

The letter urges the Communist Party to abolish censorship and realize citizens’ right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Seizing on the opportunity afforded by the awarding of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波) with the Nobel Peace Prize last week, the letter refers explicitly to prior statements on reform and free speech made by both President Hu Jintao (胡锦涛) and Premier Wen Jiabao (温家宝).

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2010. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: freedom of speech, Hu Jiwei, li rui, open letter
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall