The HK Standard reported something amusing about what happened when Wen Jiabao was asked a question by a French reporter.
Censors purged the name of ousted former Communist Party chief Zhao Ziyang from official transcripts of the premier’s news conference, underscoring how sensitive a topic he remains even two years after his death. In an unscripted moment of what is usually a highly formulaic ritual, a French reporter asked if Wen Jiabao had read a book recently published in Hong Kong in which Zhao is quoted as calling for political reforms…
References to Zhao and the book were deleted from Xinhua News Agency’s rendering of the reporter’s question in a transcript posted on its Web site. Wen’s comment that he had not read the book was also deleted.
As I pointed out in an earlier post about the censorship of a new book on Zhao, it is interesting that the CCP feels the need to constantly delete references to the old gentleman whenever they are made.
1
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
The 800-pound panda in the room.
Remember China lost 3 years of Ziyang/Yaobang economic reforms to appease the authoritarians in the Party. If people start asking whether the country would be at least as economically developed, if not more developed, if there hadn’t been leftist retrenchment in the 80s and 90s, then they’d start asking who is really responsible for China’s current economic progress and why aren’t they in power instead of the current set of leaders.
The whole rationalisation of support for the current CCP crew’s economic reforms (which are really Ziyang/Yaobang’s) falls apart and the rationalisations for limits on the Ziyang/Yaobang’s political and cultural reforms would fall apart as well.
March 17, 2007 @ 11:34 am | Comment
2
By canrun
And here’s some interesting follow-up from Richard Spencer:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/richardspencer/mar07/question.htm
March 17, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Comment
3
By CCT
This is precisely the type of follow-up you’d expect from those so intent on being focused on the trees, they have little concept there’s even a forest.
In the same press conference in which Wen Jiabao was questioned, on national TV without any deletion or censorship about:
– a time-frame for democracy (and whether it really is 100 years away),
– about the Dalai Lama (and his claim of not wanting independence),
– a reminder/accusation that China failed to meet its environmental goals…
… it’s the *missing* question that gathers your attention.
I think the fact that the question was censored does indeed say something meaningful about the Communist Party: it’s not interested in political debate about roads not taken, it’s not interested in polarizing opinions inside the Party, it’s not interested in meaningless distraction from the consensus that exists today.
I think the fact that your attention (and others) is squarely focused on the censored question also says something meaningful about *you*: you’re not looking to form new conclusions about the nature of the Communist Party or modern China; you’re just looking for evidence to support your long, firmly held dogma on this issue.
March 17, 2007 @ 12:10 pm | Comment
4
By fatbrick
“I may be wrong here, but if Taoism takes the lead in politics and society, doesn’t that mean it’s no longer Taoist?”
In my opinion, Taoism takes the lead in politics and society means that people just stop intentionly making effort to explore and pursue the development. There was some period of time in China history that Taoism took the lead in political life. I think it was the early stage of Han dynasty. I could be wrong though.
March 17, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Comment
5
By mike
very clever CTT – look at what we let you talk about (because then you will be too busy to look at what we don’t let you talk about).
Elsewhere, you go too deep on the reasons for censorship. I think it is more likely that questions on dali lama, environment, etc. were allowed because they had been pre-scripted, but the ZZ was unexpected and therefore cut. Quite simple. (Also, it might lead to an entire generation of people saying :Eh? Who is this Zhao Ziyang?” but that is a whole new topic.)
March 17, 2007 @ 1:04 pm | Comment
6
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
it’s not interested in polarizing opinions inside the Party, it’s not interested in meaningless distraction from the consensus that exists today.
Posted by: CCT at March 17, 2007 12:10 PM
Oh yes, I forgot the official party line, that there is no factionalism in the CCP today and that it’s consensus all the way down.
And definitely avoid the possibilities of paths not chosen, because that casts doubts upon the infallibility of the CCP and their sole claim to power over China. Remember, rehabilitation for me (e.g. Deng, a couple of times), but not for thee. Re-evaluation of the past, when it serves my goals, but never when it might threaten my exclusive power.
oh… and when facing the foreign press, wheel out Premier Wen as the “face man”, since his answers will be more palatable… and then pursue a different policy direction once the doors on Zhongnanhai are closed.
March 17, 2007 @ 1:12 pm | Comment
7
By fatbrick
mike, many of the new generation probably do not care about this whole congress events anyway.
March 17, 2007 @ 1:20 pm | Comment
8
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
Elsewhere, you go too deep on the reasons for censorship. I think it is more likely that questions on dali lama, environment, etc. were allowed because they had been pre-scripted, but the ZZ was unexpected and therefore cut. Quite simple. (Also, it might lead to an entire generation of people saying :Eh? Who is this Zhao Ziyang?” but that is a whole new topic.)
Posted by: mike
Wen knows Zhao Ziyang. Roll the footage of Zhao’s last public appearance in T-square…
As for the Tibet and Dalai Lama question, it allows Wen to appeal to the jingoist agitprop supporting CCP hegemony. Notice how CCT refers to the question as “his claim of not wanting independence”, which appeals to the paranoid delusional wetdreams of splittism of certain factions that retain power in the party by solely playing the splittist card.
Notice the absence in CCT’s comment about Wen’s answer, which focused on the Dalai Lama accepting the CCP myth of Tibet being an inviolable part of China, when even Chinese social scientists are beginning to publicly doubt that myth.
March 17, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Comment
9
By fatbrick
“when even Chinese social scientists are beginning to publicly doubt that myth.”
One or two people’s personal opinions do not mean that there will be any change in mainsteam society. No need to exaggerate that. IMO, the focus of Wen’s answer on Dalai issue is that Dalai should dismiss his so called government in India. Also Wen opposed Dalai’s idea about autonomous Tibet:larger area and single ethnic group.
March 17, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Comment
10
By t_co
@ fatbrick
The Dalai Lama’s idea for a greater Tibet free of Han settlers is as absurd as the idea of a greater Comancheland in Texas free of white people.
March 17, 2007 @ 2:34 pm | Comment
11
By Yogi
Most of us read it in school “1984” – I recently read it again, I think weather it is cencorship or the “war on terror” – 1984 explains a lot – unbelievable that this book was already written 60 or so years ago.
March 17, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Comment
12
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
Also Wen opposed Dalai’s idea about autonomous Tibet:larger area and single ethnic group.
Posted by: fatbrick
No need for autonomy if Tibet is an inviolable part of China. No need for renegotiating issues of resettlement and mineral rights/royalties.
and for t_co, go take a trip to the Navajo lands or to Wounded Knee. Such areas that you refer to exist in the US and exist in many places in the world. In China though they go through the motions of declaring these areas to be Autonomous, but in reality it’s only an abuse of that word that would put a wry smile on George Orwell’s face.
March 17, 2007 @ 9:15 pm | Comment
13
By JXie
Wen should have copped out with a “classified information” card, or a “national security” card — then you can print the Q&A in full.
Tom, at the risk of getting the topic totally off track, don’t you realize that there is a Tibet problem in China today, is because China hasn’t done nearly as cruel and as throughout a job in killing or marginalizing native people in their land?
March 17, 2007 @ 9:37 pm | Comment
14
By Rich
JXie
Who’s land?
Sorry, off topic but I’m curious.
March 17, 2007 @ 10:00 pm | Comment
15
By Rich
Sorry again, “whose”
March 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Comment
16
By JXie
Rich, allow me to elaborate a bit more. Traditionally there is a piece of land that is largely occupied/lived off by ethnic Tibetans. Defining the exact border of it is a bit trickier. Apparently in some towns/counties of the Greater Tibet some claim, Tibetans were a minority in even 1951 (let alone 2007) but not necessarily in 1720.
I have no qualm about calling the piece of land Tibetans’ land, but want to emphasize by the same logic, all “countries” in the New Continent can be considered illegal countries occupied by foreigners.
March 17, 2007 @ 10:19 pm | Comment
17
By Tommy Lovebottom
JxIe, I think that you my have to define “Traditional” a bit more because most Americans’ and Europeans would not repeat that mistake if they had the foresight.. And i thought we were speaking about China..I’m sure there are many many Blogs and other places that you could discuss America.. and it’s abuses. I’m a member of quite a few.and I love them Unfortunately, For you, this is about China!
March 17, 2007 @ 10:37 pm | Comment
18
By fatbrick
Tom, it does not make any sense if we just argue what word they should use to replace “autonomy “. I do not care it is “province”, “autonomous district” or “state”. The people who named those probably did not know any English and never heard of George Orwell, no matter who he is.
March 18, 2007 @ 12:40 am | Comment
19
By Rich
JXie, thanks for elaborating however I was kinda asking for your opinion. It strikes me though, that in an age were many countries are attempting to atone(piecemeal or token as it may be) for the tidal or belligerent manner in which they occupied and subdued foreign lands, other countries would ignore the lesson and contrive to repeat the act.
The above is probably stupidy naive(consider winners write the history) but how does it sit with you?
March 18, 2007 @ 12:51 am | Comment
20
By Stuart
“The Dalai Lama’s idea for a greater Tibet free of Han settlers is as absurd as the idea of a greater Comancheland in Texas free of white people.”
If we’re going for absurdity, how about this:
“One China is the will of all Chinese people.”
Now that’s a whopper.
March 18, 2007 @ 12:53 am | Comment
21
By JXie
Rich, atonement of past sins without giving up anything meaningful? I am all for it. It feels good and doesn’t cost a thing. Do you think the Mexican-American War will be atoned — to the satisfactions of Mexicans?
We’re all selfish beings — you don’t get to the top of food chain by being nice. The Communism ideal is about a society consisting of selfless beings. It would’ve failed even if you melted Confucius, Buddha & Jesus all in one to replace Stalin or Mao.
March 18, 2007 @ 4:41 am | Comment
22
By Raj
Thanks for the link, canrun.
March 18, 2007 @ 6:22 am | Comment
23
By 88
>… it’s the *missing* question that gathers your attention.
One question:
How do you know there was a “missing” question? If you support the CCP’s censorship policies, then why are violating them by discussing this issue? You shouldn’t even know about this — the party will tell you what you need to know.
If you want to be even remotely consistent, stop visiting web sites or reading news from media outlets that the CCP doesn’t approve.
March 18, 2007 @ 11:58 am | Comment
24
By CCT
@Tom,
I don’t really have much respect for your mental capacity in the first place… but you’re really taking the cake with this one.
“Notice how CCT refers to the question as “his claim of not wanting independence”, which appeals to the paranoid delusional wetdreams of splittism of certain factions that retain power in the party by solely playing the splittist card.”
… are you incapable of comprehending the question that was actually asked? The German reporter asked specifically…
“Why does the Chinese Government still see the Dalai Lama as a splittist although he says he does not advocate independence any more?”
March 18, 2007 @ 12:48 pm | Comment
25
By CCT
@88,
Why do you falsely assume that I support the CCP’s choice to censor out this question? Are you incapable of processing a gray reality where I support the CCP without uniformly worshipping its every position?
Why don’t you address my original question about why the *missing* question is more significant than the questions that were discussed?
March 18, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Comment
26
By 88
CCT:
>>Why do you falsely assume that I support the CCP’s choice to censor out this question?
Because you attacked people for even pointing out that it was censored? Was that an unreasonable conclusion to draw from your comments?
>>Are you incapable of processing a gray reality where I support the CCP without uniformly worshipping its every position?
First, I was asking a question.
Second, if you support control of the media (notice I said “IF”), then on what basis do you claim the right to exempt certain issues from control? Who are you to decide? The whole basis for censorship in the first place is the idea that YOU, the individual, have no right to decide what should or shouldn’t be censored or what you should or shouldn’t be able to read — the party should decide that. As soon as you start claiming “exemptions,” you are challenging the entire basis of that system.
Thus I wasn’t implying that you support every position of the CCP — I was implying that it is logically incoherent to support this kind of censorship when at the very same time you are violating the terms of the system you are supporting.
>>question about why the *missing* question is more significant than the questions that were discussed?
Well, are those mutually exclusive? If someone points out that something was censored, does that mean that the questions that weren’t censored are insignificant? Maybe both are significant. I didn’t see the spot in the original post where Raj claimed that what wasn’t censored was insignificant.
Also, your question sounds a little…odd to begin with. The government censors something. Someone points it out. You ask, “Why didn’t you notice what I didn’t censor?” That sounds a little like a bank robber getting arrested by the police and then asking, “Why didn’t you notice the good stuff I did? Why are you just focusing on my bank robbing?” I guess the police have a “bias” in this sense.
I suppose that someone might point out that something was censored because it highlights the perceived sensitivity of a topic on the part of the government — that is significant in and of itself. Perhaps the government has good reason to regard this topic as “sensitive” — that is really a separate question.
March 18, 2007 @ 1:23 pm | Comment
27
By Raj
88 makes some great points. I picked this question because it was unusual in that it had been censored – if it had been about any other topic (apart from something to do with his personal life) I would have still posted it if I came across it.
CCT, bloggers look at what interests them – generally I do not find much of what Wen Jiabao says interesting because he, like most Chinese politicians, are so guarded with what they say (even for politicians generally). Even when he has said something interesting – like giving hints over mayoral elections – they have come to absolutely nothing.
I have a feeling you’re just saying this because it’s about China/Zhao Ziyang. If this had been about a non-Chinese politician I doubt you would be complaining.
March 19, 2007 @ 1:45 am | Comment
28
By kevininpudong
There’s a special Chinese term for the language that Wen and his cohorts speak: “feihua,” which literally means garbage talk… or bullshit. In order to reach that hight in the feudal Party hierarchy, you have to be a master at “feihua.” I think it’s a required class at the Central Party School.
Perhaps sometime in the near future they can replace these boring wooden officials with Party-robots that discuss the Three Represents and harmonious society. At least then it would be more interesting because, hey, robots are pretty cool, aren’t they? And China would save a lot of money, because I’ve never met a corrupt robot.
March 19, 2007 @ 6:12 am | Comment
29
By Raj
kevin
WENBOT and HUBOT!
March 19, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Comment
30
By Ting Bu Dong
Wait a minute……You say.. Wen isn’t a robot?Then whats with that idiotic perma-grin? Is that just gas?
March 19, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Comment
31
By nanheyangrouchuan
“I think the fact that your attention (and others) is squarely focused on the censored question also says something meaningful about *you*: you’re not looking to form new conclusions about the nature of the Communist Party or modern China”
Stop making excuses for 肛交党 and its filthy, dirty ways. China ruins everything that it touches, especially such a pure country as Tibet
March 19, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Comment
32
By fatbrick
“Stop making excuses for 肛交党 and its filthy, dirty ways. China ruins everything that it touches, especially such a pure country as Tibet
Posted by: nanheyangrouchuan at March 19, 2007 10:51 AM”
Stop using Chinese since your dirty words ruin this beautiful language. Even a whore is cleaner than you.
March 19, 2007 @ 12:35 pm | Comment
33
By mike
tom, of course wen knows who ZZ is. The point is that a lot of those born after, say, 1985, don’t.
A while back, a business publication I was working on was celebrating its 20th anniversary. To commemorate this, it was suggested that we could re-run the cover of issue 1. Good idea, until our official ‘censor’, remembered issue 1 featured a glowing picture of Zhao. Scratch that idea. His memory has been whitewashed from contemporary history. I am sure even Wen feels some sadness at that.
March 19, 2007 @ 2:40 pm | Comment
34
By fatbrick
Well CCP’s censorship surely made ZZ disappear for a long time. However, not everyone is interested in history and politics. Majority of people tend to ignore those politician irrelevant to their dya-to-day lives.
March 20, 2007 @ 1:57 am | Comment
35
By mike
fatbrick: not everyone is interested in history and politics. fair enough, but surely it would be nice to give them the full, unrestricted opportunity?
March 20, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Comment