經濟學者雜誌在這一兩周內，密集的討論中國政治變遷問題，同時列出地方政府地方債問題。這時，劉曉波的問題被突顯出來，筆者舉台灣旺旺集團的蔡衍明董事長為例來作類比。有關這方面的開頭幾段，算是類似話語，請見筆者Give us our daily Apple Jan 29th 2013, 09:40乙文。

這篇相對於台灣這五六年來，揣摩習近平的對內控制手法，及黨的政策與市場的互動，對比於人權和民主化程度的猜測，較有條理而有建設性。由當時幾項事情，NGOs的非政府組織（中國大陸稱人民社會團體）的法制化、劉曉波的近況、集會遊行法及人民代表的實務上產生方式等，拿來和習近平國家主席所公開談話，履履提及民主，這讓經濟學者的作者想到要引用毛澤東的「民主」定義，觀察是否從2012年年底「改革共識」的提案，有進一步的延伸。原文最後提到「改革的前提是憲政秩序的穩定」，不過看新華社等官媒，那一陣子，每次頭版常刊出具象化穩定就是拿習家人的舊照片來貼，就是一個很模糊的問題，難不成官媒想問有無福州伯否？？？

筆者稍微幫了當時的中共的腔。就維穩來看，中共正在減少貧窮線底下的人數，中國高鐵給了中國人「行」的便利和戶口法的寬鬆與否，衡量市場法制及自由化的程度，也再調出最近的第五至第六代的權力架構表看一下，加速進行這些措施，減少未來（現在有些有發生）的不穩定的原料-市場-消費者供應鏈的經濟結構，包括公營及私有大型的股票上市及跨國企業的競爭能力（當然包括對黨的忠誠度）及對外貿易風險，使中國有自我市場調節機制，黨仍能灌輸意識型態，減少大城市中經濟上階級無謂的爭執。筆者同時拿出溫家寶總理曾於2010年CNN訪談時，涉及「政治改革」的可能，但未提及時間表，這裡要推敲一下習溫體制(當然去年開始算習獨大)是否仍能從中有些啟示。筆者十分懷念江澤民和朱鎔基很實在地「拼經濟」的歲月，也不會太過管制政治言論，倒是胡錦濤和溫家寶的調節，給了民眾「既期待，又怕受傷害」的對政治或市場機制的演變有了模糊空間。對了，筆者當個月曾經提給習近平國家主席和李克強總理，蔡衍明先生游走於兩岸的「華獨」的問題，免得中國大陸發生市場失靈。

Political reform

Defining boundaries

China’s new leaders seek to present a friendlier public face, but oppose bold new demands for democratic reform

Jan 5th 2013 | BEIJING | from the print edition

ON JANUARY 2nd front pages of many Chinese newspapers carried identical headlines. “Greater political courage”, they proclaimed, was needed in the execution of reforms. But even as they try to signal their openness to change, China’s new leaders are nervous of demands that they move faster to loosen the Communist Party’s grip. Most worryingly for them, some of the boldest calls are coming from within the establishment.

Since the leaders, headed by Xi Jinping, were installed in November the party’s propaganda machinery has been working hard to make them look reformist and open-minded. Newspapers trumpeted Mr Xi’s decision to visit the reformist mecca of Shenzhen in early December on his first out-of-town tour. Later in the month the state news-agency, Xinhua, published profiles of Mr Xi and the party’s six other most powerful men. With the articles were rare photographs, including some (above) from years past of Mr Xi with his wife, Peng Liyuan, a well known folk-singer, his daughter, who now attends Harvard, and his father, who has since died. Seldom have the official media sought to portray the party boss as a family man. The hint was that a more human touch can be expected.

Such tweaking of the leaders’ image has done little to mute demands for more radical change. For many years these have commonly surfaced, especially in conjunction with important political events, in the form of petitions and open letters issued by a few outspoken scholars and members of China’s beleaguered community of dissidents. Party officials almost invariably ignore them. But on December 25th one group issued a radical prospectus that is likely to concern the leadership; the 72 people who signed it, mainly academics and lawyers, are much closer to the party mainstream than the usual petitioners.

Their “Proposal for a Consensus on Reform” gives a stark warning of the dangers of inaction. If systemic reforms are not carried out, it says, public dissatisfaction will escalate to a “critical point” and the country will “fall into the turmoil and chaos of violent revolution”. Zhang Qianfan, a legal scholar at Peking University who organised the petition, says an Arab-style upheaval is possible, particularly if the economy were to stall. Worries about stability have increased, he says, amid growing numbers of protests around the country.

Such doom-laden language is not so different from some of the new leaders’ own rhetoric aimed at galvanising support for reform. Mr Xi himself has hinted at an Arab-style outcome if the party fails to tackle corruption. In late December he even implied that the party might fall if it fails to reform politically. This was suggested by a reference he made to a meeting in 1945 between Mao Zedong and Huang Yanpei, the leader of a Communist-leaning party. Huang told Mao that many Chinese dynasties had collapsed because of their inertia after many years in power. Mao replied that the Communist Party had found a remedy for this: democracy. Mr Xi probably did not spell out the irony of Mao’s response, but by alluding to it he implied that more democracy was now needed.

By this Mr Xi almost certainly did not mean the kind of approach called for in the recent petition. Its authors, many of whom are from leading universities and government-affiliated think-tanks, say their proposals amount to no more than implementing the country’s constitution. But this is far more radical than it sounds. As they point out, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and publication as well as the right to demonstrate. Proper implementation, they say, would require lifting controls on the internet, on the formation of NGOs (they carefully avoid mentioning opposition parties) and on the press. Banning demonstrations should be the exception instead of the rule as it is now. The judiciary should be allowed to work independently, free of the party’s interference. Non-party-sponsored candidates should be welcome to stand for election to legislatures, which should wield real power instead of acting as “rubber stamps” for the party. And the party should implement its own charter, letting members elect their own leaders freely.

Few expect imminent progress on any of these fronts. Within a day of the petition’s appearance on websites in China, censors had begun to erase it. Searches for it on Sina Weibo, a popular microblog service, produce a message saying results cannot be displayed because of “relevant laws, regulations and policies”. In recent weeks, there have been signs of a tightening of internet curbs. Some users in China have reported greater difficulty using foreign-based “virtual private networks” which help to circumvent censorship mechanisms. On December 28th a new law was passed requiring real-name registration of internet subscribers. Some fear this will deter criticism of the government.

Mr Xi is unlikely to respond as aggressively to the petition as his predecessor, Hu Jintao, did to another high-profile appeal for political change, known as Charter 08, which was signed by several thousand people four years ago. Its drafter, Liu Xiaobo, was given an 11-year prison sentence for his pains (and, to Mr Hu’s chagrin, a Nobel peace prize). As a veteran dissident, Mr Liu was vulnerable. It would be harder for the party to arrest the signatories of the recent petition given their more conformist backgrounds.

In its new-year edition, a reformist journal, Yanhuang Chunqiu, echoed the petition’s sentiments in an editorial calling for a movement to “protect the constitution” and ensure its guarantees are carried out. But Mr Xi, whose call for political courage inspired the headlines on January 2nd, made clear his bottom line. “Stability is the prerequisite for reform”, he told fellow members of the Politburo. China’s liberals, however, see this as the party’s age-old excuse for dithering.

from the print edition | China

Defining boundaries

Jan 9th 2013, 11:04

There is little doubt about speaking of political reform but some questions still remains. Xi Jin-ping and Li Ke-qiang have good experience of local government, the first line on the boundary between party and people. Both know people’s demand more than Hu Jing-tao and Wen Jia-bao while keeping both macroeconomic and personal reputation.

Last month’s international journal expressed their worries about China’s intention of political reform. Meanwhile, Li urged the faster urbanization reminding officers and ordinaries of the importance to industrial restructing, especially parallel to the intendedly inland-coastal developmental balance. And Xi took care of some population, nearly 0.1 bn, who live below the poverty line. With the launch of longest high-speed railway, consistent in Japan’s technique of shinkensen between Beijing and Guangzhou, China does well-prepared for the sustainable growth.

A newly expected vision always follow some old notion or institution. In China, “hukou” (inhabitant-registered system) should be re-examined for advanced urbanization. Moreover, higher economic level, now and in future, makes Chinese perceive different demands and value from the past.

It is evaluated that Beijing’s economic situation, with regard to GDP per capita, would reach the time that Taipei authority abolished martial law in 1987. In comparison with neighbouring area’s political process, China faces more uncertainty and unstable factors. Even lack of pro-democracy activists, Beijing goes, actively or passively, democratic way in smooth accordance with economic prosperity.

Since Xi’s takeover of power, party’s personnel administration went restructing while Hu Chun-hua became Guangdong’s party chief and Song Zhen-cai did Chongqing’s one. These 2 with Hunan’s Zhou Qiang formed the sixth-generation group for advanced seat in ten years. For 5 years, Wang Yang, with well-known opening mind, brought nutrition for better living and political awareness to Guangdong. Besides, Jiang Ze-min and Zhu Rong-ji’s remaining still work in party’s centre like Wang Gang, promoted by Wen 3 years ago. The inclination of democratic and deregulated governance, a certain of Wang’s speaking, have Chinese get the response from officers as well as establish a good civic-government relationship.

During 10-year governing, Hu and Wen practised few liberalization, different from the world’s journal as expected. On last year’s Dec. 29 in Apple Daily, Wang Dang, a student leader of 1989’s Tiananmen Incident, posted a comment on Xi and Li’s optimistic aspect of previous grade in local provinces while picking Liu Yuan, Hu’s closest guy in senior high school, for the preview or index of China’s democratic potential. Liu, who always fooled around in China with Hu, advocated democratic system as Mikhail Gorbachev’s sayings but, when Liu was promoted to military’s general as Hu was appointed as party chief, Liu went cold of public affair even his routine work.

Hu and Wen inclined to keep the basic, that 10% economic growth processed (not bad for me), and said nothing else of the rest of politics. In 2010’s November, Wen disclosed some thoughts of political reform in CNN’s interview. 2 years on, there is still no progress in politics but more limitation on liberalization, especially the confused one. So hateful, I’m worried that Xi and Li “are forced to” clean up a worsen “vendor” in turmoil made by Hu and Wen’s “don’ts”.

When Chinese Internet users strives for the democratic room, where the freedom of speech expands, Taiwan’s students protested against Tsai Yan-min’s monopolizing multimedia, that formed the stem of Want-want group. Interestingly for a year, Taiwan’s student resembled the mob who never know what they are arguing about, but it doesn’t mean Tsai is right. Yeah, both sides are idiots. Before Tsai’s doing, Taiwan’s media ran notorious gossip and liquidation business. Tsai’s behaviour deteriorates into social unrest in Taiwan, having me directly remind Xi and Li of bad aspect of liberal media, or say “market failure”. With paradox of political speech across Taiwan’s Strait, this Tsai makes a “very good” example.

On Tuesday, about 100 people gathered in front of the weeklys headquarters in the city of Guangzhou. Later, some Internet users put forward a variety of comment on the argument. In addition to Beijing’s some scholar, the echo of political reform increases. In term of technique and basic law, TV must be continuously limited and supervised by authority but radio-broadcast and Internet are needed to be liberalised in political aspect under general law of private affairs.

I think the boundary remains under Xi and Li. With Xinhua’s photo “Uncle of Fuzhou” (about Taiwan’s entertainment), Beijing shows the confidence of developing a wealth. Also, people who wants “demo-” thing should rethink what they really need and whether there is unreasonable.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-12/23/c_132058719.htm

相關文章：街邊看政治，中共竟被戲稱五毛黨的無奈，壯大聲勢但失去自我承諾和基本定義

Press freedom

Street politics

Jan 8th 2013, 16:13 by J.M. | GUANGZHOU

RARELY since the heady days of the Tiananmen Square unrest of 1989 have people in China gathered so openly, and so free of police interference, in support of wide-ranging political freedoms as they have in the past two days in the southern city of Guangzhou. The pretext for the gatherings has been the watering-down of a feisty New Year’s message that a local newspaper, Southern Weekend, was preparing to run in its latest edition. It would have urged the Communist Party to uphold the Chinese constitution and the freedoms it purportedly guarantees. Chinese journalists have accused censors of modifying the message to make it more like praise of the party. Some have called on the propaganda chief of Guangdong province, of which Guangzhou is the capital, to step down.

The gatherings outside Southern Weekend’s office have been relatively small: a few hundred people on Monday, January 7th, and at most about a hundred on Tuesday. But the rhetoric of the speakers who took turns to address the crowd appears to have grown bolder. Several called for freedom of the press and freedom of speech—as well as free elections—to shouts of approval from those who had gathered around on the pavement in front of the building. Remarkably, around 20 police deployed at the scene made no effort to stop the speakers or remove slogans expressing similar sentiments, held aloft by a few of the participants. One large banner held up by two men said simply: Free China. At one point someone was heard to shout: “Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down!”

The police appeared unruffled. Some in the crowd said they had heard of a couple of activists being detained or prevented from joining the gatherings. But compared with the authorities’ rapid and stern response to a few attempted gatherings early in 2011 in support of the Arab uprisings, the relatively hands-off approach over the past couple of days has been striking. In the early evening, the police moved the crowd away from the building, citing a need to keep the pavement clear during the rush-hour. No one appeared to resist them, and most of the participants dispersed. Some said there would likely be more gatherings in the days ahead. This seems likely. News of the “Southern Weekendincident” has been circulating widely on the internet in China, despite the authorities’ efforts to curb online discussion of it. Many users of social media have expressed support for the journalists’ campaign against interference by the censors.

Some, however, have been denouncing the newspaper. Among the crowd outside the Southern Weekendoffices on Tuesday was a small group of people who held up pictures of Mao Zedong and placards denouncing the newspaper as traitorous. When other people occasionally stepped forward to lay flowers at the entrance, in a gesture of support for the newspaper, the Maoists yelled “traitors” at them. Southern Weekendhas long been a bête noire of China’s extreme leftists, who regard the newspaper as a pro-Western mouthpiece for “bourgeois liberalisation”. Fierce debates erupted between small groups of the newspaper’s supporters and the Maoists. A couple of scuffles broke out, but they were broken up by others in the crowd and by the police. Some people chanted “50 cents, 50 cents (五毛, 五毛)” and waved banknotes of that denomination at the Maoists: a reference to the widespread belief in China that the party employs people who it pays 50 cents (ie, half a yuan) in Chinese currency ($0.08) for each internet posting in favour of the party line.

Some of the participants expressed surprise at how relaxed the gatherings have been. It is possible that the authorities have yet to decide how handle them, or that they are divided over how to do so. Some officials might be reluctant to respond harshly, given that Xi Jinping chose Guangdong for his first trip outside the capital, after his appointment as party chief in November. The official media have made clear that the aim of Mr Xi’s tour in early December was to highlight his commitment to reform; Guangdong having been a pioneer of market-oriented changes in the 1980s. Few, however, expect the authorities to tolerate the kind of dissent expressed so openly in Guangzhou this week for very long.

(Picture credits: The Economist, J.M.)

« Curbing dissent: Muzzling the media

·       Recommended

·       59

·        

相關文章：在「南方週末」的事件後，雖然習近平曾允諾以正面回應改革民意，但是後續各家省媒、黨媒沒有再附和，冷處理，對比於此，共黨作了一番人事調度，然而還是為人所詬病，說花錢買民意成了「五毛黨」。一句五毛，說第五個毛(主席)還在，還是一句就五毛，秤金秤兩地讓黨的一切被亂畫一幅呢？

Press freedom

Battling the censors

Three articles look at relations between individuals and the state. First, calls for press freedom; next, reforms in the detention system; finally, a traffic-light revolt

Jan 12th 2013 | GUANGZHOU | from the print edition

AT THE end of December, China’s newly appointed Communist Party chief, Xi Jinping, told his colleagues to “respond positively” to the public’s “strong cries and eager expectations” for reform. He had no idea just how strong those cries were about to become. By a busy road in the southern city of Guangzhou, protesters this week called for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Rarely since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 have such demands been aired so openly. Mr Xi has faced a tough challenge.

The protests in the heart of the capital of Guangdong province began on January 7th, after allegations appeared on the internet that Guangdong’s party censors had watered down a new-year message that was due to appear in Southern Weekend, a popular and outspoken newspaper that is based in Guangzhou but has a nationwide readership. As drafted, the message called on the party to uphold the freedoms guaranteed by China’s constitution. Implementing this, it said, was the only way of enabling citizens to “speak out loudly in criticism of government power”. The revised version dropped all mention of political demands.

This change triggered a rare revolt by staff at a Chinese newspaper (Southern Weekendis controlled by the Nanfang Media Group, which answers to Guangdong’s party leadership). Petitions signed by dozens of staff and former journalists at the newspaper, which were widely circulated online, called on Guangdong’s chief of propaganda, Tuo Zhen, to step down. Some staff said they were going on strike. Nanfang Media’s headquarters quickly became the focal point of public protests calling for wide-ranging political reform.

The gatherings have been relatively small: a few hundred people at their height. Tens of thousands of similar demonstrations occur every year in China, but their slogans rarely stray into the realm of national politics. The rhetoric of Southern Weekend’s supporters in Guangzhou has been unusually bold, a point that will doubtless be raised by some party leaders who worry that even a modicum of political liberalisation could open the floodgates to demands for far-reaching change.

One of the speakers at a gathering on January 8th was Yu Gang, a self-described philosopher who was a student activist in Tiananmen and remains a strident, and oft-detained, dissident. He told the small crowd that when he graduated in 1990 he expected democracy would soon be realised in China. “Twenty-three years have gone by, and there has been no progress,” he declared. China remained a “dictatorship”, he said, relying on terror to keep people subdued. He told his listeners not to be afraid of government retaliation for speaking out. Another speaker also recalled 1989. “Twenty-three years later, once again people of conscience…are again crying out here,” he said. “Democracy and freedom!” he shouted through his megaphone. The crowd echoed his chant. “Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down!” shouted another man.

Not all agreed. Frequent, bitter debates broke out between supporters of Southern Weekendand members of a group of diehard supporters of Mao Zedong, some of whom carried his portrait on placards. “Ardently love the Communist Party” said one of the slogans they held up. Another called Nanfang Media “traitorous”. China’s Maoists are a vocal lot who enjoy some support among the country’s downtrodden. They have long regarded Nanfang Media as bent on maligning them and peddling Western values.

You can’t shoot them

Remarkably, the police did little at first to intervene in the protests, beyond breaking up a couple of scuffles between members of the rival groups. As The Economistwent to press on January 10th, however, it appeared the police were becoming less tolerant, dragging several protesters away. By then, reports had emerged of a compromise: the staff would return in exchange for a promise by censors not to demand changes to stories (the press are normally controlled in China by self-censorship and official directives that are issued to the media generally). The newspaper appeared as normal on January 10th, but it appeared censorship, whether self-imposed or by the party, was still in force. It made no direct mention of the controversy.

Propaganda officials in Beijing have also been trying to suppress widespread expressions of sympathy for the newspaper on the internet—a tough challenge as support for the journalists has been widely voiced online. Searches for Southern Weekendare being blocked on Twitter-like microblog services. Newspapers were ordered to reprint an editorial that was first published on January 7th by Global Times, an often-hardline Beijing daily. It said that the press freedom demanded by Southern Weekend’s supporters could not exist under China’s “current social and political realities”. Even Western newspapers, it argued, would not choose openly to confront their own governments.

Some Chinese newspapers dared to resist. Beijing News, which is partly owned by Nanfang Media, only agreed to publish the editorial after propaganda officials paid the newspaper a menacing visit. Staff said the newspaper’s publisher had threatened to resign in protest. Some newspapers put the editorial on their websites with disclaimers saying it did not represent their own views.

The authorities can perhaps draw comfort from the public response to the protests in Guangzhou. Even as activists delivered their daring speeches, backed up by massive online support, most white-collar workers from nearby office buildings walked past paying little attention.

from the print edition | China