15 Jan 2014 | China, Digital Freedom, News and features, Politics and Society
Despite state censorship and political repression, social media is changing the protest landscape in China.
With the exception of economic reform that started in the late 1970’s, the country has remained restricted by government policy and ideology. A one party state has led to a national media that lacks plurality and regularly fails to report on incidents that they fear may damage the government’s image. Combined with internet censoring and heavy-handed tactics being employed against state opposition, freedom of expression has always been limited, but there is hope for change.
Social media within China has expanded rapidly, Sina Weibo — 60 million active daily users, 600 million registered users (Sep 2013) — and WeChat — 300 million registered users, of which 100 million are international (Aug 2013) — are two of the most popular. This allows a democratic spread of information that has never previously been available to citizen journalists or local people.
A media project by the University of Hong Kong showed the importance of Weibo in relation to the 2012 protest in Shifang against potential environmental damage by a proposed copper plant. Traditional media largely declined to report on the protests themselves, but made reference to ‘an incident’ and the rising stock price of a tear gas company, whose product was used on protestors. In contrast, there were around 5.25 million posts on Weibo containing the term ‘Shifang’ between 1-4 July with 400,000 containing images and 10,000 containing video. A similar incident occurred in Chengdu, Sichuan province, when factory workers went on strike to demand higher wages. State media ignored the protests while social media spread the news that tear gas was being used, along with images of the protest. Eventually officials stepped down and workers received a raise. Physical protests can be complemented by online activity, but it is not without difficulties.
In addition to the notorious firewall, the government can censor specific words to try and control the narrative of any given incident, by pushing their own agenda and restricting citizens’ freedom of expression. However, many online users use images, and memes in particular can portray a serious topic in a light-hearted manner, further increasing the spread of information.
An OECD report in 2013 evaluated government trust in various countries, China ranked very well with 66% compared to an OECD country average of 40%. However, this disguises some of the ill-feeling towards local government officials, who are usually held accountable by the people. This could change though, as economic policy, typically the role of central government, leads to growing inequality. New leadership within the government is attempting to maintain and improve government trust, by introducing ‘Mao-esque’ techniques in an attempt to bring everyone together under one nation.
It is clear that censorship is one way of trying to achieve this, as those who openly promote citizens’ rights, inclusive democracy and transparency are regularly arrested, including Xu Zhiyong. Additionally, new training materials for journalists and editors suggest a government eager to maintain control, as they expect that the media “must be loyal to the party, adhere to the party’s leadership and make the principle of loyalty to the party the principle of journalistic profession.”
Recently, a planned protest to honour a strike over censorship last year was pre-emptively halted, when police warned or detained several people thought to be involved. A well-known campaigner for freedom of expression, Wu Wei, said that protests such as this were not accepted by the government, as they did not fit “within their social stability framework.”
The government is so concerned over social instability that Tiananmen Square is heavily monitored by uniformed and plain-clothed police. The ability to suppress dissent as quickly as possible is necessary in a popular tourist destination, to portray the image of a peaceful China to both international and domestic visitors. The digital censorship employed the government is reflected in physical terms by the large security presence in one of China’s most well-known but contentious landmarks.
The Chinese government is keen to have control over the nation’s information, and fear that freedom of expression and information could pose a threat to their power. Social media offers a critical viewpoint that is lacking from state-controlled media. However, even social media has not been able to completely detach itself from the Chinese government’s censorship.
Nonetheless, the increasing use of social media and rapid spread of information is putting pressure on the government that it has never felt before while the digital revolution is gaining more and more momentum. Democratic consciousness is rising in China and with the state pursuing an oppressive agenda, cultural change from the bottom-up, rather than institutionalised change from the top-down, is necessary to pursue these principles.
This article was posted on 15 Jan 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
19 Dec 2013 | China, News and features, South Africa
The City of Cape Town launched the Nelson Mandela Legacy Exhibition to honour his contribution to South Africa’s democracy. The exhibiton is a collection of historic photographs and visuals capturing significant moments in Mandela’s life. (Photo: Sumaya Hisham / Demotix)
Chinese coverage of Nelson Mandela’s death has reflected the government’s new-found sympathy for Maoism, its rejection of democracy and its long-standing sensitivities over Tibet and Taiwan.
When Nelson Mandela died, the official statement from President Xi Jinping praised Mandela as “an accomplished politician of global standing,” while state-owned China Central Television described him as “an old friend of China”.
This was to be a precursor for the following day’s censorship — which banned coverage referencing “freedom”,“democracy”, Mandela’s Nobel Peace Prize and foreign policy hot topics Tibet and Taiwan.
While President Xi Jinping did not attend Mandela’s funeral himself, his Vice President Li Yunchao did, and was booed by crowds as he made his memorial speech.
Xi commented on Mandela’s bright smile, called him a “towering figure” and “an old friend of China”. There was no mention of “freedom” or “democracy”.
In an op-ed for CNN, deputy director of Asia division for Human Rights Watch Phelim Kene argued that the deliberate omissions in official statements, as well as the selective censorship policy, was a ploy to distract attention away from China’s own Nobel Peace Prize-winning freedom and democracy activist, Liu Xiaobo.
In 2009, democracy activist Liu was charged with inciting subversion and sentenced to 11 years in prison. His name has since been banned from Chinese micro-blogging sites, although the state-owned Chinese newspaper Global Times broke the ban recently to issue a seething counter-West editorial, accusing American editors of falsely painting Liu as “China’s Mandela”.
According to The Global Times, outlets like The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN had deliberately focused on the imprisonment of Liu in an attempt to foster unrest.
An op-ed argued that “Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for leading African people to anti-apartheid victory through struggle, tolerance and efforts to bridge differences,” while Liu had “confronted authorities” and “was dealt with under strict legal procedures. This system ensures that a society of 1.3 billion people runs smoothly.” The piece also argued that “mainstream Chinese society” had rejected Liu’s campaign for democracy.
Yet the circumstances of two men’s imprisonment remain remarkably similar. Mandela was charged and sentenced after he helped produce South Africa’s pro-democracy “Freedom Charter”. Liu, similarly, is one of the activists who drafted “Charter ‘08”, a manifesto for Chinese democracy. Families of both men were persecuted by the state and censorship departments in both countries attempted to remove all mention of the dissenters from the media (including previously written works).
Promotion of Mao’s legacy seems to be Xi Jinping’s communications strategy of choice — and it appears Mandela’s death has been co-opted into this “Maoisation” of Chinese politics. State press releases asserted that Mandela had read Mao’s “Little Red Book” while imprisoned on Robben Island, as well as describing himself as a “student of Mao”.
Mandela was certainly a fan of Mao, though principally for his military strategies rather than his later domestic policies. In a TIME Magazine interview, he praised the tactics used during the “Long March”, as well as his “determination and non-traditional thinking,” which Mandela briefly noted in his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom.
Overall, the Chinese press complied with censorship restrictions to censor the words “freedom” and “democracy” from accounts of Mandela’s life and death, as well as steering clear of Tibet and Taiwan, both contentious foreign policy issues that Mandela had previously weighed in on. Under his presidency, South Africa cut off ties with Taiwan over its previous support for Apartheid, and in favour of Communist mainland China.
Mandela had also met with the Dalai Lama on several occasions, who issued a video tribute to Mandela. The Tibetan leader has been refused a visa to visit South Africa twice in the last four years, regarded by many as an attempt not to risk diplomatic relations with China.
A dictat from China’s Foreign Ministry also attempted to censor “posts and comments on Weibo that take advantage of Mandela’s funeral to attack our political system and state leaders”, ordering offending content to be deleted immediately.
Property tycoon Ren Zhiqiang commented on Weibo: “Because he was a fighter — for all his life— for democracy, equality and peace and harmony, he is now an icon of all these.” Another user, from Shanxi, wrote “A great leader, rest in peace.”
Some Weibo users employed sarcasm to express their views. In response to philanthropist Fan Wei asking “Will China have its own Mandela?” one user replied, “Heroes only appear in turbulent times. In our ‘harmonious’ homeland, there is no use for Mandelas.” Another simply said, “They are in prison.”
“Old friend?” another user mocked. “He pursued justice, fairness and freedom. Does he have anything to do with you? Don’t blow your own trumpet.”
Notably, the so-called “New Left” Maoists reacted hotly to the government’s comparisons, with Weibo messages strongly in favour of Mao Zedong over Mandela.
“India’s Gandhi and South Africa’s Mandela were great. But Chairman Mao surpassed them all,” said one.
Another commented, “Mandela had bowed to racism. His consideration of the Tibetan independence movement as a human rights movement was a big, big mistake. He is a banana with dark skin.”
The death of Mandela has also resurrected an unlikely pop song from the 1990s. The Hong Kong-based band Beyond surged back into the charts with their song “Glorious Days”, reaching number one after almost a decade of hiatus.
“Glorious Days” had already achieved chart success in the post-Tiananmen era, when many were afraid to discuss political issues. Released in the midst of a music scene that mainly comprised of love songs, the Cantonese pop band achieved record sales with a song about racial equality, which was dedicated to Nelson Mandela.
This article was published on 19 Dec, 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
18 Nov 2013 | Magazine
Recent revelations about conditions inside China’s Gulag camps by a former prisoner make the impressions of privileged visitors seem almost frivolous. Yet what we found was unexpected and, at the very least, a witness to China’s capacity for change.
Three of us, Michael Holroyd, Margaret Drabble and myself, went to China for the British Council, as guests of the main writers’ organisation, for over two weeks. Each of us was independently told that we would find sullen, unsmiling populations who would surround us and stare, and who were afraid to speak to foreigners. They would also spit everywhere all the time.
An American journalist who has worked in Beijing for five years said all this was true, up to three years ago: people were so afraid of drawing attention that even the bicycle bells were muted.
We went to Beijing, Shanghai, Shian and Canton (now Guangdong), all full of tourists from Europe, but even more from Japan, South Korea and other adjacent countries. We found smiling, laughing, robust and friendly people who did not spit, did not stare and were concerned with foreigners only to be helpful, to make money out of us, or to learn to make money.
The students in the universities were well informed about British and American literature and at least as sophisticated as their American counterparts.
This is a country on the make, determined to do well, full of energy, confidence, competence. We did not see one drunk person. Every city greets you with slogans like ‘China welcomes you with a billion smiles’.
As for being afraid, everyone talks freely about everything, particularly the Cultural Revolution. The euphoria of the times is such that people will say confidently there is no poverty in China (perhaps hoping there soon won’t be), yet if you walk down a minor street in Shanghai or Beijing there are the bare rooms where whole families are putting themselves to bed under a naked electric light bulb, reminding me of the ‘brick lines’ in Africa. The gap between rich and poor must surely widen.
My most informative encounter was with a group of magazine editors and writers, in their thirties and forties. We met publicly at a Friendship Restaurant. When I commented that to the outside world China gives the impression of continuous 100% swings in policy, with the implication that this was a swing to liberalism, and why weren’t they afraid their now so open criticisms might be held against them, they said, ‘What liberalism?’
Clearly they had expected more from China’s glasnost. They told me of a friend’s novel about conditions in the Chinese army, which are every bit as bad as those in the old Soviet army.
Yet controversial books are published: Jung Chang’s Wild Swans, already published abroad in translation, is expected soon. With a certain scepticism, however. A democratic writer, the idol of youth, has upset the literary establishment with her irreverent, rude, crude stories and poems, but they are forced to accept her because of her popularity. She has not been prohibited nor censored. In short, the situation is fluid. Novels and stories about the
Cultural Revolution are plentifully printed.
We met hardly anyone who had not suffered; even the highest were affected — for instance, the former Minister of Culture, Wang Meng. At that private encounter at the Friendship Restaurant every person around the table told what had happened to them.
When asked what he felt about being defamed and tortured in prison, one replied that the victims were, at other times, themselves the victimisers.
The Cultural Revolution is thought of by us as a war against people, but the young iconoclasts also destroyed orchards, gardens, even mulberry trees and silkworks, let alone temples and shrines. In a traditional courtyard in
Beijing the little stone lions that often guard homes had all had their heads knocked off. When with these lively, sensible, practical, humorous people, it is not easy to hold in one’s mind the knowledge that these same people, just like oneself and one’s friends, were so recently part of that lunacy; or that the entire population was willing, at a word from Chairman Mao, to stand — for hours, or days — beating pots and gongs to prevent birds from landing anywhere so that they fell out of the sky dead or so weak they could be clubbed to death — in myriads, in billions. Birds had been categorised as pests. So few birds are left in China; any wild bird you do see is in a cruel cage.
Two phenomena, both much discussed, seem portents of danger to the country. One is the 100 million people forced off the land by mechanisation, all on the move. But ‘what is 100 million?’ seems to be the feeling. They will be absorbed. These displaced ones do casual labour, pilfer, are petty traders or become bandits on an old and familiar model. They can always go back to their villages — so it is said — where they will be looked after.
But for how long will these people be regarded as the responsibility of their villages when they contribute nothing? At a farm near Guangdong (the city is like a vast building site, and the traffic horrendous, so the 10-mile journey took two-and-a-half hours each way) they told us that 10 years ago every member of the couple of hundred villagers had worked on the farm, but now 15 people did all the work. The others were working as labourers in the building industry. This is a revolution of traditional China so profound it must make previous revolutions seem like minor upheavals. In this village we were proudly shown the loudspeaker that not long ago howled out Party directives or banged out loud martial music nearly all the time. Now it was silent.
The other thing everyone talks about is what they call ‘The Little Emperor problem’. The law that there must only one child per family is more or less enforced in the cities, sometimes with cruel pressure. Everywhere you see wonderful babies and little children, each one being adored by attendant grownups. Each is a little emperor (or empress, but, it seems, fewer of them) who gets the best of everything, from love to education. But in the provinces it is not so easy to enforce the law, and there are many farmers, number unspecified, who have three or four children.
These are badly educated or not educated at all, and will always be poor, unless China decides to educate and feed them, but that would mean a reversal of a policy regarded as essential — the curtailment of population.
Once again, as before in China’s history, ignorant and poor peasants will look in at the privileged towns, full of their rich and educated contemporaries.
We did not go into the poor parts of China. Our guide said confidently that there were no poor areas, no poor farms. She did not know there was controversy over Tibet, which was a place where she and friends talked of taking a holiday. She was well educated, and demonstrated one of the reversals of policy when she recited the list of Chinese dynasties from their beginning, long before Christ, or even Confucius.
Until recently, history taught in schools began with Communism: the imperial past was ignored.
It seemed to me during this trip, and remains with me now, that the most astonishing thing is that five years ago, less, it meant prison or torture or even death for conversations of the kind we were having, so easily, at all levels. But that loudspeaker on the roof of the communal hall on the farm had not been removed, only switched off.
China makes me think of a great lumbering farm cart that has had the most modern of engines fitted to it and is rattling along at 50 miles an hour instead of five. Rushing ahead it certainly is; but the strains and stresses may, almost certainly will, again and again slow or check the cart, even change its direction in unexpected ways.
As China grows strong it will influence the whole world. Let us hope its way of reducing everything to simple and simple-minded formulae does not catch on. The successes of Political Correctness show that we should not be too confident.
This article was originally published in Index on Censorship magazine, September 1993.
Click here to subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine, or download the app here
7 Oct 2013 | China, Egypt, News and features, Politics and Society
Image Adham Khorshed/Demotix
Egypt and China have always ranked poorly on press freedom. In 2013, Egypt ranked 158th while China ranked 173rd out of 178 nations in Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index. In recent months, a government crackdown on free expression in the two countries has shown disturbing similarities with repressive tactics used by the two regimes to silence dissent being invariably the same.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I was struck by how the authorities in both Egypt and China persistently use the media to serve their own interests and to tighten their grip on power. In both countries, opinion leaders, rights activists and critics who challenge those in power are perceived as “a national threat” and often become targets of intimidation, physical assaults, detention and sometimes, even death. The predicament of some journalists and bloggers in the two countries serves as a chilling reminder of the hazards media workers are subjected to as they strive to tell the story.
Thanks to heavy internet censorship in China — including the blacklisting of a host of foreign websites — the country has been described by free speech advocates as “a world leader in repression of the internet”. A draconian campaign against online “rumourmongers” has recently fuelled fears of even tighter government control on social media and online expression and increased self-censorship in China.
The so-called “anti rumour” campaign unveiled on 9 September allows Chinese authorities to arrest and jail internet users accused of “spreading false rumours” for up to three years. The ruling applies to internet activists who deliberately post what the government perceives as “false information” which is then shared by at least 500 others or is viewed at least 5,000 times. Critics warn the campaign will give the government an excuse to crush rights activists, bloggers and independent news providers who challenge the authorities or report abuses by the government as well as those demanding greater freedom and democracy.
In a widening crackdown on free expression in recent weeks , China has seen sweeping arrests of government critics, rights activists and opinion leaders accused of “disturbing public order”. While many of them remain in custody, 16-year-old Yang Hui–a school student who had been among the first group of bloggers jailed on charges of “spreading online rumours”– was released late September after spending a week behind bars in Gansu province. He remains under police surveillance however, and has been prohibited from speaking publicly. Yang was detained after questioning an investigation into the death of a man whose body had been found outside a karaoke club. Police had claimed that the man had fallen to his death from the building and had closed the case, but Yang insisted that the case should have been probed further. Moreover, he had posted comments daring the authorities to arrest him.
Repressive measures to silence dissent are not peculiar to the Chinese government. In recent days, a leaked video posted by activists on YouTube has shown Egyptian military generals discussing plans for a media clampdown similar to that imposed by the Chinese authorities . The footage — which appears to have been shot some months before Islamist President Mohamed Morsi was toppled: The video shows officers wearing winter uniforms — shows Defense Minister Abdel Fattah El Sissi addressing the officers . The recording starts with a senior officer urging El Sissi to re-establish red lines for the media and find new ways of “neutralizing media outlets”. He also calls on El Sissi to engage with owners of media outlets directly. “There are twenty to twenty five people controlling the media in Egypt, ” the senior officer notes. “We could either win them over or terrorize them”, he adds. El Sissi jokingly responds that he knows how to win them over but asks how he could possibly terrorize them?
That however does not rule out plans by the military generals to control the media. El Sissi acknowleges in the video that “we have been concerned with controlling the media” since the army took over power in February 2011. He goes on to affirm that the military was working on doing so and was achieving positive results but “we are yet to achieve what we want”, he says.
Since Morsi’s ouster, the tone of Egyptian media has shifted, reflecting the interests of those now in power. Print journalists and TV talk show hosts have persistently cheered on the powerful armed forces as “the guardians of the revolution” while demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a ” terrorist organization”.
Meanwhile, the military-backed interim government has cracked down on journalists covering the anti coup protests. In recent weeks, several journalists have reported harassment by police and soldiers including physical assaults, molestation, confiscation of their equipment and detentions. Worse still, journalists at the frontlines are getting caught in the crossfire. Mick Deane, a British Sky News cameraman, was shot and killed while covering the violent breakup of a pro- Morsi protest camp in Cairo in August. Egyptian Journalist Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz was also shot dead near the Rabaah al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo the very same day as security forces moved in on the pro- Morsi sit-in demanding the reinstatement of the toppled Islamist President. Abu Dra’aa , a Sinai-based journalist working with the independent Al Masry El Youm recently faced a military tribunal for a post on his Facebook wall suggesting that the military was misinforming the public about its offensive in Sinai. He was handed a six month suspended jail sentence. A number of other journalists including several working for Al Jazeera (which has been accused of being biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood) remain in custody. Several pro- Muslim Brotherhood channels (including Al Jazeera Mubasher) and Al Faraeen, a private channel owned by controversial talk show host Tawfeek Okasha, have been shut down. While the latter has recently been allowed back on the air, its temporary closure sends a powerful warning message to other channels to “adopt the pro-military state line or risk a similar fate.”
Meanwhile, the military has been using the media to fuel xenophobic sentiment: In remarks to state owned daily Al Ahram,after the brutal massacre outside the Republican Guard Headquarters in July, an unnamed military source warned that “the foreign press is inciting sedition between the army and people. ” With the surge in xenophobic sentiment gripping the country in the aftermath of the June 30 military takeover, foreign correspondents covering the Tahrir rallies commemorating the October 1973 War last Sunday expressed concern on Twitter about possibly being mistaken for “foreign spies”.
“There are rumours of a no-foreigner rule in Tahrir Square today. Can anyone confirm?” asked Louisa Loveluck, a freelance journalist based in Cairo . The BBC’s Middle East Correspondent Quentin Sommerville meanwhile posted a picture of himself near a military tank in Tahrir Square ahead of the protests with the sarcastic byline “foreign spy in Tahrir” before quickly deleting it , possibly for fear it may evoke unwarranted anger.
Nationalistic fervour and a rising tide of xenophobia are characteristics shared by all countries where autocratic regimes use the media to consolidate their grip on power. Egypt and China are no exception to the rule. The muzzling of the press through continued intimidation and the sweeping arrests of journalists, bloggers and rights activists bears testimony to the fact that neither country is serious about carrying out the desired democratic reforms.
This article was originally posted on 7 Oct 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
