Much has been written about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), who is serving an 11-year prison sentence for his advocacy of democracy in China. We know that he is China’s leading political dissident and was one of the authors of Charter 08, a call for political reform and democratization.
However, the more one knows about him the more one understands why China’s oligarchy is so deadset against him.
First, the charter succinctly exposes the contradictions of the existing political system — a cruel Orwellian joke on its people.
“The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws, but no rule of law; it has a Constitution, but no constitutional government,” the charter says
Not surprisingly, “The stultifying results are endemic official corruption … weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between rich and poor, pillage of the natural environment … and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts,” it says.
Which leads to the logical conclusion that: “The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.”
Charter 08 then goes on to propose the enactment of a new Constitution based on the democratic principles of separation of legislative, judicial and executive power as well as enshrining a guarantee of human rights, freedom of expression and a whole lot more.
Such a prescriptive charter would be the death knell of the political monopoly of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). No wonder, China’s rulers went ballistic against Norway and the committee that awarded the prize, while at home they rounded up activists.
Beijing has stopped dialogue with Norway on furthering trade relations and demanded an apology from the Nobel committee for awarding the peace prize to a “criminal,” thus showing disrespect for China’s legal system.
These days China is big on demanding apologies. Japan too was asked to apologize over the detention of the captain of a Chinese fishing trawler that collided with Japanese coast guard boats in the East China Sea, but that is another story.
However, Liu is one of those rare people who will not back down from fighting for his beliefs. The party would like to see the back of him if he were to leave China for comfortable pastures abroad, where he has had academic stints in prestigious universities in the US and elsewhere.
However, he keeps coming back to pursue his passion and commitment to change his homeland. Though his current 11-year stint in jail is the longest so far, he is not new to such persecution at the hands of his country’s communist oligarchs.
He was jailed for 20 months in 1989 when he went on hunger strike to support the democracy movement. Beginning in 1996, he spent another three years at a re-education camp for his criticism of the party’s monopoly on power.
After serving his current sentence at the pleasure of his country’s communist cabal, he will have spent 16 years in jail.
Still, Liu remains unbowed with his indomitable will to pursue the cause of political reform for his country. If -democracy has to succeed in China at some point, men like Liu are the ones who will keep the torch alive.
Speaking at his trial on Dec. 23, he recalled, “[After] I was imprisoned [in 1989] for ‘counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement to crime’ … I was never again allowed to publish or speak in public in China … but I still want to tell the regime that deprives me of my freedom … I have no enemies and no hatred … For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience.”
Speaking on a note of hope, he said, “I hope to be the last victim of China’s endless literary inquisition, and that after this no one else will be jailed for their speech.”
“Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth,” he said.
From a perusal of the text of his statement at the trial last year, Liu comes out as a towering personality of immense courage and compassion.
It is hard to believe that he is regarded as a “criminal” in his own country for exercising his right to free speech and saying things that some of China’s top leaders have also said at times.
For instance, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) reportedly said in 2003 that the CCP faced “inevitable extinction” if it did not increase press freedoms.
More recently, Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) told CNN that: “Freedom of speech is indispensable for any nation. China’s Constitution endows the people with freedom of speech.”
“The demands of the people for democracy cannot be resisted,” he said.
If so, why is Liu in one of Wen’s jails for exercising his right to free speech under the Chinese Constitution? Or is it all a charade?
Liu’s Noble Peace Prize created a bit of excitement among some CCP elders and a group of academics who made renewed calls for democratic reforms.
In an open letter, 100 Chinese academics urged that “China should join the mainstream of civilized humanity by embracing universal values.”
“Such is the only route to becoming a ‘great nation’ that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage,” they wrote.
All this activity urging political reforms was probably intended to influence the deliberations of the CCP plenum just held, but it was ignored, as has happened in the past.
The only passing reference to this in the communique read: “Great impetus should be given to reform of the economic system, while vigorous yet steady efforts should be made to promote reform of the political structure.”
Which is neither here nor there.
Some China-watchers were heartened by Wen’s support for political reforms. However, Wen’s background as an aide to Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) during the tumultuous days preceding the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre and his conversion thereafter testifies to his great instinct for political survival and coming out a winner.
Therefore, one shouldn’t read too much into his rebirth as a political reformer.
However, Liu and his band of political dissidents could one day become the rallying point of a popular movement against the party’s corrupt and politically suffocating rule.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
RSS