Control is the mantra with which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governs its people, and during his presidency, Xi Jinping (習近平) has restored its central role in society. Unprecedented levels of surveillance and a “neighbor watch thy neighbor” system are some of the methods used to maintain order among the 1.4 billion population. However, a spate of random acts of violence is challenging the “party knows best” narrative.
The CCP is paramount in China and is enmeshed within every organ of government. Its legitimacy after 75 years in power depends on continued economic growth. However, the recent downturn has hit millions of young jobseekers hard and has rippled through the workforce. There is no way of knowing whether economic reasons were behind the most dramatic of several recent tragedies that have shocked the nation, but commentary on Chinese social media has linked the violence to worries over social stability.
On Nov. 11, a 62-year-old man rammed his four-wheel drive into a crowd of pedestrians outside a downtown sports center in the southern city of Zhuhai, killing 35 people and injuring dozens more. It was the country’s deadliest known act of civilian violence during Xi’s reign.
The attacker struck after becoming disgruntled over the division of assets in his divorce settlement, reports said. He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of endangering public safety by dangerous means.
A stabbing attack last weekend that left eight people dead was also apparently the result of a personal grievance: a 21-year-old man’s unhappiness with his school over a graduation matter. Both incidents have shone an unwelcome spotlight on the government’s criminal safety record. Known random acts of violence are uncommon in China, but they are being reported more frequently and with greater detail, from state and social media.
Official outlets took more than a day to report the Zhuhai incident, and did not explain reasons for the delay. Very quickly, though, any hint of what happened was swept away, both on and offline. This level of censorship is par for the course in authoritarian regimes, but it is also a reflection of the deep fear that the party has about any mass expression of emotion that could threaten its grip on power.
“They understand that if people gather and come together, their grief can be a powerful mobilizing force,” Freedom House research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan Yaqiu Wang said. “They are extraordinarily afraid of any kind of collective action that could be directed at them.”
In the wake of the car killings, Xi has ordered officials to tighten security networks even further to “protect people’s lives and social stability.”
That argument is often used in clampdowns in the province of Xinjiang, where an estimated 1 million Muslim ethnic Uyghurs have been locked up in detention centers. However, the CCP is not increasing its control only over what it considers troublesome hotspots. There are more CCTV surveillance cameras in Chinese cities than anywhere else in the world. Digital authoritarianism has meant that everything from facial data and DNA, to voice imprints and even iris scans, are being collected and stored in giant databases in the name of improving public safety.
Official statistics do show declining crime levels. (Caveat: This data is being used to further cement control.) Even some independent data points to the perception that China’s law and order standards are among the best in the world. There are obvious political points to be scored. Officials often warn their citizens about mass casualty events and gun fueled violence in the US, holding up their own system of governance as superior at keeping people safe. However, this success has come at a great personal cost: individual freedom.
Authoritarian regimes use inordinate levels of control as a way to justify their hold on power. We keep you safe and in return you give us ownership over every aspect of your lives, the unsaid promise says. That deal in China has worked so long as the CCP continues to provide clear evidence that living standards are improving. When that starts to fray, people feel increasingly disaffected with their leaders and would complain.
Some brave citizens do protest.
The China Dissent Monitor, a database assessing the number of demonstrations every year, has documented more than three dozen types of dissent. These range from physical in-person protests, to those expressed through art, non-cooperation, cyber dissent and contentious petitioning or lawsuits. Many are over economic grievances, such as property and job-related issues. Such independent windows into the party’s opaque world challenge the narrative that citizens are satisfied with their government. China’s citizens are not that different from the rest of us. Sweeping problems away is not a long-term solution.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS