Freedom Of Speech In China

The status quo in China is that freedom of speech is not encouraged. People are deprived of the right to express views openly and caustically regarding government policies, sensitive pass events such as the infamous Tiananmen Square event and of course the Communist idea that rules the nation. They are likely to be charged if they are caught criticizing the central government. According to a Newsweek article titled, “Blogger Nation”, all newspapers are state controlled and they contain information that have already been carefully censored and processed. The most recent controversy would be over its strict policies to restrict the scope of topics that bloggers’ can blog on. Blogs that contain prohibited contents will be shut down with the composers charged as well.

From China’s point of view, all these apparently extreme measures are necessary. It needs to safeguard it national interest. Issues like Tiananmen Square event, where democracy advocates were harshly suppressed and the Cultural Revolution are highly sensitive. They may likely to stir up anti-communist feeling among the youngsters who are increasingly exposed to Western cultures. China is a communist country. It is being ruled by communist ideas. Anti-communist sentiment will likely abate the sense of belonging to China in the younger generation. The people who would question the party are always those who are educated, intelligent and skilled. Nevertheless, they are the elite and talented. China needs them to drive its economic development. If they become increasingly skeptical about the party and the government, they would not feel willing to contribute to China, which holds an ideology they greatly loathe. Brain drain may occur as a result. China’s high-speed economic development is likely to be hindered. Also, these sensitive issues may further jeopardize the already deteriorating social stability in China. When pro-democratic emotion is aroused, movements requesting for review of the Tiananmen Square event, such as demonstrations, would likely be triggered. Social unrest problem will then be exacerbated. As a result, in order to safeguard the peace in the nation, control on freedom of speech is necessary. National interest dominates.

Moreover, China also controls bloggers’ freedom to express anti-Japanese feeling. This control helps to preserve bilateral ties with Japan. Japan’s role as China’s economic partner has growth more significant. It is wiser for China to regard Japan as a friend rather than enemy. Although Japan conduct some unacceptable acts—revision of its history textbook, visiting of War Shrine by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi—what it receives from China are merely written and oral criticisms and nothing else. Economic cooperation between Japan and China continues. For instance, although Chinese Vice Prime Minister Wu Yi refused to meet Koizumi after learning that he has paid a visit to the War Shrine, she continued to meet businessmen in Japan. China does not allow political problems to obstruct it economic development. Allowing people to express anti-Japan emotions online may anger Japan and stalemate Sino-Japan relation. As a result, it is necessary to restrict people’s views.

In addition, China has supporters, too. According to the abovementioned article—Blogger Nation—“at least three dozen governments around the world try hard to control the online environment. Many of the most extensive efforts are found in regimes in the Middle East, in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia. Asian regimes, like Uzbekistan, Burma also filters the Internet. Some nations are actually importing the techniques and software for Internet control developed in China, such as Iran and Vietnam.” Although there are overwhelming criticisms, they are mainly from the Western world, where anti-communist sentiment is high. It would be unfair to judge China’s control of freedom of speech based solely on Western ideas, as there are nations that uphold the same ideologies as China and are supportive towards its policies.

On the other hand, I think it would be a little too strict as open and unfettered discussion of policies actually helps to formulate better policies and improve people’s standard and quality of life. Freedom of speech brings social problems into light. The central government would be more informed about what is going on from blog entries online. It is broadly known fact that reports, which most provincial governments summit to the central government, carries little credibility. Sometimes, truth is likely to be found from the stories and angry cursing words put up by the bloggers. In the case of combating corruption problem, I think bloggers can do a better job. For instance, an anti-corruption crusader exposed officials who had forced a woman to be fitted for an IUD for birth control, helping the government to bring them to justice. I think the government should allow bloggers to join its battle line against corruption by loosening its control on their views. Discussions on government policies should be encouraged.

Also, with regard to the Japan issue, some may find it a little ironic that it instills in its younger generation a negative perception of Japan, and yet desperately attempts to prevent them from unlashing their anti-Japan feeling. People in this sense are seriously tantalized. I have received education in China for ten years and I had never been informed anything good about Japan. What the education system had indoctrinated into me was the wide range of excesses the Japan conducted during its invasion of China. Most historical books portray Japan as a cruel, inhuman and barbarian nation. As a result, people are bound to have negative views. In my opinion, the party should include some positive aspects of Japan to minimize, if not eliminate, blog entries against Japan in its teaching materials. For instance, it should be made widely know that Japan is the biggest foreign aid donor to China. I believe that people would think twice before expressing negative views towards Japan.

All in all, I support China’s stand to control freedom of speech.