Is the coronavirus epidemic a crucial moment for China? | Voice of america

WASHINGTON – The death last month of Chinese whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang, weeks after warning of an unnamed new coronavirus in an online chat room, sparked calls for freedom Expression in the most populous authoritarian country in the world.

Many in online discussion forums mourned the deaths of doctors as they spoke of the importance of transparency and freedom of expression and demanded an end to ever-increasing scrutiny of the party on all aspects of life. Some saw echoes of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, but others said that the Chinese government's tough controls and its massive surveillance apparatus are too effective to neutralize dissent.

Analysts told VOA Mandarin that not only did this time of the coronavirus not resemble the protests of the spring of 1989, but that freedom of expression in China continues to worsen despite the increase in Beijing on the world stage.

Outcry and repression

A few days after Lis' death on January 31, a sudden knock on her door woke Su Ping. Su, 48, the owner of two financial companies and residing in Shenzhen, China's high tech center, found police at the door. They told him that someone had reported him for posting inappropriate statements online.

The officers took Su to the police station. There he signed a document promising not to publish inappropriate statements or do anything that might panic in the future.

Su said the inappropriate statement was an open letter he signed online mourning the death of Lis and calling for freedom of expression and transparency. Torn from his home in the middle of the night, and well aware of the authorities' ability to make him disappear, Su said he had no choice but to sign the document.

Inflection point

Authorities warned and then silenced Li Wenliang in early January for revealing the scale of the coronavirus epidemic. On January 1, when Wuhan police announced that Li and seven others had been summoned for warning, local health officials reported that there were dozens of cases of viral pneumonia of unknown causes with no clear evidence of transmission. interhuman. By the time Lis's death was announced on February 7, it was clear that he was right and the authorities had lost time.

As of Thursday, the virus has spread to at least 88 countries with more than 98,000 confirmed cases and at least 3,300 deaths worldwide, according to the WHO. Most of the deaths, 3,045 and 80,711 confirmed cases, are in China. The majority of them are in Wuhan.

The announcement of Li's death sparked a torrent of grief and anger on social media. Millions of Chinese have paid tribute to him while condemning the government for appreciating the stability in relation to the well-being of peoples.

Su signed one of the open letters, which cites article 35 of the Chinese constitution.

He declares that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of expression, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. "

Su said he had signed the open letter because the rapid spread of the virus across the country had something to do with [the lack of] transparency of information.

I'm a little scared after signing the letter but someone has to get up, he said. Otherwise, the situation will never change. If no one wants to get up, the situation will get worse.

Wang Yu, a human rights lawyer, also signed the letter. Wang told VOA that she signed because our rights to survive were at risk. Many people are ready to stand up and speak out, even if they are afraid of the possible government crackdown.

Wang said she had received a warning from the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau.

According to Chinese human rights defenders, as of the February 16 deadline for the petition signed by Su and Wang, it had only 665 signatures.

Prudent courage

Lao Dongyan, a professor of criminal law at Beijing Tsinghua University, described Lis's action on the virus as cautious bravery and courage on his public WeChat account.

"We are worried about the consequences of the information, we are worried about labor sanctions, discrimination by colleagues or even a visit by the police," she wrote. "To keep our jobs, we remain silent, we continue to withdraw, until we are cornered."

She added that Lis's death had made her realize that the government would not tolerate speaking out even on the most basic rights. Her message, like many others, was quickly deleted.

Chen Pokong, a U.S.-based political commentator who was a leading activist in the Tiananmen movement, described the current public outcry as extremely low compared to 1989, when tens of thousands of people had descended on the street.

After 30 years of tight control and relentless repression, people are afraid, he said.

According to Wang, today's strict electronic surveillance prevents people from uniting and organizing public demonstrations as they did in 1989.

People are angry, but the key problem is ubiquitous surveillance cameras and network management system. You look at the cameras, [they're] everywhere. This type of network management control, as well as locking out cities, it's even difficult for me to go out to the grocery store, to say nothing about going out to protest, she said. , adding that she needed a pass to come and go from her. district.

One citizen, two cameras

Chinese authorities have used the epidemic to put in place even more rigid controls that extend the country's current surveillance network based on cellphones and street cameras.

To 2019 International Data Corporation market research firm report predicts that by 2022, China will have up to 2.76 billion surveillance cameras, or two for each citizen.

Wang said that with such checks, she did not support the protests of ordinary people.

I do not think it is wise for bare-handed protesters to oppose modern weapon systems. It is not necessary and you can never win, she told VOA.

To contain the virus, China has locked large cities and stepped up neighborhood checks nationwide. Chen said the measures had two purposes for the Communist Party.

On the one hand, they thought it could stop the virus from spreading. On the other hand, it allows them to lock people in, preventing them from going out on the street and staying together, he said.

Locking down cities may not be able to block the virus, but it effectively separates people, making it difficult for them to organize a meaningful front to speak out against bad governance.

Narrative control

Beyond the physical controls in Wuhan and other cities, the party controls public opinion.

The government designed the narrative so that the people who carry the main blame are local officials, said Rory Truex, assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.

The Chinese system of government is one of fragmented authoritarianism, he said, where the responsibility for policy making and implementation is shared among many levels of government. This structure allows an easy scapegoat in times of crisis.

On February 13, the central government ousted Jiang Chaoliang, the top official of the Hubeis party, for mismanaging the epidemic.

Truex added that in the West, there was a tendency to underestimate the level of support for the Communist Party itself, especially the central leadership and someone like Xi.

If people were to be on the street, it would have happened before. People may be angry at something, but it's different from going from anger to a real social movement, he said.

Repressed anger

Chinese media reports focus on people's commitment to fighting the epidemic, bravery of medical personnel, government exploits such as building a new hospital for Wuhan in 10 days , and most importantly, the leadership of President Xi Jinping.

Wang Juntao, a dissident who participated in Tiananmen, said that the epidemic will not tarnish Xis' reputation because so many people have been brainwashed.

The patient will say that two people in our family were infected due to mismanagement by the mayors of Wuhan [of the epidemic], but President Xi came to our rescue, said Wang.

Yet exiled Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng told VOA that because the epidemic had affected the results, the Chinese people would end up holding the government accountable, in ways that may not be peaceful, rational and non-violent.

If the government makes Xi Jinping a scapegoat, it would mean something, he said. If senior officials are unable to do so, pent-up anger will certainly find a way out. If you don't release it, it will explode.

Lin Yang and Feng Lin contributed to this VOAs Mandarin Service report.