Two recent events in China have highlighted the troubling trajectory of its society, ushering in an era of heightened absurdity.
The first involved a businesswoman from Guizhou. After completing government projects in Liupanshui, she rightfully sought remuneration from the authorities. Rather than fulfill its obligation, the government responded aggressively, arresting both the businesswoman and her legal team under dubious charges of provoking conflict.
The second involved a lawsuit against Chinese Nobel laureate Mo Yan, accusing him of defaming the Eighth Route Army and disparaging revolutionary predecessors. Shockingly, the prosecutor’s office took the report seriously, indicating a worrying trend of stifling dissent and freedom of expression.
China Resorts to Violence In Resolving Debt Issues
Ma Yijiayi, a 46-year-old ethnic Hui female entrepreneur, became embroiled in a harrowing ordeal that began in 2016 after she contracted to work on ten government projects in Liupanshui, Guizhou Province. By August 2019, eight projects had been completed and put into use, while two were suspended by the government.
Ms. Ma’s pursuit of justice took a drastic turn when, instead of addressing her grievances, the government accused her of “provocation and causing trouble,” resulting in the arrest of Ms. Ma and her 11-member legal team. Investigations into the matter found instances of loan fraud by the local government, further highlighting the systemic issues at play.
For normal people, these events may seem absurd and thuggish, but for those who have experienced similar injustices, it’s unfortunately common.
Hu Liren, a former Shanghai entrepreneur now residing in the United States, shared his ordeal on the “Pinnacle View” program, emphasizing the prevalence of such injustices under the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule.
Mr. Hu used to have a technology company in Shanghai that specialized in large central air conditioning systems for energy conservation and had numerous patents. After industrialization in 2016, he purchased many pipes from a company in Shandong, only to find out later during operation that they were all counterfeit, resulting in losses of millions of yuan.
He approached the manufacturer, but they claimed no responsibility. Hu then reported the issue to the Shandong provincial government. However, after an investigation by a team sent from Shandong to Shanghai, he was informed that local companies producing counterfeit goods were normal, and he would have to bear the losses himself. Furthermore, he was warned that if he went to Shandong again, he would be arrested under the charge of “provocation and causing trouble,” the same charge Ms. Ma was arrested for.
Mr. Hu didn’t find this logical at all. So, he sought advice from a friend who worked at the Shanghai Municipal Petition Bureau at the time. Would he be arrested if he went to Shandong again? His friend warned him, “They will arrest you because you’ve touched upon the interests of the government. If they were to shut down that company, they wouldn’t be able to guarantee their tax revenue because local governments need significant tax income for development, and these tax targets fall on the shoulders of local government leaders. If you were to pursue this matter and escalate it, they would first sacrifice you to conclude the case, and they might even kill you.”
Mr. Hu pointed out, “Many absurd things when it comes to the Communist Party government level or the local government level, they become something not absurd.” This is the logic of the CCP.
Mr. Hu advises entrepreneurs facing similar challenges to prioritize their safety and well-being over pursuing justice within a system rife with corruption and coercion. He warns against confronting the government directly, advocating instead for strategic withdrawal and seeking refuge elsewhere. That’s the reason he left China.
Senior editor and chief writer of the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, Shi Shan, expressed in “Pinnacle View” that government entities like Liupanshui, believe that if having people arrested is the least costly method to resolve debt, they will use it. He says the government considers this approach to be rational, whereas the public views this as an absurd step backward for societal development.
According to Mr. Shi, “The CCP has its logic, which is different from yours. In Hong Kong, we often discuss with friends that there are two types of logic in this world: one is logic, and the other is CCP logic. It means what they reason out is completely different from what you reason out, which is extremely dangerous. I remember the Taiwanese writer Long Yingtai once wrote an open letter to the then CCP leader Hu Jintao with the title ‘Please Convince Me Using the Civilized Way.’”
False Charges Against Nobel Laureate Mo Yan
On Feb. 27, “Mao Xinghuo,” an obscure Chinese Maoist using an alias name, announced that he had filed a “lawsuit” against China’s Nobel laureate, Mo Yan.Mao Xinghuo’s Weibo post claimed that he submitted materials to the Beijing court suggesting the author misconstrued truths about the Anti-Japanese War, including the Nationalist Party’s resistance and the Communist Party’s less active role, along with narratives revealing the dark side of Chinese society including instances of excessive behavior by local officials. After the court rejected the charges, Mao went to the prosecutor’s office to request public prosecution, and the prosecutor’s office accepted the materials and recorded them.
Mr. Mo is best known to Western readers for his 1986 novel Red Sorghum. The first two parts were adapted as the Golden Bear-winning film Red Sorghum (1988). In 2009, he was the first recipient of the University of Oklahoma’s Newman Prize for Chinese Literature.
Independent TV producer Li Jun suggested on “Pinnacle View” that the plaintiff’s alias name, Mao Xinghuo, indicates that he idolizes former chairman Mao Zedong. While he believed the charges against Mo Yan were absurd, Mr. Li noted the criticisms were escalating since the prosecutor’s office had accepted the lawsuit against Mo Yan and expressed intentions to investigate. The lawsuit demands Mo Yan compensate the entire nation with 1.5 billion yuan ($208.8 million) at one yuan per person.
Mr. Mo started his career in the 1980s, during a liberal period in China under the leadership of Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang, where there was some degree of freedom of speech. His novels were quite popular at the time.
However, China’s censorship has tightened in recent years, particularly in 2021, when the China Writers Association excluded Mr. Mo from its list of the top one hundred Chinese authors. Many media outlets reported on this, with some Maoists applauding the move, believing that Mr. Mo, who reflects the darker aspects of society, has finally been ousted.
CCP Criticism of Literature and the Arts
Guo Jun, editor-in-chief of the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, expressed on “Pinnacle View” that criticism against Mr. Mo isn’t a recent development. She remembered that when the movie “Red Sorghum” came out, some people criticized it, saying it denigrated the Eighth Route Army, belittled the Chinese people’s resistance against Japan, and exposed the ugliness and backwardness of Chinese society. They particularly pointed out that “Red Sorghum” catered to Western perceptions of China.She said that in the 1980s, during the era of Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, China was amid reform and opening up, so this criticism couldn’t gain mainstream support. But now, such criticism aligns with the official stance, hence it’s been amplified.
Ms. Guo points out that criticism of literature, art, and culture is the most important means of control for the CCP. We know that Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan‘an Forum on Literature and Art” was the guiding document for the Yan’an Rectification Movement, and the Cultural Revolution began with criticism of works like “Hai Rui Dismissed from Office” and old literature and art. These things are deeply embedded in the Communist Party’s ideology according to Ms. Guo.
It’s customary for Communist countries to criticize Nobel laureate writers; the Soviet Union did the same, criticizing five laureates. In China, two, Gao Xingjian and Mr. Mo, were criticized. Among Nobel laureate writers from Communist countries, Mr. Mo was previously the only one not publicly criticized by the authorities, like the fish that slipped through the net.
Ms. Guo said that a few years ago, she read an article from China saying that the Soviet Union was destroyed by the Nobel Prize in Literature. The logic of this article is absurd, but it illustrates the mindset of the CCP. The current criticism of Mo Yan is predominantly driven by extreme leftists in China, but it also has a semi-official color, with tacit approval from the authorities. Chinese people often say that the Cultural Revolution was a ridiculous era, but this recent series of events highlights that China is heading toward another equally absurd era.
