By the year 1981, despite the continuing disagreements
among the leadership over the proper pace of economic change, a
consensus had emerged that without a vigorous plan for population
control, China was going to eat up whatever material gains it might
achieve, just as a number of other developing nations were doing. There
had been two previous censuses in the PRC, one in 1953 that showed a
total Chinese population of 582.6 million, and one in 1964 that yielded
a figure of 694.6 million. But neither of these had been monitored with
precision, and to make intelligent plans for the future, the leadership
realized, it was essential to know the precise size of China’s
population and the speed of its growth. Accordingly, a target date for
a full national census was set: July 1, 1982.
The results of the census confirmed what
Chinese demographers and planners had expected: China’s total
population was now more than 1 billion. (SMC, 615)
One fact emphasized by the
1982 census was the extraordinary youthfulness of China’s population.
The figures showed that around 60 million Chinese women were currently
in their thirties, 80 million in their twenties, and 125 million
between ten and twenty — already (or soon to be) of marriageable
age. ... At the same time, life expectancy was also rising dramatically. (SMC, 616)
In September 1980 Hua Guofeng, who still served
as the government spokesman on some important matters, told the
National People’s Congress that henceforth Chinese families must strive
to limit the number of children they bear to one, and that family planning must
be built into China’s long-term development strategy. Exceptions would
be allowed only for “minority peoples.” ... Reinforcing Hua’s statements,
the State Family Planning Commission pointed out that studies made of
births during 1981 showed almost 6 million babies had been born to
families who already had one child, obviously threatening the policy of
one child per family. In an alarming 1.7 million cases, new babies had
been born to families who already had five or more children.
 As
a
result, the government intensified the rigor of its
birth-control programs, ordering compulsory IUD insertion for
women who had borne one
child, and compulsory sterilization of either husband or wife after the
birth of a second child. Provinces were assigned sterilization quotas,
which were then passed down to the counties and municipalities for
implementation, and in many cases women were coerced into having
late-term abortions. Furthermore, many party administrators handed out
land contracts to peasant families only if the peasants signed a second
contract undertaking not to have a child while they worked the land.
Such families would be fined or even forced to forfeit the land if they
bore a child. There were reports of couples fleeing as local
sterilization teams entered their villages, and some birth-control
cadres felt so threatened that they requested armed escorts. In all,
between September 1981 and December 1982, 16.4 million women underwent
sterilization by tubular ligation, and 4 million men received
vasectomies. ...
 The state introduced severe penalties for families who violated the
one-child limit. Whereas families with only one child received special
economic, educational, and housing benefits, those with several
children were punished with fines and the withholding of rights to
housing and education. In many tragic instances, desperate families
resorted to female infanticide. This practice was harshly condemned by
the state, but the very harshness of the critique hinted at the scale
of the problem, believed by some Western analysts of Chinese
demographic data to be in the region of 200,000 female babies in a
single year. Some parents used the newly available technique of
amniocentesis to detect the gender of the fetus early in pregnancy, and
then obtain an abortion if the tests showed the baby to be female. A
number of seriously ill girls were just left to die. (SMC, 617-9)
Was China right to implement the "One-Child Policy" ...
... and can the "Two-Child Policy" fix its unintened consequences?
|
The Call for Democracy
Fang Lizhi
| Fang
Lizhi, an astrophysicist and, for a time, vice-chancellor of the
prestigious University of Science and Technology in Hefei, Anhui,
emerged in the mid-1980s as one of the most outspoken exponents of
radical change. ... His articulate platform for change became an
inspiration for the Tiananmen prodemocracy demonstrations in the spring
of 1989. After the suppression of this popular movement, Fang Lizhi was
obliged to seek refuge in the American Embassy in Peking. (DC, 542) |
|
Fang Lizhi Interview
with Tiziano Terzani in 1987
What kind of mission do you have in China?
Democratization. Without democracy
there can be no development. Unless individual human rights are
recognized there can be no true democracy. In China the very ABC
of democracy is unknown. We have to educate ourselves for
democracy. We have to understand
that democracy isn’t something that our leaders can hand down to
us. A democracy that comes from above is no democracy, it is
nothing but a relaxation
of control. The fight will be intense. But it cannot be
avoided. ...
Deng stated in 1979 that, in conformity with the Chinese
Constitution, every citizen should be guided by the Four Basic Principles:
the socialist road, the people’s democratic dictatorship, leadership of
the Party, and Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.
Marxism is a thing of the past. It
helps us to understand the problems of the last century, not those of
today. The same is true in the case of physics. Newton
developed his theory 300 years ago. It is still valuable, but it
does not help to solve
today’s problems, such as those related to computer
technology. Marxism
belongs to a precise epoch of civilization and that era is over. It
is like old clothing that must be put aside. ...
In 1978 something similar was said when the worker Wei
Jingsheng wrote on a wall in Peking, which later became known as Democracy
Wall: “Without democracy, there will be no modernization!” He got 15 years
in prison for it. You, Professor Fang, are still free. Is it because you
are a well-known scientist, whereas Wei Jingsheng was nothing but an electrician?
Of course. That’s how things are in China. A worker
who says something objectionable can easily be removed. Workers’ unrest
does not worry the government; workers are easily dealt with. Right now
there are quite a few [workers’] disturbances, but the public is not aware
of them. One knows nothing of them overseas, for these people have no international
contacts.
Are things different in the case of intellectuals?
Whenever it is students who demonstrate, the government
is more concerned. It does not dare to take action as easily against students.
That is why I maintain that the power of the intellectuals is relatively
great. That is why I keep telling my students: he who has knowledge also
has influence, and cannot be disregarded by the government. I advise my students
not to say too much at first, but to study diligently. Those, however, who
have successfully completed their studies must speak out. Wei Jingsheng spoke
out ten years ago. Today I speak like he did. In another ten years perhaps
other scholars may also speak up. People should be allowed to criticize their
leaders without fear. This is a sign of democracy. ...
The campaign against “bourgeois liberalization” continues. ...
That campaign has shown us just how strong
the resistance to the reforms is. It has shown us that we badly
underestimated the strength of our opponents. We have been too
optimistic. On the other hand, the campaign has convinced more and
more people of the necessity of reform. We do not want a revolution,
which would in the first place be very difficult to achieve, and
secondly would not necessarily be a good thing. Therefore, the
only option that is left for China is reform. Democracy, education
and intellectual freedom are the absolute and indispensable
prerequisites of this reform. Without these last — be
it with or without democracy — China has no future. (DC, 542-5)
Are democracy, (liberal) education, and intellectual freedom essential for China's long-term success?
Why or why not?
Explanation of Fang Lizhi’s Errors
People’s Daily, January 21, 1987
With regard to Fang Lizhi’s errors of word and deed, the relevant
Party organizations have subjected him to severe criticism many times, but
he has always merely feigned compliance, admitting to some mistakes on one
hand and on the other continuing in his bad old ways, becoming in fact even
more unbridled in his attacks on the Four Basic Principles and in his advocacy
of Bourgelib (bourgeois liberalism). He has thrown Party discipline to the
winds. Not to eliminate from the Party someone who has been so outspoken
in his opposition is something that neither the Party nor the people can
tolerate. Fang Lizhi is a middle-aged intellectual who has been nurtured
by the Party. The Party had high expectations of him and had, moreover, entrusted
him with an important post. He has disappointed the Party and disappointed
his people, however, by falling into the muddy ditch of error, from which
he is incapable of extricating himself. Now, although he has been dismissed
from his post and expelled from the Party, the Party and government have
arranged a position in scientific research for him, thus allowing him to
bring his specialized vocational skills into play. If his actions indicate
he has made a genuine change for the better, he will be welcomed back by
the Party and the people.
| Even though people like Fang are only a tiny minority
within the Party, their negative example reminds us of the importance and
urgent necessity of educating Party members at large to abide by the Party
Regulations, and to implement Party discipline, particularly within the
new historical conditions created by the policies of Reform and the Open
Door to the outside world. (DC, 546) |
Why was this article published in the
People's Daily?
Was Fang Lizhi treated differently than others who ran afoul of the
Party?
Fang Lizhi’s Departure From China
Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater
June 25, 1990
|
In
February 1989, Fang mobilized a number of well known intellectuals to
write an open letter to Deng Xiaoping, requesting amnesty for the human
right activist Wei Jingsheng who was then in prison. His wife, Li, was
elected to become the people’s representative of the Haidian District
where Peking University is located. Fang and his wife had exchanged
ideas about Chinese politics with some students of Peking University,
including Wang Dan and Liu Gang. Some of those students became student
leaders during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989,
though Fang and Li did not actively participate in the protest itself.
On 5 June 1989, the day after the government began its repression of
protesters, Fang and Li, feeling unsafe, entered the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and were granted asylum.
The Chinese government put Fang and Li at the top of the “wanted” list
of the people involved in the protest. During his time in the U.S.
embassy, Fang wrote an essay titled The Chinese Amnesia, criticizing the Chinese Communist Party’s repression of human rights and the outside world’s turning a blind eye to it.
Fang’s continued presence in the US Embassy following the protests
became, according to Ambassador James Lilley, “a living symbol of our
[US] conflict with China over human rights.”
Fang and his wife remained in the US Embassy until 25 June
1990, when they were allowed by Chinese authorities to leave the
embassy and board a U.S. Air Force C-135 transport plane to Britain.
This resolution partly came about after confidential negotiations
between Henry Kissinger, acting on behalf of US President George H.W. Bush, and China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. (Wikipedia)
|
Dr. Fang Lizhi and his wife, Li Shuxian, have left the U.S.
Embassy in Beijing to proceed to the United Kingdom. The United
States Government welcomes the PRC Government’s decision to facilitate
the departure of Dr. Fang and his wife for reasons of Dr. Fang’s
health and well-being and to permit Dr. Fang to pursue his important
research in astrophysics. This humanitarian action is a farsighted,
significant step that will improve the atmosphere for progress in
our bilateral relations. (www.presidency...)
February 12, 1936 – April 6, 2012
|
|
