Skip to content

Government/Politics

To Celebrate the CCP’s Centenary, All Chinese Cinemas Ordered to Play at Least Two “Red” Movies a Week

To celebrate the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the state Film Administration issued a “Notice on the commencement of the exhibition and screening of outstanding films to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party.” The Notice required that, from April to December, all cinemas across the country show at least two “red movies” every week, promoting the CCP.

The CCP’s mouthpiece media People’s Daily Online reported that the notice requires that two movie theater alliances – The People’s Cinema and The Nationwide Alliance of Arthouse Cinemas – are tasked with no less than 5 “Red Movies” per week. The notice asked that, nationwide, urban and rural communities and school campuses conduct movie screening activities having the theme of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the CCP. CCP members and officials are to be organized to watch some “key films on CCP history” together.

Source: Central News Agency, April 7, 2021
https://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/202104070079.aspx

Remin University Professor: Goal of Belt and Road Initiative Is to Internationalize the Renminbi and Replace the U.S. dollar

Di Dongsheng is a professor and vice dean of the School of International Studies (SIS) at Renmin University and deputy director and secretary-general of the China Center for Foreign Strategic Studies. Di is known for a public speech he made last November in which he boasted that China has influence in the U.S. political circles. [Editor’s note: That article “CCP Scholar: CCP Can Use Wall Street to Influence the U.S. Political Circle, December 6, 2020, can be seen at http://chinascope.org/archives/25265]

In a video published in February this year, Di gave another talk titled, “Belt and Road 2.0 in the Post COVID 19 Era: Exporting China’s Governance Experience and Capability.” In this talk, Di stated, “The goal of the Belt and Road initiative is to internationalize the Renminbi (Chinese Yuan) and replace the U.S. dollar.”

Di said that the Belt and Road initiative is not about (controlling) resources, in fact it is about defining the value of the RMB: “We go after the younger generations in the belt and road countries. They don’t have money but they want to buy things. We loan money to them. We invest in them. We hire them. Once they have income and money, they will buy products made in China. We will continue to use the money and loan it to them and eventually we will let the people in those countries be part of the Renminbi currency cycle.” Di proposed a model in which Beijing would build special zones (like the Shenzhen special economic zone) in the belt and road countries and then the Chinese people would migrate there. Beijing would still hold the governing power over the Chinese migrants and the local ethnic population in the zone. He also claimed that, “China’s national debt will become the global value-based benchmark. The Chinese people’s consumption power will give birth to the world’s largest market and the Renminbi will become the future world’s currency.

Gong Shengli, a Chinese economist, slammed Di’s statements saying it was merely empty talk because there is lack of trust in the Renminbi in the world and in China’s one-party political system. Gong questioned how many countries have purchased Chinese bonds and where  the economic return is from the Belt and Road Initiative. A Taiwanese economist Wu Jialong said that Di’s statements were simply to please Beijing which is in line with China’s rising power narrative.

Sources:

1. NTDTV, April 2, 2021
https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2021/04/02/a103087367.html
2. Guan Video, February 3, 2021

CCP Installed a Committee in Alibaba’s Beijing Headquarters

According to a recent report in Chinese media, Alibaba has recently established a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committee at its headquarters in Beijing. Previously, the company only had a CCP committee at its Hangzhou headquarters. After the implementation of the “dual headquarters” in Beijing and Hangzhou in 2016, the company only had a CCP branch, instead of a CCP committee in Beijing, where CCP members accounted for more than 30 percent of its employees. The establishment of the CCP committee at its Beijing Headquarters has elevated the CCP’s organizational footprint in China’s largest e-commerce company.

1.585 million, or more than 40 percent of private enterprises in China have internal CCP organizations.

Hu Jia, a Chinese social activist, told Voice of America that, since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has built up CCP organizations within the state sector. Against the current backdrop of the severe international situation, the CCP wishes to extend its tight grip over private enterprises. “The most valuable ones are those of the unicorn type, which have new technologies and the capacity to innovate in the Internet economy. Such enterprises are capably of wealth creation and societal control, and can also participate in the international economic and technological competition and even confrontation. The CCP would like to have more power over these entities.”

The expansion of CCP committees in Alibaba is also seen by public opinion as a sign that the CCP is short of money and technology and wants to use private enterprises to “feed” state-owned enterprises. Sang Pu, a commentator, told the American media Sound of Hope that the party actually controls and manipulates private enterprises in mainland China. The reason why the CCP is strengthening the Party’s leadership is that it is short of money and needs to take further action against these tech giants.

The Constitution of the CCP and China’s Corporate Law allow the establishment of CCP organizations in private enterprises. As part of its United Front Work, the CCP proposed to “establish a modern private enterprise system with Chinese characteristics” and emphasized that the party should have three privileges in private enterprises: human resources, surveillance and audit, and the leadership over trade unions.

“To be successful under the CCP’s rule, private companies must have official support and maintain some kind of intimacy with the government. From the perspective of private enterprises, they have their own considerations. If you don’t have a CCP committee, and if you don’t give sufficient convenience for CCP members to conduct party activities, you will always have the feeling that big brother is watching you, and that your wealth and business are often in an unstable and insecure state. That is because officials can control you by any means, such as tax inspections, firefighting, public health and other channels.” Hu Jia said that Chinese private enterprises somehow have to show loyalty in order to have the opportunity to survive and thrive.

Source: Voice of America, April 2, 2021
https://www.voachinese.com/a/CCP-within-Alibaba-20210402/5838104.html

CCP Spokesperson: Population Counts; Chinese Netizens Think Otherwise

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and the European Union because their combined population accounts for merely 11 percent of the world’s total population. This contrasts with the CCP’s usual practice of using GDP as the yardstick to brag about its economy. As soon as this remark came out, it caused a wave of online ridicule.

On March 23, 2021, at a press conference on this subject, Hua was asked whether she was concerned that more countries would impose sanctions in a concerted manner. She issued a rebuttal, saying that the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Union combined account for about merely 11 percent of the world’s population, while China has about one-fifth. Therefore, she stated that these countries’ voices are not the voices of the international opinion and that their position does not represent that of the international community.  She asked these countries to “take a good look at themselves.”

Her remarks did not appear to sit well with Chinese netizens.

“According to this statement, your Party’s population [Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members] accounts for less than one-tenth of the country, and it [the CCP] is not elected or authorized in any form. Yet, you still bark everywhere without shame on behalf of a billion people.”

“Does 11 percent of your one-fifth of the world’s population support you?”

“Then how dare the 90 million [CCP members] represent one billion people? Shame on you for representing the people of the earth and managing the earth.”

“The 90 million CCP members account for only 6 percent of the Chinese population. How can they say that they represent the Chinese people? Only a government elected by the people, with each person having one vote, is in a position to say that it represents the people and the opinion of the public.”

“1.4 billion Chinese are kidnapped as hostages. In this case, the number of hostages is needed to refute the rules of the civilized world. However, when it comes to education, medical care, and pensions, 1.4 billion people are worth nothing when pandemic relief funds are needed. Not even one penny has been given out. To put it bluntly, what is happening in China is that twenty or thirty evil cult leaders determine the fate of 1.4 billion people. The rogue regime never treats people as human beings, and they are all just hostages held under the gun.”

Analysts believe that the CCP statement “Europe and the United States do not represent international public opinion” has become the latest CCP propaganda to fool Chinese people. It may also reflect the retreat of the CCP’s propaganda. After it has failed to divide Europe and the United States, the CCP now declares that the public opinion of Europe and the United States do not count whatsoever.

Source: Radio France International, March 24, 2021

https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20210324-%E5%8D%8E%E6%98%A5%E8%8E%B9%E4%B8%8D%E5%86%8D%E6%AF%94gdp%E5%8F%AA%E7%9C%8B%E8%B0%81%E4%BA%BA%E5%A4%9A-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E7%BD%91%E6%B0%91%E5%90%90%E6%A7%BD

Disciplinary Actions against CCP Members Who Disagree with the CCP

On March 28, 2021, Xinhua reported that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) issued (trial) disciplinary regulations for 17 types of behavior that would be subject to disciplinary action.

The General Office of the CCP Central Committee’s notice distributing the regulations emphasized that disciplinary actions are an indispensable method for educating and managing cadres and an essential measure for the Party to maintain complete and tight control.

The regulation lists 17 types of behavior that are subject to disciplinary action.

The first is the failure to be in agreement with or taking positions on significant issues which are not consistent with the CCP. The second is “having doubts about ideals and beliefs, lacking in Marxist beliefs, engaging in feudal and superstitious activities that cause adverse effects, participating in religious activities in violation of the CCP’s regulations, or believing in cults.”

The third is “ineffective implementation, making choices, discounting, and making changes” when implementing the theories, strategies, and decisions of the CCP Central Committee, which result in adverse effects or severe consequences.

The fourth is a lack of courage to fight and an unwillingness to take responsibility when facing significant issues of right and wrong, major conflicts, and crises and difficulties, which result in adverse effects or serious consequences.

Others include failure to report personal matters such as leaving for overseas.

Source: The Central People’s Government of China, March 28, 2021
http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-03/28/content_5596366.htm

Epoch Times: Leaked Emails Confirm UN Gives Names of Dissidents to the CCP

According to an exclusive report from The Epoch Times, leaked emails proved that UN human-rights officials give the names of Chinese dissidents to Beijing before these dissidents are set to testify in Geneva against the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) abuses. Despite UN denials, the practice is viewed as “usual practice by all involved” and continues to this day. Beijing has used the names that the UN provided to prevent the dissidents from leaving China. At least one dissident died while in detention. These dissidents include those who are concerned about Tibet, Hong Kong, and the Islamic Uyghur minority in Western China. If the dissident has already left China, Beijing will frequently threaten or even kidnap and torture the person’s family.

One email from Sept 7, 2012, revealed that a diplomat from the CCP’s Mission to the UN in Geneva emailed a UN official to confirm if two names in the email were accredited and planned to attend the UN Human Right Council session. The first name was Dolkun Isa, the president of the World Uyghur Congress, which advocates on behalf of the Uyghur population of Western China’s Xinjiang region that is being brutally targeted by the CCP. One year after UN’s confirmation email, at the request of the CCP delegation, UN security attempted to remove Isa from the Human Rights Council chamber. On a separate occasion, CCP agents have shown up at Isa’s house overseas to try to get him to stop speaking out. The second person was Geng He, the wife of imprisoned Chinese human-rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, a Christian and author of a book about the severe torture the CCP subjected him to for his work defending people and for his beliefs. Gao suffered brutal torture because Beijing found out that his wife was planning to speak at the UN.

In a separate email, UN human-rights officials provided the names of four activists who were expected to attend the Human Rights Council.

In February 2020, The Epoch Times first reported the scandal and disclosed that it was UN whistleblower Emma Reilly who came forward and exposed the scandal but Reilly then faced retaliation. She is currently still employed by the UN but is under “investigation.”

According to Reilly, there is a systemic issue with the UN. It lacks supervision and external oversight. She is also deeply concerned about the close relationship between CCP agents and senior officials of the UN human rights council.

From 2013 to 2017, senior UN officials have been denying that the name sharing scandal ever happened. In January of 2021, a spokesperson for the UN was quoted as saying that the practice has stopped “since 2015.” However, in Feb 2, 2017, a press release from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) admitted that it was confirming identities of individuals being accredited to attend its human-rights event but not until “the accreditation process was formally under way, and until it was sure that there was no obvious security risk.”

Reilly disagrees. Transcripts from Reilly’s investigation case showed that Reilly challenged the UN and asked that it show evidence of the “security” check before handing over the names. None was provided.

According to Reilly, Beijing diplomats’ approach is a major violation of the UN’s own rules. If governments want to know who is attending UN human rights council, they are supposed to ask the plenary in front of other UN member states.

Reilly told The Epoch Times that the name sharing with the CCP continues to this day despite the escalating scandal surrounding the practice and the UN’s retaliation against her.

Documents obtained by Epoch Times revealed that some of the highest-ranking officials within the UN system have been involved in an effort to silence, discredit, and retaliate against Reilly because of her efforts.

Source: The Epoch Times, February 25, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/emails-confirm-un-gave-names-of-dissidents-to-ccp_3711143.html

Think Tank’s New Academic Freedom Index: China in the Bottom Tier; Hong Kong Lower than Russia

The Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI), an independent non-profit think tank based in Berlin, recently published an update of the Academic Freedom Index (AFI), a measure that compares the state of academic freedom in countries worldwide.

The index is composed of five expert-coded indicators that capture key elements in the de facto realization of academic freedom: (1) freedom to research and teach; (2) freedom of academic exchange and dissemination; (3) institutional autonomy; (4) campus integrity; and (5) freedom of academic and cultural expression. A given issue is assessed by multiple, independent experts for each country in each year based on a pre-defined scale. Some 2,000 experts – typically academicians in the respective country – have so far contributed such assessments. The ratings of individual coders are aggregated into country-year scores for each indicator. In the dataset, the index is complemented by some additional, factual indicators, assessing states’ de jure commitments to academic freedom at (6) constitutional and (7) international levels, as well as (8) whether universities have ever existed in a given country.

The index for each country is a score between 0 and 1. For a global comparison of AFI scores, GPPI grouped 170 plus countries into five groups, assigning “A” status to all countries with an AFI score of between 1.0 and 0.8, “B” status between 0.8 and 0.6, “C” status between 0.6 and 0.4, “D” status between 0.4 and 0.2, and “E” status
between 0.2 and 0.0.

China, with a score of 0.082, remains one of the least academically free countries, along with North Korea, Cuba, and Syria, in the lowest rated E category.

Most of the countries with an A grade are European and North American countries. Belgium and Latvia, at 0.97 each, tied for the championship, followed by Italy with 0.969. The United States and the United Kingdom scored 0.901 and 0.915 respectively, also an A status.

Taiwan is ranked with an A grade with a score of 0.874, joined by South Korea, Nepal and Mongolia, making it one of the few Asian countries in the top tier. Japan was rated with a B grade this year with a score of 0.711, while Singapore fell into C with a score of 0.466.

It is interesting to note that Hong Kong is rated D with an index of 0.348, in the same level as Uganda, with a score even lower than Russia (0.374), Cambodia (0.381) and Vietnam (0.377).

Hong Kong’s Academic Freedom Index has dropped significantly by more than 0.15 points over the past five years. Other countries whose scores have fallen by more than 0.15 points in recent years include Brazil, Nicaragua, Zambia, Turkey and Colombia.

Source: Global Public Policy Institute, March 11, 2021
https://www.gppi.net/2021/03/11/free-universities