This is a research paper that discusses the issue about the freedom of expression in China, particularly the online voices. It intends to explore how strong is the will of the Chinese people to voice out their opinions on the internet and how severe is the suppression felt by them. The aim is to find out the perception of democracy and the right to freedom of expression among the Chinese people.

The data was gathered by email interviews and survey forms with Chinese nationals, categorized into two groups: mainland Chinese and overseas Chinese. It is found that despite being in an environment where censorship and blocking of news are rampant, Chinese people have an aspiration for freedom of expression and a different interpretation about the concept of democracy. It’s also found that though the Chinese people have the urge to enjoy the freedom of expression, they don’t necessarily have the urge to overhaul the political system. Their idea of change comes with conditions. Some are even content with what they already have. The depiction in the mainstream western media that Chinese people are fed-up with the iron-clad government and are in a rush to change the entire system might have missed the whole picture.

It must be stressed here that this research paper has its limitation on the sample size. The respondents in the survey cannot represent the general population of China.

Background

The internet has become an important communication tool in people’s lives and  a crucial channel to find information. The online population in China is the highest in the world, with the number of 513 million by 2011 statistics (Internet World Stats, 2012); and a quarter of the world’s social network users (Mashable, 2012).

Because ‘the Chinese government might be more concerned about international criticism than internal tension’ (ABC News, July 8 2009), the world’s most popular social networking sites: Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are banned in China. But the Chinese own version of social media platforms – QQ, Weibo and Youku are flourishing. These home-grown social networking sites are the equivalents of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, with the same functionalities and similar interfaces. They all enjoy a vast amount of membership in China. QQ has active users of 711.7 million (Tencent, 2012); Weibo has 300 million registered users (Xinhua News, 2012); and Youku has monthly visitors of 231 million (Youku, 2012). What makes these Chinese social networking sites different from their foreign peers is that they function within the framework of the Chinese government’s regulations: any sensitive topic or politically related message is censored or blocked. As the Chinese government practices strict policing on the internet, they need to play by the rules to survive.

As the internet is a harder medium to control and the number of online citizens is so staggering, the online voices in China are growing louder. But the crack-down is also growing more intense and fiercer. According to the report by the New York Times (March 30 2012):

Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other Internet sites.

However, the tug of war between the free expressions of the Chinese people and the censorship imposed by the Chinese authority is becoming a common scene on the internet. The Wenzhou High-speed train crash on 23 July 2011 was first reported on Sina Weibo, and the message went viral after the state media was muzzled by the authority. The intended cover-up triggered an outpouring anger among the Chinese people. Following the incident, the comments kept piling up on Weibo,and it showed no sign of slowing down after weeks. The sheer number of 10 million comments proved to be too huge to be censored, and deleting them one by one rarely worked (Tech In Asia, August 1 2011). As a result, the Chinese government came out with a new policy: internet users must register with their real names. But the move was largely shunned by Chinese netizens. Only 19 million out of 250 million users did so, and the counter on Weibo was swiftly disabled afterwards (The Telegraph, March 16 2012). It was a sign of rebellion against the harsher rules imposed by the Chinese authority.

Last year, inspired by the Arab Spring, there were homegrown efforts to organize protests in China. Small scale self-organized protests took place in Beijing, Shanghai and some other cities. It was dubbed as the “Chinese Jasmine Revolution” by foreign media. Sensing the potential danger, the Chinese government tightened its grip on the internet. ‘The word “jasmine” has been blocked on popular social networking sites and chat rooms’, reported the New York Times (February 23 2011).

The recent news about the sacking of a high-profile political figure – Bo Xilai, sent Weibo and other internet forums into overdrive. Time Magazine (April 2 2012) reported that ‘hours after Bo’s sacking, his name was the most searched term on Sina Weibo’. But it was soon censored by the Chinese authority. Wall Street Journal (Mar 22, 2012) reported that ‘Sina Weibo reinstated an earlier block on searches for Mr. Bo’s name and additionally blocked a wide range of user-invented code words for Mr. Bo’. About this strict censorship, Professor Xie Youping at Fudan University was quoted by The Straits Times (March 17 2012) as saying:

Online rumors were first blocked but then one by one, they all turned out to be true. These show the secretive and mysterious nature of Chinese politics and the underestimation of people’s intelligence. Chinese politics urgently needs democracy, openness and transparency.

In the view of western countries, the Chinese government is repressive and the people in China are in a great need of liberation. They often praise the bravery of Chinese dissidents and lash out at the Chinese government’s ruthless suppression. The Nobel committee awarded the prestigious Peace Prize to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010, though he was under house arrest and couldn’t attend the ceremony. Britain and the US governments are very critical of China’s human rights record and lack of freedom. Reuters (January 22 2010) reported that ‘U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged Beijing and other authoritarian governments … to end Internet censorship, placing China in the company of Iran, Saudi Arabia and others as leading suppressors of on-line freedom’. During the visit to Beijing, the British Prime Minister David Cameron didn’t refrain from saying that ‘greater economic freedoms for China must go hand in hand with greater political freedom for its people’ (Daily Mail, November 10 2010).

The western countries’ criticisms are not groundless. There seems to be a conflict between the Chinese people and the government on freedom of expression. What the people can or cannot say is dictated by the Chinese government; but the people constantly find bizarre ways to bypass the government’s censorship. A study on this issue will reveal what the Chinese people really want and how important it means for them to have the right to express their thoughts freely.

Literature Review

Throughout the 5,000 year’s history of China, the imperial dynastic system of government existed for almost 4,000 years (Brooklyn College, 1999).  But it is worth noting that there have been sporadic democratic movements in Chinese history. A look at the Chinese political history reveals that as early as 100 years ago, the May Fourth Movement ‘which grew out of the student uprising, attacked Confucianism, initiated a vernacular style of writing… Numerous magazines were published to stimulate new thoughts’. That was an early sign of advocating democracy and promoting freedom of expression.

The subsequent 1911 Revolution resulted in a republic form of government, albeit a weak one (Brooklyn College). The leader of the revolution, Su-yat Sen, is still regarded as the father of modern China. The establishment of a republic was considered his greatest achievement.

When the communists took over and founded People’s Republic of China in 1949, they cemented their role as the supreme leaders of China. It is stated in China’s constitution: ‘The Communist Party of China is the country’s sole political party in power’ (China Org, 2012). But that didn’t stop the democratic movements. Tiananmen Square Protest of 1989 was a mass movement that called for political reform and freedom of the press. To this date, the word “Tiananmen Square” is still sensitive in China. Searches for the word are blocked by the Chinese government.

Though China has a single-party political system, it must be pointed out that a certain form of democracy is not excluded in the system. It is written in China’s constitution: ‘the organizational principle for the state organs is democratic centralism’ (China Org). It is also written that ‘all citizens enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, or assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration’. Other principles that the constitution seems to uphold include:

The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens are protected by law; Citizens have the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary; Citizens who have suffered losses as a result of infringement of their civic rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with law (China Org).

These basic principles are clearly stated in the constitution. With the protection of these laws, the Chinese people should have the freedom to act within their civic rights and the freedom to raise their concerns or different opinions on the internet, without the threat of being censored or blocked, or the harassment of the law enforcement. But in reality, they don’t fully enjoy these rights.

Some argue that Confucianism runs deep in the Chinese society, it has become an obstacle to the development of democracy. Chang and Chu (2002, p.28) state that

Confucian value is an obstacle to the development of political liberty and pluralism consciousness in East Asia. Confucian values feed anti-democratic sentiments and values based on unifying democratic aspects or on consciousness of different levels…

They also think modernization and education can change that, as they conclude

The process of modernization will impact upon traditional values, evident in that highly modernized Hong Kong and Taiwan support Confucian value system less than mainland China. On the other hand… length of education and age also has an important role in the development of democratic consciousness, as education rises and average age declines, democratic consciousness increases (p.29).

But this view is under challenge. As Ackeyly (2005 p.23) contends

Western liberal thought provides only one set of traditional contexts for those lives, values, and institutions. Confucian political thought offers another. If we think of democratization as critical practice, clarified and deepened by its engagement with complementary and contaminating traditions, then we may fruitfully learn from these engagements in the further development of democratic theory.

Besides Taiwan and Hong Kong, Singapore as another predominantly Chinese society also has a working democratic political system. In The constitution of Singapore, the fundamental rights include ‘the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and equal rights’ (Singapore Academy of Law, 2007). But there are also strict rules in Singapore regarding the use of the internet. Lee (2003) suggests there is an ‘auto-regulatory climate’ in Singapore, and ‘the willingness of citizens to entrust moral governance to authorities is an important element of auto-regulation’ (p.79).

The western style of democracy calls for the greatest freedom of expression. It is often attributed as one of the essential principles of democracy. In the words of Thussu (2006, p.42),

For the supporters of capitalism, the primary function of international communication was to promote democracy, freedom of expression and markets, while the Marxists argued for greater state regulation on communication and media outlets.
Human Rights Education Association (2012) says that ‘freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic rights and freedoms’. According to the definition on Democracy Web (2012):

Freedom of expression could be considered one of the most fundamental of all freedoms. While it is of dubious value to rate one freedom over another, freedom of expression is a basic foundation of democracy – it is the core freedom, without which democracy could not exist.

Self-claimed as the leader of the free world, the United States firmly advocates the principle of freedom of expression. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly says that US is committed to global internet freedom. Her speech came out not long after the Egyptian uprising. In her speech, she announced that ‘the US government would invest an additional $25 million to help online dissidents and digital activists fight state repression’ (BBC News, February 15 2011).

But democracy doesn’t necessarily ensure the preservation of freedom. As Wollstein writes on Internet Society for Individual Liberty (2012):

Democracy is a method of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the resulting government. At best, democracy means that government has popular support. But popular support is no guarantee that government will protect your freedom.

It’s also worth noting that though the Chinese government’s crack-down on the internet sounds ferocious, it is not an act solely seen in China. During the Arab Spring last year, at the height of the uprising, the Egyptian government executed a blackout on the internet. The Telegraph calls this action ‘unprecedented in the history of the Internet’. If Egypt is considered an authoritarian state like China, then the leading country in the free world is no exception either. Amid the social riots in Britain in 2011, the British Prime Minister David Cameron called Facebook and Twitter the culprits and mulled over the action of banning them. Ivan Lewis, the shadow secretary of culture in the House of Commons, was quoted as saying:

Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security. We support the government’s decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organize and participate in criminal activities (CNN, August 11 2011).

It is evident that even in democratic countries, the balance between free speech and social stability is a challenge. Besides this, privacy is another concern. This year, US is proposing a ‘privacy Bill of Rights’, in a bid to address concerns over the collection of personal information online. Even in the free world, the online freedom is not absolute.

As for the conflict between the Chinese people and the authority on the right to freedom of expression, there are explanations on the lack of democratic thoughts among the Chinese; there are also harsh criticisms from western countries over the Chinese government’s clamp-down on internet freedom and repeated calls for a change in the rigid Chinese political system. But it appears that there isn’t a study from the Chinese people’s perspective about the principle of freedom of expression and their idea of democracy; there isn’t a study either that examines whether the western style of democracy is the solution that the Chinese people are aspiring for.

Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used for the research. Questionnaire surveys were conducted with a total of 21 respondents, all of whom are Chinese nationals and college educated. The respondents came from different parts of China, including Shanghai city, Hunan, Guangdong, Shandong and Jiangsu provinces. Among them, 15 people are from mainland China. They are labeled respondents 1 – 15. The rest of six people are overseas, including people educated or worked in Britain, Spain and Singapore. They are labeled respondents 16 – 21.

All of the respondents were presented with the same questions. It must be mentioned here that the questions were written in both English and Chinese. For those who responded in Chinese, answers were translated into English and their intended meanings were not changed.

A set of questions was used to investigate the perceptions among the Chinese people about the internet censorship in China, their opinions about democracy and the right to freedom of expression. They are as follow:

• Do you think that you have the right to freedom of expression in China?
• How strong do you feel that political or sensitive topics on internet forums, social networks, such as Weibo, are censored or blocked?
• Do you think the Chinese online community should enjoy a broader freedom?
• To what extent do you believe the official statements from the Chinese authority on the internet, whole-heartedly, partially, or outright no? Why do you believe it, or why not?
• What’s your opinion about the western form of democracy and freedom of expression in China?

Lastly, considering the vigilance of some people and the nationalist sentiment among the Chinese people, avoidance of the sensitive questions might occur. Thus, a claimer is put on top of the questionnaire:

This questionnaire is purely for academic research. It does not have any political purpose. The research will remain anonymous at all times. Should any question make you uncomfortable, feel free to stop at any time. In any case that you feel so, please jump to the last question.

And the last question is presented to all the respondents:

If you feel uncomfortable answering the questions above, can you tell us what exactly makes you feel so?

Findings

Question 1: Do you think that you have the right to freedom of expression in China?

Answer	Response from mainland Chinese	Response from overseas Chinese	Total response
Yes	4	2	6
Partially	9	2	11
No	2	2	4

From question 1, it can be seen that the majority thinks that they partially have the right to freedom of expression in China. The number of people who think they have the right is greater than the number of those who think they don’t. Plus the people in the middle, the contrast is even starker: 17 vs. 4. This indicates that the idea of “Chinese people are highly oppressed” might be overblown.

The responses are equally divided among the overseas Chinese. This is an interesting finding. If this extends to a larger population of the Chinese diaspora, it may pose a challenge to the view: more educated people are more conscious of liberalism.

Question 2: How strong do you feel that political or sensitive topics on internet forums, social networks, such as Weibo, are censored or blocked?

Answer	Response from mainland Chinese	Response from overseas Chinese	Total response
Strong	8	5	13
Moderate	4	0	4
Weak	3	1	4

It is found that most of the respondents strongly feel the presence of the internet censorship. Here, a clear divide is spotted between the mainland Chinese and overseas Chinese: while only 4 out of 15 mainland Chinese sense a certain degree of censorship, 5 out of 6 overseas Chinese sense a strong censorship. No one among the overseas Chinese thinks that censorship is only moderate, though 1 respondent feels the censorship is weak.

Question 3: Do you think the Chinese online community should enjoy broader freedom?

Answer	Response from mainland Chinese	Response from overseas Chinese	Total response
Yes	5	0	5
Partially	9	5	14
No	1	1	2

The majority of respondents vote for the partially loosening of the internet control, this includes the overseas Chinese. As a matter of fact, while 5 mainland Chinese want a complete change to the current internet control, none of the overseas Chinese support this idea. Overseas Chinese might have more channels to find information on Chinese politics, but they overwhelmingly agree that a certain degree of control is necessary.

There’s only 1 out of 15 mainland Chinese thinks there’s no need to change the current situation; and 1 out of 6 overseas Chinese holds the same view. It might be because the overseas Chinese have more access to the often over-heated criticisms over China in the foreign media, that they sense more danger of a laissez-faire media environment. This may again point out a flaw in the commonly accepted view: people educated overseas are usually more liberal.

Citing the reasons why they only support partially broadening the freedom of expression, a few respondents offered their opinions. Though these interviews were done separately, their comments share a surprisingly high degree of similarity: the concern of social stability.

Respondent 1 says:

“Some people take advantage of the internet and use the online voice to serve their own interest. To prevent ill-intentioned motive from those people, I think a certain degree of control from the government has to be in place.”

Respondent 7 says:

“Anything has two sides. The suppression of free expression has actually stimulated the curiosity of the people. They will always wonder why something has to be buried. The government has to loosen the control, on the condition that the stability of the country will not be affected.”

And respondent 14 says:

“Some rumors and voices that might cause panic in society should be controlled. Ordinary people might lack the ability to judge which statement is true and which is malicious.”

5 out of 6 overseas Chinese say that the interference from the government is necessary to prevent the spread of spiteful point of views, though they all agree that more freedom should be allowed on the internet. As for the respondent 16 who votes no, reason is given that:

“China is not ready for complete freedom on the internet. Anyone can pose anything online, but not everyone will stay neutral or keep an objective point of view. Extreme or single-faceted opinions will only result in resentment and cause instability in society.”

Question 4: To what extent do you believe the official statements from the Chinese authority on the internet, whole-heartedly, partially, or outright no? Why do you believe it, or why not?

Answer	Response from mainland Chinese	Response from overseas Chinese	Total response
Strongly	1	0	1
Partially	14	4	18
Reject	0	2	2

This finding shows a worrying sign to the Chinese authority: only 1 out of 21 respondents whole-heartedly believe what the government says. That sole respondent also happens to be the one who thinks the Chinese people have the right to freedom of expression, as he answered ‘yes’ to question 1.

18 respondents partially believe what the government says. That indicates that there’s a serious breakdown in the communication between the Chinese people and the authority.

Respondent 1 says:

“The fact [discovered later] already proved that the government lacks the credibility.”

Respondent 10 says:

“I don’t see real changes after the official statement.”

And respondent 5 comments:

“I don’t have the right to freedom of expression and I have been deprived of the  channels to find out the truth. Why would I believe what the government says?” 

2 respondents even opt for outright rejection. Respondent 16 explains:

“The government’s statement is not true.”

Respondent 17 shared her experience: one of her posts that mentioned the Wenzhou train crash was blocked. She comments:

“They even blocked my post that mentioned the Wenzhou high-speed train crash, which is a world-known incident. I think they are treating people like fools.”

Question 5: Do you support the western form of democracy? And what’s your opinion about democracy and freedom of expression in China?

Answer	Response from mainland Chinese	Response from overseas Chinese	Total response
Yes	0	0	0
Conditionally	8	4	11
No	7	2	9

The responses are almost equally divided: 9 respondents don’t support the idea and the rest of 11 respondents do. But for those who do, they all set a condition. There’s a consensus on the condition: the western form of democracy might not suit China.

There are also overwhelming comments. Respondent 2, 7 and 8 vote ‘no’ and they all comment:

“It’s infeasible to realize a western style of democracy in China.”

Respondent 6 votes ‘no’ and says:

“The communist party has achieved a lot in China. That is a fact. I don’t think the single-party rule is a flaw in our political system. What we really need is a mechanism of supervision. The best form of supervision comes from the people and the media. Freedom of expression is important and it can be realized by putting a mechanism of supervision in place.”

Respondent 15 and 17 vote ‘yes’ and comment that if China rushes to democratize the political system, there might be chaos in society. Respondent 4 votes ‘yes’ and comments:

“I support the idea. But honestly speaking, I don’t have a clear idea about the western form of democracy. It might not suit China. Even if we want a democracy now, it doesn’t mean we are ready for that transformation.”

Respondent 5 votes ‘yes’ and says:

“I support the idea of democratizing our country, but now is not the time. It takes a lot of time to get there.”

Respondent 14 votes ‘yes’ and says:

“We need democracy in China. But I don’t think we should blindly copy the model of the western countries. Will that still be China if we do?”

Respondent 18 votes ‘yes’ and comments:

“We need to have a democratic development. But we should also note that the situation in China is essentially different from the western countries. We can’t just borrow their model and hope it works in China. But we can base on that model and develop our own model of democracy.”

Respondent 20 votes ‘yes’ and comments:

“I agree that we need to democratize our country, because it is still rather authoritarian. But I think the reality of China determines that copying the western model of democracy is not a good idea either. Only when our country develops further and the people become more educated, should we start a democratic reform.”

As for the last question, all overseas Chinese left it untouched. But some mainland Chinese did feel uncomfortable answering the questions, though they completed the questionnaire. It is either because of the nationalist sentiment or the suspicion of a probe.

Respondent 10 says:

“I love my country and I don’t like it to be judged.”

Respondent 15 says:

“I’m a bit worried that my identity will be disclosed to the authority.”

Conclusion

It is often depicted in the western media that the Chinese people are oppressed by the government and are frustrated by the suppression of their freedom of expression. That claim might have missed the whole picture. As this study reveals, the severity of that suppression is less felt by the people.

It is also revealed that there is a growing distrust among the Chinese people towards the government. Since the Chinese people are highly conscious of the censorship, they might as well think that the government’s voice plays by the same rules. If the Chinese authority doesn’t do anything to communicate with its people in an honest manner, it will continue to be perceived as untrustworthy by its own people. The tension will only grow if the government cannot win back the trust of the people. The stringent rules about the censorship backfired on the credibility of the Chinese government. That distrust also means the ‘auto-regulation’ model in Singapore is unlikely to be realized in China, since that model is based on the people’s ‘willingness to entrust moral governance to authorities’ (Lee, 2003).

Though the Chinese people are aware of the internet censorship, it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that they want a complete liberation of the internet. As it turns out, most of them actually agree with a certain degree of control. Their biggest concern is the threat to social stability. How to allow more freedom on the internet without jeopardizing the social stability presents a challenge to the Chinese government. Democratic countries sometimes face the same conundrum.

Though the call for more internet freedom is strong among the Chinese, they are also concerned about the potential danger. This is partly a vindication of the view by Chang and Chu (2002). The Confucian values which stress collectivism are obviously present among the Chinese people. They are willing to sacrifice individual rights for a collective cause. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Chinese people don’t have democratic consciousness. As the findings point out, they wish for a democratic form of governance, they just have a different interpretation about the form of democracy. This echoes the view by Ackeyly (2005).

It is also important to mention here though the Chinese people have an aspiration for democracy, they don’t wholly accept western democracy as the ultimate answer. Close to half of respondents even reject the idea. The western media and their leaders can continue to criticize China’s crackdown on freedom of expression and pressure the Chinese government for a political reform, but before assuming western democracy is what the Chinese people wish for, they should also get more insights from the Chinese people.

Another point by Chang and Chu (2002) is also contentious. The educated people don’t necessarily mean they are more liberal, even for those who are western-educated. On the contrary, the overseas Chinese are equally cautious about the political reform. They have seen and experienced the western style of democracy and have an understanding about the situation in China, that in turn makes them less enthusiastic about bringing western democracy to China.

As the sample size of this study is rather small and mainly focused on college-educated people, it needs further exploration. The respondents in the survey cannot represent the general population in China. There must be more comprehensive research on this topic to reflect the full picture. People with different levels of education, from different areas of China, of different ages, must be included to reach a more insightful conclusion.

References:

About Tencent, Tencent, viewed March 18, 2012,<http://www.tencent.com/en-us/at/abouttencent.shtml&gt;.

Ackerly, BA 2005, ‘Is liberalism the only way toward democracy? Confucianism and democracy’, Political Theory, vol. 33 no. 4, pp.547-576, Sage Publications.

Asia Top Internet Countries, Internet World Stats, viewed March 17, 2012,<http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm&gt;.

Bass, S 2011, China’s Facebook Status: Blocked, ABC News, viewed March 18, 2012,<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2009/07/chinas-facebook-status-blocked/&gt;.

Beech, H, 2012, ‘Flashing a Red Card’, Time, vol.179, no.12, p.58.

Chang, YT, Chu, YH 2002, Confucianism and democracy: empirical study of mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, Asian Barometer Project Office, National Taiwan University, Taipei.

Chapman, J 2010, You must set your people free: David Cameron risks China fury with extraordinary criticism of regime, Daily Mail, viewed March 15, 2012,<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327989/David-Cameron-risks-China-fury-criticism-regime.html&gt;.

China’s Political System, China Org, viewed March 22, 2012,<http://www.china.org.cn/english/Political/26143.htm&gt;.

Chinese Cultural Studies: Concise Political History of China, Brooklyn College Core Web Pages, viewed March 22, 2012 <http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/chinhist.html&gt;.