“Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”
—Article 35, Constitution of the People’s Republic of China
In China, people are allowed to criticize government policies. Not everyone is allowed, and not everyone who is allowed is allowed all the time. But some people, sometimes, in carefully curated circumstances and within certain limits, are allowed to do so.
This is the observation of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (“Freedom of Expression in China: A Privilege, Not a Right”):
Chinese authorities, recognizing in recent years that limited freedom of expression enables the government to better monitor potentially problematic social issues…have begun to tolerate criticism, but only from certain categories of people, a kind of “free-speech elite,” and only then in government-controlled forums….
Chinese authorities silence debates if they begin to take on a life of their own, and refuse to recognize the right of the average Chinese citizens to publish their opinions on political issues in forums that are free from government censorship. So while the Chinese government encourages the state controlled media to engage in targeted reporting on corruption, it will not tolerate similar criticisms from private individuals….
For the average Chinese citizen freedom of publication is actually nothing more than the freedom to submit….
In January 2003 the website of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of China’s Communist Party, reported that a court in Hefei, Anhui province sentenced two men, identified only by the surnames He and Yu, to prison terms of nine and seven years respectively for “unlawful operation of a business.” Their crime was publishing love poems without government authorization….
Chinese authorities recognize that there must be outlets for the average person to express their dissatisfaction with the government. The reasons for this recognition are not a concern for human rights, but rather a pragmatic acknowledgment that the availability of officially approved and monitored outlets can help preserve the Communist Party’s monopoly on power in several ways.
The Commission argues that these outlets preserve power by reducing political tension, by deflecting criticism that the PRC does not permit freedom of speech, and by allowing officials to monitor the mood of the people and keep track of those who are most likely to express discontent.
So if you’re the right person speaking in the right forum, and you take care that any challenge of the state that you set forth is sufficiently superficial, you can safely articulate critical thoughts. Maybe. As others go to prison for speech that is too careless or bold.
