Year: 2020

On page five of today’s official People’s Daily newspaper, a commentary by Guo Jiping (国纪平) – short for “important commentary on international affairs,” or you guan guoji de zhongyao pinglun (有关国际的重要评论) – offers a full-scale account of China’s year in 2020. It will surprise no one that this account is entirely positive, full of unambiguous superlatives about China’s achievements and how, most importantly, these can all be chalked up to the superb leadership of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.

The commentary, “Facts Speak Louder Than Rhetoric” (事实胜于雄辩), is a sprawling page of rhetoric – about the “community of common destiny for mankind” (人类命运共同体), about “Six Stabilities” (六稳) and the “Six Guarantees” (六保), about the “miracle of China’s rapid economic growth,” and so on.

If there is any question about how the Chinese Communist Party will choose, officially, to remember 2020, all questions are answered in the soaring rhetoric of the Guo Jiping piece.

The summary sentence at the start:

At a major historical juncture, mankind faced a major test. China showed its report card, and injected confidence and hope into the world. How extraordinary!

And here is the basic assessment of the year:

China achieved major strategic results in the fight against Covid-19, delivering a response that satisfied the people, turned the eyes of the world, and is to be recorded in the annals of history. China has become the only major economy in the world to achieve positive economic growth, and it made major breakthroughs on the Three Major Struggles [of  preventing and resolving major risks, achieving poverty alleviation, and preventing pollution] as well as major progress on science and innovation, on major breakthroughs in reform and opening, and on strong guarantees for the peoples’ livelihood. These achievements did not come easily, but came through hardship and obstacles, and they result from the resolute leadership of the Chinese Communist Party with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core, and result from the united struggle of the whole Party, the whole army, and people of all ethnic groups throughout the country.

In a year when China has faced sharp criticism from many quarters, first for its failure to be transparent about the epidemic in Wuhan and to allow in inspection teams, and then for its concerted global campaign of disinformation in the midst of the pandemic, and a year in which unfavourable views of China reached history highs in many countries, here is the CCP’s own assessment of its global image:

There are many voices in the world praising China one after another. As the former foreign minister of and deputy chancellor of Germany Joschka Fischer declared in the Spanish media that “2020 is a successful year for China.”

There is no mention, of course, that while Fischer did write earlier this month that “2020 proved to be a highly successful year for China,” particularly noting failures of leadership elsewhere in the world, he also was very clear that “[serious] failures by Chinese authorities permitted that outbreak to grow into a pandemic that has now killed almost 1.5 million people and brought the global economy to a standstill.”

But the Party and its flagship newspaper know only too well that rhetoric can speak louder than the facts.

The key message to emerge from the most recent “collective study session” of the CCP Politburo was a simple one: security. At the session, held on December 12, Xi Jinping stressed that a renewed emphasis on security was mandated by “the historical position of our country’s development and the situation and tasks facing national security.” This, he said, followed the “Decision” released by the Fifth Plenum in October, which marked the first time that “integrating development and security” (统筹发展和安全) had been included in a five-year plan for economic development.

The Chinese Communist Party has long been obsessed with security, and all forms of security are closely tied to maintaining the stability and legitimacy of the regime itself. But we seem, midway through Xi Jinping’s second term, to be in the midst of a heightened period of security consciousness.  

Among the burst of security related catchphrases emerging from the December 12 session, we find “building a big security structure” (构建大安全格局), “adhering to the organic unity of political security, people’s security, and the supremacy of national interests” (坚持政治安全, 人民安全, 国家利益至上有机统一), and “fully using the national security policy toolbox” (用好国家安全政策工具箱). Taken together, they suggest that Chinese leaders are viewing policy concerns across the board in China through the lens of national security – premised, perhaps, on a deepening sense of insecurity.

As the leadership pursues its broadening definition of national security, one integral part of the security toolbox is certainly the use of big data and technology, including such tools as facial recognition. But this renewed emphasis on security also comes at a moment when there has been more engagement with the issue of personal data security within Chinese society.

A landmark case in November, coming just two months after the “largely overlooked” release in September of a new Draft Data Security Law, ruled that it was illegal for the zoo in the city of Hangzhou to collect facial biometric data from visitors without their consent. And there has recently been an uptick in stories from Chinese media about the widespread and unwarranted application of technologies like facial recognition. The news in late November that real estate companies had secretly been collecting information on clients using facial recognition sparked widespread anger.

Several cities, including Tianjin and Nanjing, have already ordered curbs on public applications of facial recognition technology, responding to growing public concern. In a survey released a year ago by Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper, more than 70 percent of respondents expressed concern that personal biometric data gathered through facial recognition technology in public places could be leaked and abused.

One of the most absurd recent cases to gain attention in the Chinese media recently was a viral video posted earlier this month in which a man enters a real estate exhibition wearing a motorcycle helmet with a visor in order to evade facial recognition cameras. But the discussion over security and the application of new technologies reached new heights of absurdity this past week as a number of Chinese media reported that facial recognition technology is being used even to regulate the use of toilet paper in public toilets across the country – in train stations, in malls, and at tourist attractions.

Interestingly, one of the key suppliers nationally of facial recognition toilet paper dispensers is SoLine Technologies Co., Ltd., a “high-tech enterprise specializing in biometrics” that is now selling its sixth-generation facial recognition toilet paper dispenser – but is based in Tianjin, a city that recently introduced restrictions on such uses.

As new technologies have been integral to CCP thinking about a range of issues concerning regime security, including the adoption of “convergence” to reconsolidate controls over the media, the intersection of security objectives and data privacy concerns in China will be a key issue to continue watching.

In the meantime, the following is CMP’s translation of a recent report on facial recognition toilet dispensers from the Qianjiang Evening News (钱江晚报), a spin-off of Zhejiang’s official Zhejiang Daily. Similar reports across China have provoked a response, and the city of Dongguan recently announced that it was ending use of the machines.

_________________

Facial Recognition Also Used for Toilet Paper in Public Toilets? Hangzhou East Railway Station Responds: [Data] Deleted Automatically After 10 Minutes

December 17, 2020

Facial recognition is already being widely used in our lives. From the level of smart cities (智慧城市) down to the level of unlocking our mobile phones, we readily see the shadow of facial recognition technology.

However, while this new product of the internet era brings people convenience, it also prompts new uneasiness – there are more channels by which users’ faces, physical movement and other sensitive information can be leaked.

Recently, owing to the fact that some property owners were using facial recognition for [residential] community access, there was a great deal of attention in society [to the issue of privacy], and this became a hot topic. Subsequently, reporters for the News Hour column at Qianjiang Evening News carried out investigations and visits on the application of facial recognition technology in many contexts in the city of Hangzhou – including over the question of whether there might be risks in the storage and management of facial recognition data in the back-end of these applications.

Over the past two days, many netizens have reported to News Hour: “It’s not only out in the community,” [they have said.] “Now, you even have to submit to a facial scan to use toilet paper!”

The photo sent by one netizen showed a “facial recognition toilet paper dispenser” (人脸识别供纸机) at the entrance to the public toilet at Hangzhou East Railway Station. The Qianjiang Evening News reporter decided to head to the scene to find out more.

The Reporter’s Observations

At the entrance to many public toilets at the Hangzhou East Railway Station, the reporter saw the “facial recognition toilet paper dispensers” to which the netizen had referred.

These machines were generally placed in less conspicuous positions on the walls outside the entrances to public toilets.

The reporter observed that there were only a small number of people who came by to use the machines. Waiting near one of these machines for about 15 minutes, there were just two people who came up to use them – and it should be understood that the public toilets in the Hangzhou East Railway Station are get very high use.

The process of getting toilet paper is quite easy. Users show their face to the screen on the machine, standing still for three seconds, and a ribbon of tissue from 60 to 100 cm in length, about 8-10 squares, is dispensed from the machine. According to design, if the same user attempts within a few minutes to scan their face again, the toilet tissue will not be dispensed.

This is the a core feature of the machine – that it can save on the amount of paper dispensed within a short period of time, and in this way conserve paper.

One woman who went through the facial scan and received her toilet tissue told the reporter: “I do have this question of whether my facial information, once its inside, will somehow be misused.”

But there are also other voices.

Among the cleaning ladies working in the station, quite a few say they use the facial recognition dispenser to get toilet paper. One of them said to the reporter: “This is really convenient! Where is my facial information? I don’t know, but I don’t really care!”

Mr. Liu, a traveller, said he was not eager to try out the machine: “Where does the facial recognition data go?” he asked. “Will it be stolen?”

East Railway Station Employee: The Original Idea Came from a Netizen, and Was Intended to Save Paper

Next, the reporter interviewed an employee for the East Railway Station.

The employee told the reporter that these facial recognition toilet paper dispensers were installed two years ago with the renovation of public toilets in the station.

Why were they installed? This was the process . . .

Originally, Hangzhou East Railway Station provided toilet tissue free of charge. After this approach was implemented for a time, the station discovered that the tissue was being used at an astonishing rate, in some cases a large roll of tissue not lasting more than 10 minutes before it was “entirely used up.” In many cases, the paper was not just used in the toilet, but was carried away by people. Moreover, there was no way for the station to stop the practice, considering that [the tissue] was taken from toilet stalls.

However, if the station chose not to provide toilet tissue, this might be a great inconvenience to travellers.

So finally, on Weibo, one traveller made a suggestion to Hangzhou East Railway Station, that they might install coin-operated toilet tissue dispensers. After considering this, the station felt that as their role was to serve everyone, this approach using a coin-pay system was too commercial. Another suggestion was to use the facial recognition machines instead.

The facial recognition toilet paper dispensers currently installed in Hangzhou East Railway Station are all manufactured by Tianjin’s Soline (天津首联). Station staff told the reporter that Soline said the machines did not collect facial information, and the information collected was not connected to the internet.

Product Manufacturer: Facial Recognition Dispensers Use ‘Short-Term Recognition’, and Deletion is Made Within a Limited Period

Immediately, the reporter contacted Soline. Staff there said that the capture of facial information by their machines works by recognition only of a few facial points. Once the scan is made, [the data] is stored in memory for a short time. When a user scans their face again, the machine compares these data points, and if repetition is found the machine will not dispense paper again within 9 minutes (a factory setting). 　　 After 10 minutes the machine will delete previously stored facial data. Moreover, the company also pledges that it will not consider storing the personal facial data of users in the future.

Staff at the company said Soline had entered Hangzhou in 2018, first installing its machines in public toilets around Lingyin. To date, in addition to public toilets in scenic areas and railway stations, the company’s facial recognition machines can be found in shopping malls.

The reporter was also able to locate the inspection report from the Ministry of Public Security that Hangzhou East Railway Station had mentioned.

The inspection report issued by the Ministry of Public Security’s Electronic Product Quality Inspection Center for the toilet tissue dispenser noted that the prototype had a facial data collection function and could automatically delete data storage within a set time. The inspection result found that the machine met requirements.

Despite this, when it comes to the collection of bioinformation, the law clearly stipulates that this adhere to the principles of legality, propriety and necessity.

How do you view the use of facial recognition for toilet paper dispense?  You’re welcome to scan the QR code and join the conversation at News Hour.

This month, China’s party-state media have been increasingly vocal in criticizing the “Clean Network” initiative introduced by the Trump administration, a global digital alliance of now almost 50 countries and 170 telecoms firms that aims to deter use of Chinese technologies Washington regards as insecure owing to their possible manipulation by the Chinese Communist Party. Introducing the program back in April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was essential “to protect America’s critical telecommunications and technology infrastructure.”

China may now be feeling the pressure more keenly in the midst of an ongoing tech cold war with the US, the State Department reporting in a tweet late last week that 27 of 30 NATO allies, 31 of 37 OECD members, and 26 of 27 European Union member states have signed on to the initiative. Just two countries, Pakistan and Syria, have so far voiced support for China’s would-be competing proposal, the “Global Initiative on Data Security,” though Chinese government sources also claim to have secured pledges of support from Laos and Cambodia.  

Last week, CMP noted that the People’s Daily, the CCP’s flagship newspaper, had become more vocal in attacking the “Clean Network” initiative. In a commentary by Lu Chuanying, secretary-general and researcher at China’s Cyberspace International Governance Research Center, the paper accused the United States of conducting “network surveillance” in the name of cybersecurity. The US, said Lu, referencing the cyberpunk film franchise, is “the only real ‘Matrix.’”

“The Matrix” sci-fi action franchise, which recently wrapped up filming in Berlin for a fourth film due for release in December 2021, now appears to be a favored metaphor used by Chinese authorities and state media to criticize the US in the midst of a global rift over cybersecurity.

Over the weekend, the People’s Daily ran another commentary, this time under the “Zhong Sheng” (钟声) byline, reserved for important official statements on international affairs, called “Carrying Out Network Surveillance, Endangering Global Data Security” (实施网络监控，威胁全球数据安全). The commentary again sought to hammer home the argument that the US is the predominant threat to global cybersecurity even as it employs the rhetoric of security and openness.

“The ‘Matrix’ is proficient at network manipulation,” the People’s Daily commentary began, substituting the film’s title (which translated “Hacker Empire” in Chinese) for the US. “If it is allowed to break free from moral constraints and engage in network technology hegemony, continuously dispatching ‘rumor-bots’ to wander the world like ghosts, disrupting the cyber order, this world will inevitably face severe challenges.”

The commentary likens “certain US politicians” to “rumor-bots dispatched by the Matrix, which seek to “tirelessly discredit China on the 5G issue, suppressing specific Chinese companies, and trying to coerce other countries to choose sides in the name of building a so-called ‘Clean Network.’” These “rumor-bots,” it argues, cannot change the fact that “the US threatens global cybersecurity.”

For months, China and the US have been exchanging barbs over hacking and cybersecurity. In May, the US accused China of exploiting the pandemic, attempting to hack academic and private laboratories to steal COVID-19 vaccine research. This followed the release in March of a report from Qihoo, China’s largest cybersecurity firm, that accused the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of hacking attacks against Chinese companies and government agencies. After the report’s release, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded a “clear explanation,” and spokesman Zhao Lijian (赵立坚) – a diplomat prone to provocative and colorful statements –  was the first to raise the “Hacker Empire” (“Matrix”) comparison. “The facts have shown that the United States is the world’s largest cyber attacker, a veritable ‘Matrix,’” said Zhao.

Zhao Lijian repeated his “Matrix” language at a press conference in mid-August, after a journalist from China’s state media network, China Media Group (CMG), lobbed him a question about Pompeo’s trip to Central Europe:

According to reports, during his visit to Slovenia, Secretary of State Pompeo signed a joint declaration on 5G network security with the Slovenian Foreign Minister. Pompeo tweeted that this reflects ‘our common commitment to protecting the privacy and personal freedom of citizens.’ Pompeo also talked about jointly building a ‘Clean Network” in the Czech Republic. What is China’s comment?

Referring to programs such as Prism and the Equation group, and suggesting that the US carried out “around-the-clock surveillance of mobile phones and online computers,” Zhao Lijian responded: “These are obviously the exploits of the ‘Matrix’ [Hacker Empire]. The US is already covered in scars over cyber theft, but its secretary of state has the gall to propose a so-called ‘Clean network,’ which is absurd and ridiculous.”

The “Zhong Sheng” commentary in the People’s Daily marks the continued formalization of the Matrix/Hacker Empire accusation against the US in the context of the ongoing tech war, and also offers the latest example of how language from China’s increasingly combative foreign ministry — the so-called “wolf-warrior diplomats” — has migrated into China’s so-called “mainstream” media (meaning Party-controlled media), including central-level media like the People’s Daily.

In April this year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the launch of the “Clean Network” program, which he called “the Trump Administration’s comprehensive approach to guarding our citizens’ privacy and our companies’ most sensitive information from aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” The announcement followed months of strong lobbying by Pompeo and other US officials for allies in Europe and elsewhere to exclude “high-risk actors” from their 5G networks. Translation: Out with Huawei.

In September, China responded in kind with its “Global Initiative on Data Security,” a program Foreign Minister Wang Yi (王毅) portrayed as more multilateral than the US approach, taking into account the views of other countries. “Some individual countries are aggressively pursuing unilateralism, throwing dirty water on other countries under the pretext of ‘cleanliness,’ and conducting global hunts on leading companies of other countries under the pretext of security,” Wang said, implying but not openly mentioning the US. “This is naked bullying and should be opposed and rejected.”

As Rebecca Arcesati, an analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies, has observed, the timing of China’s announcement of its “Global Initiative on Data Security,” coming on the eve of the first High-Level Digital Dialogue between the EU and China, suggests it is keen to “present China as a trusted partner for the EU,” where the debate over China, 5G and network security continues unabated.

So far, however, there is little indication in global coverage of the Chinese initiative, including from Chinese state-run media, that it is gaining support.

Just two countries, Pakistan and Syria, seem to have voiced support for the “Global Initiative on Data Security.” Pakistan announced its support on September 15, The Nation newspaper quoting Foreign Office spokesperson Zahif Hafeez Chaudhri as saying that the proposal is “both relevant and timely.” Chinese state media enthusiastically relayed the news, reporting Pakistan’s DNA News Agency as saying that “Pakistan stands solidly with Iron Brother China after Beijing announced the Global Initiative on Data Security.” In late September, official outlets including Xinhua News Agency, the China Daily newspaper and CGTN reported that the Syrian government had “expressed support for the China-proposed Global Initiative on Data Security.” The news was also carried in the English-language Syria Times, affiliated with Syria’s Ministry of Information.  

Support for the initiative from two other countries, Cambodia and Laos, has been reported only by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its official website, in strikingly identical accounts of visits by Wang Yi to both countries. The Cambodia-related release reads: “Cambodia appreciates and supports the Global Initiative on Data Security proposed by China, and will continue to cooperate with China in international affairs, and jointly maintain common interests, and safeguard regional and global peace and stability.” Meanwhile, the release on Wang’s visit to Laos noted simply: “Laos also supports the Global Initiative on Data Security proposed by China.”

Today, the face-off between the US “Clean Network” program and China’s “Global Initiative on Data Security” makes page three of the CCP’s official People’s Daily newspaper. The editorial is written by Lu Chuanying (鲁传颖), secretary-general and researcher at the Cyberspace International Governance Research Center (网络空间国际治理研究中心) of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), one of China’s most important government-affiliated think tanks on foreign policy. As David Shambaugh has explained, SIIS, like many government institutions dealing with international affairs, performs a “dual function,” both projecting Chinese talking points (as part of a general “soft power” push) and “[collecting] views and intelligence from foreign experts and officials.”

The Cyberspace International Governance Research Center is a relatively recent addition to the SIIS family, having been formed in 2018, its role apparently to respond on international policy issues related to cyber-governance and cybersecurity.

In his editorial, Lu suggests that the “Clean Network” program proposed by the United States is a naked attempt to “carry out ‘cyber surveillance’ in the name of network security.” Raising the issue of past revelations of US-conducted surveillance, including the “Prism” program, Lu suggests that “Clean Network” would make global cyberspace a less secure place – the implication being that China’s proposal is the only means to a multilateral cybersecurity solution.

“The initiative demonstrates that China is open and candid on the question of cybersecurity, and that it prioritizes maintaining the cybersecurity of all countries, this being in stark contrast to the hypocrisy of the United States and its so-called ‘Clean Network’ plan,” Lu writes.

A full translation of Lu Chuanying’s page three article in the People’s Daily follows.

The ‘Clean Network” Plan Damages Cybersecurity (“清洁网络”计划危害网络安全)

By Lu Chuanying

For some time now, the United States has everywhere trumpeted and peddled its so-called “Clean Network” plan, seeking to discredit Chinese Internet companies without any foundation in fact. The so-called US “Clean Network” is a discriminatory, exclusive and politicized “filthy network,” and it cannot enjoy popular support. Even as the US continues to issue threat and promises to other countries, demanding they support this so-called “Clean Network” plan, this hyper-politicized and hyper-securitized plan poses a serious threat to the stability and development of cyberspace – and the international community has registered strong concern and opposition.

The essence of the US government’s so-called “Clean Network” plan is to carry out “cyber surveillance” in the name of network security. Chinese internet companies have always strictly abided by local laws and regulations when conducting business around the world, and they have prioritized the concerns of [local] governments and users when it comes to network security. This has been widely recognized by the international community. Chinese internet companies are in support of a more secure development model, benefiting the independence of countries in terms of cybersecurity. American internet companies, on the other hand, are often complicit in large-scale global surveillance conducted by US intelligence agencies, seriously endangering the national security of all countries.

The US government has built a powerful cyber surveillance apparatus, with agencies such as the National Security Agency at its core. As incidents such as “Prism Gate” have demonstrated, these institutions use various cracking methods to continuously monitor data in global cyberspace. Not long ago, the reprehensible actions of US intelligence agencies in using control of a Swiss encryption company to obtain encrypted information from other countries was exposed, prompting the unanimous condemnation of the international community. Recently, the media revealed that “Five Eyes” countries demanded that companies set up “backdoors” in encrypted applications. These [cases] demonstrate that the United States is the only real “Matrix.” The so-called “Clean Network” plan is about perpetuating the control of global cyberspace and preventing Chinese companies from obstructing US global surveillance – thereby aiding US intelligence agencies in the continued theft of online information and endangerment of cybersecurity in other countries.

The so-called “Clean Network” plan endangers the stability of global cyberspace and imperils the development of the global digital economy, goals that are fundamentally difficult to achieve. The question of whether to use Chinese network products and equipment concerns the cyber-sovereignty of all nations, and governments have a right to make their own decisions, and also the capability to determine whether or not the network products they use are safe and reliable.

In order to maintain global data security, promote the development and cooperation of the digital economy, and build a community of common destiny in cyberspace (网络空间命运共同体), the Chinese government has launched its “Global Data Security Initiative” (全球数据安全倡议) and advanced a series of measures and proposals for maintaining global network and data security. For example, the initiative clearly opposes the use of information technology to damage the critical infrastructure of other countries or steal important data, or its use to engage in acts endangering the national security or public interest of other countries. It opposes the abuse of information technology to engage in large-scale surveillance against other countries or illegally collect the personal data of individual citizen  in other countries. [The initiative] emphasizes that all countries should require companies to strictly abide by the laws of the countries in which they operate (所在国法律), and must not force domestic companies to store data generated or collected overseas in their own country. The initiative demonstrates that China is open and candid on the question of cybersecurity, and that it prioritizes maintaining the cybersecurity of all countries – this being in stark contrast to the hypocrisy of the United States and its so-called “Clean Network” plan.

As soon as the “Global Data Security Initiative” was announced it attracted widespread attention from the international community, and many countries welcomed and supported the initiative. We can see clearly from this that only a proposition that genuinely cares about and preserves global cybersecurity will gain the support of the international community, and the so-called “Clean Network” plan, which conducts “network surveillance” in the name of cybersecurity, will inevitably meet resistance from the international community.

Despite the strong political and ideological controls placed upon them, social media platforms in China can provide valuable space for the discussion of a range of issues. Last week, Tsinghua Law Professor Lao Dongyan (劳东燕), who serves as deputy director of the Legal Policy Research Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, posted an article to her WeChat public account exploring the enormous pressures facing women in China under social norms that stress both traditional roles centered on the family and modern ideas of professional achievement.

Lao’s post has so far attracted hundreds of thousands of views, underscoring the resonance of the points she raises. The post is derived from a video talk she previously delivered at the “Light Stone Law School,” a legal studies platform that regularly hosts teaching videos and lectures at Bilibili, a Chinese video-sharing website based in Shanghai – though Lao makes clear at the outset of the post that it underwent “substantial revision.”

Interestingly, despite Lao’s extensive legal expertise, she does not grapple directly in her article with the implications of laws and policies, including China’s Marriage Law, which leaves women at a distinct disadvantage. These issues are laid out in some detail in this recent article by feminist scholar Joan Lee. Instead, Lao focusses on the “social mores” and attitudes that persist in China, and present women with impossible choices.

On balancing career and family, Lao writes: “The answer is that these are impossible to balance. If you invest more in your career, this necessarily means investing less in your family. And if you must invest in both, then you will ultimately be exhausted and anxious. After all, women are not made of iron.”

A translation of the first section of Lao’s post follows.

“On Modern Women: The Challenge of Balancing Career and Family” (关于现代女性：事业与家庭难以平衡)

By Lao Dongyan (劳东燕)

In traditional society, the role of females is to be a good wife and a loving mother. For a woman, the most important identity was to be a wife to someone, and a mother to someone, not to exist as an independent individual. Even down to the present day, there are certain social norms for women that stubbornly cling [to these ideas].

In most families, if both husband and wife are busy with work, one of them must make sacrifices for the sake of raising children. And in China it is essentially women to make this sacrifice to take care of the family. Such sacrifices are often seen as having been voluntary on the part of the woman, but in how many cases is it actually so? In most cases, they are either compelled or simply accept it.  

In modern society, therefore, requirements such as good wives and mothers remain the primary expectations in society and in families for the role of women. These expectations create immense pressure for women. If these role expectations are not met, these women will possibly face condemnation from their families and society.

Through long immersion in this social environment, as external expectations become internalized, women can easily tend to have an attitude of self-blame. When they focus on  work, they are bound to feel that they are inadequate as mothers and wives.

At the same time, under the influence of individualism in modern society, there is a sense among women and in society that they should be independent, that they should support themselves, that they should have their own careers.

And so the ideal modern woman in people’s minds must not only achieve in her own career, but must also be capable of caring for her family. To paraphrase the popular expression, she must be as beautiful as a flower, able to make money to support the family, and also must be able to work and raise a child.

For ordinary women, however, this is fundamentally a difficult task to achieve. Even in a modern society, then, there is a rather sizable gap between the ideal woman and the real woman. And the position for women at the bottom of society is even more difficult.

The requirements for women in our society at present are: on the one hand, to work hard to achieve in one’s own career; on the other hand, to be a good wife and mother, able to take care wholeheartedly for your children, running your family with color and vibrance. This is the reason why professional women are constantly asked the question: How do you balance family and career? Have men ever been asked such a question in the workplace?

The answer is that these are impossible to balance. If you invest more in your career, this necessarily means investing less in your family. And if you must invest in both, then you will ultimately be exhausted and anxious. After all, women are not made of iron. The expression, “Women are weak, but the mother is strong,” is chiefly used to kidnap women psychologically. I can’t stand expressions like this, which on the surface purport to support women, praising their glory and selflessness, but which actually suppress women and transfer pressure onto their backs.  

When all is said and done, there is no way to balance career and family. The more time and energy is invested in one’s career, the less it can be invested in one’s family. Many families choose to have their women give in unconditionally and relinquish their normal social intercourse for the sake of the family – something that is greatly unfair to women. This is not to say that they shouldn’t invest in their families, but just to ask: Why is it always the woman who must sacrifice?

When women must sacrifice themselves, they are not the only ones who pay the price. We often ignore the fact that the poor condition facing women means that the effect they have on children, on the family and on society is counter-productive. A woman’s wholesale return to the family not only narrows her world substantially, but so-called ‘widowed parenting’ (丧偶式的育儿) – is disadvantageous to the raising of children. The father’s relative  absence in the development of the child notwithstanding, how can a woman surviving in a narrow world cultivate children with broader visions [of the world]? In such a situation, we can suppose that it is difficult to ensure the physical and mental health of children is difficult to achieve.

. . . .

In family life, both partners need to make concessions or negotiate. At some stage, one party may invest more in the upkeep of the family, while at another stage, the other steps in, taking on more or sharing the family responsibilities together. Women should not be required to devote their full effort [to their families], or to invest more [than their partners].

Located in Xi’an, Da Ci’en Temple (大慈恩寺) is one of Chinese oldest Buddhist sites, its history stretching back 1,360 years. The temple is home to the Great Wild Goose Pagoda, a five-story structure built in the 600s to house religious texts and artifacts brought to China from India by Xuanzang, a scholar and pilgrim who departed from the ancient Tang imperial capital of Chang’an (Xi’an) in 629 AD to make a colorful journey of Buddhist study that lasted almost 17 years and covered scores of kingdoms in Central Asia and India.

Having distinguished himself in India for his scholarship, Xuanzang eventually returned with great fanfare to the imperial capital. As abbot of Da Ci’en Temple – declining Emperor Taizong’s offer of an official position – he devoted the rest of his life to the translation of core works of Buddhism from sanskrit, including the most essential Mahayana scriptures. Xuanzang’s return to China marked a new era for translation, a time of immense cultural exchange. Centuries later, the monk’s legendary pilgrimage would inspire one of the great classical novels of Chinese literature, Wu Cheng’en’s Journey to the West.

What role does Da Ci’en Temple play in China today? It remains an active center of Buddhist study, and it is of course a major tourist attraction, granted UNESCO World Heritage status in 2014. In the midst of now worsening relations between China and India, Da Ci’en Temple also remains a symbol of friendship and cultural exchange between the two countries. When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an official visit to China in May 2015, he paid a visit to the temple.

But Da Ci’en Temple can also be understood as a symbol today of just how deeply the politics and ideology of the Chinese Communist Party have permeated all aspects of Chinese life, including religion.

“The Party leads all,” Xi Jinping has regularly asserted. And on the afternoon of November 6, the Da Ci’en Temple organized a study conference attended by all “long-term residents and employees” that “led all in the devoted study” of the Communique of the Fifth Plenum of the 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, and of the official People’s Daily commentary, “Struggling to Seize New Victories in the Comprehensive Building of a Modern Socialist Nation” (奋力夺取全面建设社会主义现代化国家新胜利).

A summary of the study session posted to the official WeChat account of the Da Ci’en Temple on November 6 quoted the temple’s master (大和尚) as saying that “the Fifth Plenum was an important and comprehensive meeting with historical significance that will usher our country into a new stage of development, at a critical moment in the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people.”

The master demanded, according to the post, that “everyone must mobilize all positive factors, grasping the essence of the plenary session, unifying thought and action around the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech, and continuing to use the spirit of the plenary session in carrying out work and guiding practice.”

The next section of the report mentions the need to “further enhance” the “Four Consciousnesses,” “Four Confidences” and “Two Protections.” The “Four Consciousnesses” and “Four Confidences” are phrases critical to the consolidation of Xi Jinping’s personal power as leader of the CCP. The former refers to 1) the need to maintain political integrity, 2) think in big-picture terms, 3) uphold the leadership core (meaning Xi Jinping and his inner circle), and 4) keep in alignment with the CCP’s central leadership. The latter refers to: 1) confidence in the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, 2) confidence in the theories of the CCP, 3) confidence in the system (meaning the system of governance of the CCP), and 4) confidence in China’s unique civilization.

Together with the “Two Confidences” – which point to the need to 1) protect the core status of General Secretary Xi Jinping, and 2) protect the central, unified leadership of the Central Committee of the CCP – these phrases form the so-called “442” formula now used to signal loyalty to Xi Jinping and his leadership of the CCP.

Revealingly, the 442 formula is linked in the post directly with the need to “make steady progress in promoting the Sinicization of  Buddhism” (稳步推进佛教中国化进程).

Da Ci’en Temple is a prime example in point of how Buddhism has undergone a process of Sinicization since the end of the Han dynasty in the second century AD, and Xuanzang was of course himself a central figure in this process. Unmistakably, however, this latest phase of “Sinicization” is about the re-framing of Buddhism around the political imperatives of the Chinese Communist Party.

It is the CCP’s hope that Buddhism continue to thrive as a key aspect of China’s resplendent traditional culture — so long as Xi Jinping is securely at its core.

[Featured Image: Da Ci’en Temple photographed in 2009. Photo by Kevin Poh available at Flickr.com under CC license.]