The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is intensifying its crackdown on intellectuals in China, with a new trend emerging where even experts and scholars deeply entrenched within the system are facing consequences. What are the underlying reasons for this crackdown? Where do these scholars who hold opposing views to the CCP leadership within the system go from here?
On the eve of the 75th anniversary of the CCP’s founding, a personnel “earthquake” shook the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Institute of Economics, where the entire leadership team including the institute director, deputy director, party secretary, and deputy director were all replaced. Hong Kong media cited the trigger for this event as former deputy director Zhu Hengpeng’s private criticisms of Xi Jinping’s economic policies being viewed as “wildly inappropriate towards the Central Government.”
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal on September 24th, insiders revealed that Zhu Hengpeng was detained this spring for expressing comments in a private WeChat chat group criticizing the weakness of the Chinese economy and making subtle criticisms about Xi Jinping’s personal life and decisions.
Several scholars with positions differing from the official stance on China-Russia relations have also faced repercussions. Radio Free Asia cited two unnamed sources on October 4th, reporting that Hu Wei, a professor at the CCP Shanghai Municipal Party School, received severe warnings and was demoted from his professorship to immediate retirement between June and September for publicly advocating for a separation between China (CCP) and Russia.
Hu Wei, aged 60, held prominent positions such as Vice Chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the State Council’s Counselor’s Office, President of the Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, and Director of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute. In an article on the US-based “China-US Focus” website, he stated, “China must not be tied to Putin and must cut ties as soon as possible,” warning of increased isolation under the encirclement of the US and the West. He emphasized, “Regardless of the size of a country, it cannot go against the development of human civilization.”
While the CCP claims neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its ambiguous support towards Russia as the aggressor has drawn criticism from Western countries.
Furthermore, a post on Chinese political commentator Sima Pingbang’s Weibo account dated September 11th showed that retired professor Gong Fangbin, currently managed by the Tiancun Military Rest Home, was subject to an expanded meeting convened by the Party General Branch of the Military Rest Home, citing two past violations during his tenure and more recently online posts deemed as “erroneous remarks” contradicting the central directives in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
A search of the Weibo account “Gong Fangbin’s Thoughts” revealed it has been completely banned. In August, there were discussions online regarding “Gong Fangbin’s Thoughts,” with both Weibo and Toutiao platforms having been thoroughly banned.
In late July, the CCP’s initiative requesting feedback on internet accounts and certificates sparked massive public backlash, leading to sharp criticisms from some scholars on social media platforms. Professors Lao Dongyan and Huang Yusheng from Tsinghua University were both “muzzled” as a result.
Over the past year, with senior CCP officials promoting the “bright economic theory,” many Chinese economists have faced suppression for expressing views conflicting with official rhetoric. Individuals like Dan Bin, Chairman of Shenzhen Eastern Harbor Investment Management Company, financial blogger Hong Rong, Chen Shouhong, founder of the investment research institution Golonghui, renowned commentator Shui Pi, economist Ma Guangyuan, financial writer Wu Xiaobo, former senior investment advisor at Zhijin Wealth Securities Xu Xiaoyu, and Liu Jipeng, former dean of the School of Business at China University of Political Science and Law, have all encountered repercussions.
Even Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the CCP-favoring Global Times, was reportedly “muzzled” for three months until October 27th for interpreting the removal of “dominant public ownership” from the Third Plenary Session of the Twentieth Central Committee Report as “a historic change.”
Historical scholar Li Yuanhua in Australia told the Epoch Times that the core of CCP rule lies in absolute authority, not allowing any questioning but only praise. With China’s declining economy and deteriorating quality of life, discontent exists across all levels of society. The CCP is deeply fearful of intellectuals speaking out at this critical juncture as they could influence more people and awaken segments of the populace.
“When these scholars offer suggestions based on their knowledge and conscience, they often challenge the absolute authority that the CCP desires,” Li Yuanhua stated.
Following reports of the “political purging” at the CASS Institute of Economics due to Zhu Hengpeng’s “inappropriate remarks towards the Central Government,” CASS President and CCP Party Secretary Gao Xiang stated during a meeting on September 20th that the selection of new members for the CASS Academic Division must uphold “serving Xi Jinping,” and newly elected division members must be “absolutely loyal.”
China has always had intellectuals who bow to the powerful. For instance, Hu Xijin recently expressed through former dean of the School of Business at China University of Political Science and Law, Liu Jipeng that “I do need to strengthen my studies, to fully and accurately understand the meaning of the Party Central Committee’s documents…”
Research Fellow at the Cross-Strait Policy Association and Director of the China Research Center at a Taiwan think tank, Wu Sezhi, told the Epoch Times that these purges may stem from internal factional struggles within the party.
“Chinese scholars and experts engaged in research or teaching are under CCP control and are required to uphold the Party’s basic positions, as these research units primarily serve the Party. These scholars previously played a role as advisors on CCP economic policies, but with Xi Jinping now holding sole power, their counsel may not align with his needs, or they may be deemed as opposing forces against Xi Jinping,” Wu Sezhi noted.
Wu Sezhi explained that the CCP is facing internal and external pressures, with increasing international hostility towards the CCP, especially in light of the China-Russia alliance facing resistance from democratic nations. With China’s economy seemingly lacking a revival opportunity and Xi Jinping leaning towards a planned economy, internal conflicts have arisen, as indicated by the postponement of the Third Plenary Session of the Twentieth Central Committee to July this year, speculatively linked to internal discord within the CCP.
He believed that Xi Jinping is currently purging individuals diverging from his direction, not only targeting political forces within the party but also including scholars and experts around the power circle. As Xi’s sense of insecurity deepens, suspicions grow, and in the future, more individuals serving as advisors may become targets of purges.
Recently, Ted Xie, a professor at the Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina, publicly urged Chinese intellectuals to continue expressing their opinions under secure conditions, suggesting that they can use pseudonyms to speak out on international platforms.
Wu Sezhi mentioned that it’s challenging for Chinese scholars to maintain a certain degree of freedom of speech to preserve academic neutrality under CCP control, which is a pity. Having the opportunity to speak out under pseudonyms externally in the future is beneficial, but leaving China is also an option.
“Only by leaving China can scholars engage in more objective research or provide the international community with more diverse research outcomes. Given Xi Jinping’s control over the CCP or China, staying in China may hinder the social responsibility that intellectuals should have,” Wu Sezhi added.
Li Yuanhua stated that while the situation for Chinese intellectuals is challenging, they should understand a logic that as long as the CCP’s autocratic rule persists, they won’t have true academic freedom. Whether they are inside or outside China, they should help the public understand the true nature of the CCP, leading to the collective abandonment of the CCP. Only after the CCP collapses can they utilize their knowledge for the benefit of society, the Chinese people, and humanity.