[RECAP] Beyond The Great Wall #9 : China and Issues Amidst the New Normal

On Saturday (11/7), Institute of International Studies (IIS UGM) organized its bimonthly discussion forum Beyond the Great Wall/BTGW virtually. The ninth edition of BTGW invited Julian Lilihata, MA, alumna of Tsinghua University and Arrizal Anugerah Jaknanihan, undergraduate student of Department of International Relations UGM. The discussion titled “China: Issues Amidst the New Normal” tried to illustrate the challenges China is facing in the era of new normal, while still fighting the relentless COVID-19 pandemic.

Julian began the discussion, “The Second Wave of Coronavirus in Beijing”, by describing the situation of the first wave pandemic in China. When the first outbreak occurred in Wuhan, there had been a mistake in declaring the outset of the virus spread as a result of obscure reporting. According to South China Morning Post, the first case was discovered on 17^th November 2019, while Wall Street Journal reported that the first case was detected on 10^th December 2019. At the dawn of the outbreak, eight doctors tried to warn the public and conduct research on the virus. However, they were stopped by the Wuhan Public Security Bureau and were called to sign a letter declaring their involvement in illegal activity that disrupted public order. The signing was aired via Xinwen Lianbo.

Serious actions were only taken in the beginning of 2020. On 1^st January 2020, the authorities closed Huanan Seafood Market (where the first cases of COVID-19 were discovered). Two weeks later, massive temperature measurement was conducted in several public spaces. People with high body temperature were immediately taken to the hospital. In Beijing, the first two cases were identified on 19^th January 2020. Five days following the discovery, plenty of prevention measures were applied, namely days off work, provision of face masks and hand sanitizers, temperature measurement, disinfection, centralized treatment for COVID-19 patients in 89 hospitals, and termination of religious events and long-distance transportation services. Activities in the week prior to Chinese New Year holiday—from 24^th January to 2^nd February—were major factors in the spike of cases, in which people still travel with public transportations and go on vacations despite lockdown in Wuhan beginning on 23^rd January.

Following the Chinese New Year influx, the first wave of COVID-19 cases in Beijing peaked on 5^th February with additional 114 cases. In response to the phenomenon, the government put various prevention measures in place. In order to disseminate precise and accurate information about government’s discretion regarding the pandemic, mobile application Beijing Health Kit Apps was launched as a medium of communication between the government and the people. The app also served as a digital identification card that can be used in public facilities. Moreover, purchase of fever medicine required identification card as an attempt to record possible COVID-19 cases. The Beijing Social Security Bureau also provided protection for dual-income families. As a result of such fast response, the curve between the first and last two weeks of COVID-19 cases in Beijing fell.

Subsequent to the outbreak, numerous adaptations and changes were made, such as new eating manner and change in reckless spitting habit. Changes were also made in foreign flights, in which foreign citizens were suggested not to fly back to Beijing as many cases were “imported”, meaning that many were transmitted from foreign citizens. The government even stopped direct flights to Beijing and diverted the flights to surrounding cities with less COVID-19 cases. Three days after COVID-19 cases peaked in Beijing, the ban on foreign citizens entry were imposed on 27^th March.

By the end of the first wave, COVID-19 death rate was lower compared to SARS 2003 by virtue of maximal treatment and aggressive prevention policy enforcement. Moreover, digitalization played an important role, as it effectively reduced direct contact through practice of cashless transactions, simplified identification process through digital identification card, and assisted information distribution via Beijing Health Kit App used daily by the people. The presence of volunteers also contributed immensely to alleviating the spread of COVID-19, as they helped keep record of the people in quarantine, distributed food, and assisted in doing house chores unable to be done by those confined. As much as the pandemic affected daily lives directly, it also affected the people indirectly. It roused the people’s quest for rights of free speech, particularly in the case of Dr. Li Wenliang’s death.

After the first wave ended, signs of normal activities that were seen in the first week of June didn’t last long. The following week, three new cases were discovered, two of them found in Fengtai Meat Food Research Center. On 13^th June, another six cases from local transmission in Xinfadi Market—the biggest grocery market in Asia—located in Fengtai District were detected. Responding to the newfound cases, the government immediately took action. Three core steps were taken: sweeping, testing, and isolation. The testing became more massive in the second wave, in which, a week after the new cases emerged, 2.3 million people had been tested. The government also applied wartime mechanism in management standards. In the third week of June, public spaces were, again, closed. Correspondingly, several responsible government officials and authorities of the Xinfadi Market were fired. The second wave was quite distinct compared to the first, as the testing was more aggressive and massive, both on those who were directly and indirectly affected. Several other measures also made the second wave stood out from the first, with extended quarantine duration from 14 days to 21 days, stricter track recording of people, and local isolation, as well as different types of isolation depending on the level of risk: high, moderate, and low.

Arrizal delivered the second presentation titled “From Beijing to the Streets of Hong Kong: How Students Form the Democratization Movement in Contemporary China”. Despite the pandemic, the people of Hong Kong persisted to commemorate the Tiananmen 1989 Tragedy on 4^th June. In China, the Tiananmen Protest had become resilience symbol of democratization movements. Though the discussion on democratization is still taboo in the Chinese government, democracy has long become a part of the Chinese national identity discourse. Before the Chinese Civil War was won by the Chinese Communist Party/ CCP in 1949, Chinese leaders then attempted to adopt democracy as one of the nation’s principles.

Protests—mainly the ones driven by university students—has been occurring in China for a long time, although not always meant to go against the authorities. In mainland China, two phases of protests occurred: protests supported by the political elite in Mao’s era (1949-1976) and 1989-now; and protests organized against the political elite in the era of Republic (1911-1949) until the early post-Mao years (1976-1989). Despite being different in characteristics, these protests should be viewed in unity as a continuous series of events.

Under Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese political system underwent a transition phase and no longer focused on ideological aspects. Such character promoted reform in the field of politics. Unlike in Mao’s presidency, the CCP in Deng’s era encouraged the public to express their opinion. This period is often referred to as the Beijing Spring—derived from the term Arab Spring—as it gave space for pro-democracy movements to rise. One of the most influential pro-democracy symbols were the Xidan Walls illustrating CCP’s “openness” to proceed with the rejuvenation agenda.

One of the most influential student protests in modern Chinese history were the May Fourth 1919. The movement was initiated to counter the outcome of Versailles Treaty which was viewed as an attempt to turn China over to Japan and western countries. The May Fourth became a pillar for the following student protests and eventually prompted the nationalist movement in China. In 1986, students from all over China organized a protest demanding a political reform. The protest secured an indirect support from Hu Yaobang, then CCP’s secretary general. Three years later, the Tiananmen Protest were organized to commemorate his passing. The occurrence was the accumulation and peak of small student protests since 1976.

According to Arrizal, there were—at least—six reasons why protests were often organized by university students. First, the protest culture, which was born in the era of nationalist movements, kept driving reform movements in universities established in said reformation era. Also, presence of moral support and exclusive identity of university students supported such protests. Third, centralized location allowed easier assembly; in 1930, 60% of Chinese students were only concentrated in two cities, Beijing and Shanghai. Fourth, university students, unlike other repressed groups in the civil society, had self-determining characteristics as a group. They were also privileged with exposure to ideas of democracy through formal education and western dissemination. Lastly, university students had weaker bonds with the state ever since the Imperial Civil Examination was abolished in 1905.

Wrapping up his explanation, Arrizal stated that student protests following the May Fourth 1919, Tiananmen 1989, and Hong Kong protests can’t be viewed as entirely separate movements. Said protests should be seen in unity of a long-established democratization movement. Different political, social, and economic condition in China today also influenced the existence of similar protests in the 21^st century.

Writer: Denise Michelle
Translator: Medisita Febrina