Long time readers may recall a posting from about a year ago about the beating death of a teen at an internet reform camp in China. Parents bring their children to such camps to help them break addictions to the internet. Until that point, it was either an unwritten rule that it was okay to use corporal punishment to 'help' the youngsters or it was merely overlooked that camps were doing so. Following that tragedy, however, the use of physical punishments at the camps was supposedly banned.
Enforcement of that law and its preventative impact are sure to come under scrutiny however following reports of a second death. In the latest incident, a 16 year old was allegedly beaten with a plastic pipe, a wooden baton and handcuffs after his refusal to participate in a running excercise. Chen Shi was at the camp after his mother convinced him to go by telling him she was bringing him to study IT. Chen Shi was only at the camp for two days before he died.
The situation highlights some of the problems facing China in its ascent to the status of true global superpower. While its economy is opening up and its middle class is expanding rapidly, the authoritarian nature of the state continues to cause problems on both the local and national stages. While spending time in America, foreigners might be shocked to see how much television, computer and video game time is spent by the country's youth. As an American myself, even I am shocked to see it. This has lead to direct problems with the health of the nation, as children will often spend hours playing a football video game instead of playing football.
However, in China, it is not clear that it is merely a desire to keep the current generation of teens healthy that is motivating a desire to keep them off of the internet. It is very likely that it is merely another form of control placed on the citizenry. As noted above, the law itself should come under scrutiny. However, more than the law itself should be made to stand the glare of the global community. Indeed, it is important to question the motivations behind the infrastructure which necessitated it.
For wouldn't it be possible that children would not become 'addicted to the internet' if there were other sources of information about the outside world available to them? And, even in a nation as large as China, the fact that there is such an overwhelming problem that hundreds of these camps exist gives one pause; just who decided that they were so critical? Why are there no such wide-spread examples of other states feeling compelled to put this type of infrastructure in place?
As pointed out in the original post on this topic, it is very possible that this camp system is no more than an attempt by the state to keep its citizenry under close watch and ensure that its impressionable youth are impressed by the 'right' things. This list would presumably not include reports from western news outlets, video of events embarrasing to the state and even blog posts such as this one. It isn't really so far fetched when one considers China's censorship of Google and attempts to access accounts of activists. And, though the government does not supervise or approve the camps, one is even located on a military base!
The conclusion today remains the same as it did the last time such a tragedy occurred. If China wants to be a fully-fledged member of the global elite, civil reform and openness must play a role in the transition. If not, investors, politicians, and its own citizens will remain weary of the sleeping dragon. Internet reform and access to information are only two areas where improvements can, and must, be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment