E se eu decidisse atacar os mandarins do Estado brasileiro e o seu custo para a sociedade, como de fato sempre o faço? Eu seria demitido de meu cargo de servidor do mesmo Estado, como sou hoje?
Ou eu seria demitido de meu cargo de professor numa universidade privada, como de fato exerço esse segundo cargo por vontade própria?
O que dizer, por exemplo, do enorme custo para a sociedade chinesa, pelo fato de ter de cobrir as despesas de 20 MILHÕES de mandarins oficiais, os atuais funcionários do Partido, que supostamente exercem "funções produtivas na sociedade"?
Um professor universitário que ousou questionar esse custo, e o seu efeito sobre a economia, foi não apenas demitido, como também bloqueado de qualquer possibilidade de continuar questionando esse fato pelas redes de comunicação social da China comunista.
O assunto é tratado neste "Editorial board" do Washington Post.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
A professor dared tell the truth in China — and was fired
CHINA’S COMMUNIST Party is a massive superstructure that dictates the direction of the government, the media, the economy, social policy, security and more. The party demands fealty and does not tolerate competition. It is also an enormous organization in its own right, with a ubiquitous, paternalistic
presence. That was on the mind of a Chinese professor,
Yang Shaozheng, when he dared publish an article last year questioning the enormous weight of the party as an organization on China’s economy.
The article came after Mr. Yang’s teaching at Guizhou University was abruptly suspended Nov. 10, as well as his supervision of graduate students. He had been a professor in good standing there for 11 years, teaching game theory and microeconomics. His questions about the Communist Party were trenchant. Mr. Yang
estimated that the party’s 20 million officials cost 2 trillion yuan, or about $291 billion annually, to support. In a separate, longer article, he pointed out that in two different countries, one with such a big burden and one without, the one without would do better. The country with a massive overlay of officials, he said, would eventually become “impoverished,” and he added, “As long as nothing changes, the society that has to sustain the more government officials will ultimately collapse.”
Mr. Yang’s first article was sent to the New Tang Dynasty television station, in New York City, that is affiliated with Falun Gong, a spiritual practice persecuted by the Chinese authorities. That surely got him in hot water. In both articles, he raised a discomfiting question for a party that presents itself as integral to China’s future: Why was no one talking about the economic burden of the party? The first article was
titled “Can We Really Leave the Party Out of Our Economic Research?”
The professor has slowly been receiving the party’s answer. His blog was shut down. His WeChat account was closed. His classrooms were silenced. His written appeal to the university president was ignored. Then, on Aug. 15, the university expelled him. According to the website
China Change, which chronicles human rights issues in China, the reasons given were his “long-running publication and spreading online of politically mistaken speech, writing a large number of politically harmful articles, and creating a deleterious influence on campus and in society.” He was also accused of “being unrepentant” and refusing to accept “educational help.”
Mr. Yang had clearly touched a third rail by raising even the slightest bit of doubt about whether the party was worth the expense. His ouster is another sign of a
campaign being undertaken across academia in China to squelch freedom of expression and inquiry. These are at the heart of learning and scholarship, and China will be the loser for undermining them. According to
China Change, the professor, shorn of his ability to speak out, turned to Twitter. His first tweet said: “The more I think, the more distressed I become. It’s hard to pursue the truth; it’s hard to speak the truth; and it’s hard to be a truthful person. Being able to freely express ourselves, without terror, is our dream.”