Today's Links: Looking back at yesterday

Many have made great analytical points about the absence of a BJ apology. I'll just add two more:

1. To further advance the cost-benefit analysis to CCP: an admission of guilt would please a small number of intellectuals and elite, but would perhaps shaken the blind confidence of a far greater number of, on the one hand, the younger generation, and, on the other, the less-educated.

2. Many of today's social problems have to do with the conflict of an overall responsible ---more or less---approach of the Central Government and the more predatory practices of the local cadres---for instance, land grabs, police brutality, environmental protection, etc. The effective control of the Central Government is tenuous, at best.

And June 4 in 1989, as a manifestation of the political struggles in Beijing, did see huge tensions between the often greater tolerance of the local politicians and the hard line adopted by the Politburo, which was resolved by the latter asserting its control via its firm hold on the military among other superior resources, and followed by subsequent bureaucratic purges of the local leadership. 20 years later, on the one hand, CCP cannot afford to lose its dwindling authority in relation to the local governments, even through a mere nod to the past. On the other, Chinese elites (who are not already in the Government's pocket) would hesitate to see the Central's position weaken in the future power balances, for, like it not, the Central's policies are not all that bad in the reining-in of local excesses.

I would argue that Chinese intellectuals' quietude on this matter is far more nuanced than simply "cowardice" or "indifference".

Who'da thought: Hong Kong...the conscience of China.

what is the Washington Post talking about?! I have read the BBC, Guardian and FT websites everyday for god knows how long, including the articles on Tian an men and not had a problem.