One-child policy – Welcome liberalization does not come without risk

English>>China Politics

Editor's Pick

One-child policy – Welcome liberalization does not come without risk

By David Furguson (People's Daily Online) 09:56, November 26, 2013

Email|Print|Comments

twitter

facebook

Sina Microblog

From November 9-12, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party (3rd Plenum) took place. China has an endearing, if rather trying habit, of insisting that events in the country have “captured the attention of the world”. But in this case, there is no subjective bias. There has been a huge amount of international speculation and comment on the hundreds of measures that were discussed and announced in Beijing last week - much of it focused on economic reform at both national and local level.

But one that has attracted more attention than most, both in China and elsewhere, is a social measure – the change to the one-child policy. In future, couples with one spouse who is an only child will be allowed to have two children.

The one-child policy has long been a favorite stick for western critics to beat the back of China. It is portrayed as illiberal in purpose, draconian in extent, and cruel in implementation.

Part of this is due to simple ignorance. The one-child policy did not come into force until 1979, at the same time as the start of China’s reform and opening up. Many foreign critics are simply unaware of the wide range of exemptions to the policy – for ethnic minorities, for rural families whose first child is a girl or is handicapped in some way, for families in which both spouses themselves are only children. In 2007 Zhang Weiqing, Minister for Population Planning, released figures indicating that almost two-thirds of families benefited from exemptions to the rule.

A second aspect of the problem is a more willful misrepresentation. Another favorite target of China’s critics which is often tied to the one-child policy is the Hukou system, which limits the extent to which people can migrate and settle within the country. Together, these are seen as twin pillars of oppression.

The truth is that together they have played the role of foundation stones of the stability that has helped China to enjoy its unprecedented period of economic growth. One does not have far to look to see the consequences of uncontrolled population growth and unmanaged migration – how many of India’s major metropolises are surrounded by a sprawling cardboard slumdog shanty-town filled with the desperate poor?

Even the poorest in China at least have the capability to sustain themselves through subsistence farming. It is understandable that any individual will want to do whatever he can to better himself, but what would be gained by allowing such people to desert the countryside in their millions and make their way to the cities in pursuit of ‘a better life’ which at the current state of China’s development is an illusion? Jobs for the minimal skills they have to offer are few and far between. It takes hundreds of generations to learn how to farm, but you can forget how to do it in one. Even if you could provide those destitute Indians with land to till, the tools to work it, and seed to sow, how likely is it that they would know what to do with them?

【1】【2】【3】