Tien Han Upsets The Leaders

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31077, 4 June 1966, Page 12

Tien Han Upsets The Leaders

(From a "Sydney Morning Herald’’ special correspondent) A LEADING Chinese author is in trouble with the Communist authorities because he has made veiled criticisms of present-day leaders and officials in his latest play.

He is Tien Han, a member of the Communist Party and one of the leading members of China's theatrical circle. He is the chairman of the Union of Chinese Drama Workers and vice-chairman of the All-China Federation of Literary and Art Circles. He also wrote the words of the song “March of the Volunteers" which is the national anthem of China. Tien Han wrote a historical play entitled “Hsieh Yaohuan,” set in the reign of China’s one and only woman empress, Wu Tse-tien, in the Tang dynasty. There have been other empresses in Chinese history who have held power without occupying the throne. Wu Tse-tien was the exception. In the play, Tien Han presents her as a good ruler though deserving of some criticism. He presents her as a defender and representative of the interests of the peasants.

“Contrary To Fact”

This is where Tien Han comes into conflict with the Chinese authorities who describe this view as “basically contrary to historical fact" If Tien had committed no greater sin, his play might have passed with no more than a mild stricture. But the Chinese censors came to the conclusion that in writing his play Tien intended to draw parallels between the characters in his play and the present rulers of China. In his play, Tien has the Empress Wu accepting advice

given by Hsieh Yao-huan who acts as a spokesman for the people and denounces injustices by the court. The Communist authorities believe Tien in writing the play was himself adopting the role of the spokesman and that he was addressing himself to the present Chinese leadership. The Communists reject the view that the people of present-day China need a spokesman. The Peking Government claims that it fully reflects and expresses the will of the people and that it acts in full conformity with the people’s wishes.

The Chinese critics also denounce Tien Han for propagating the idea in the play that “the socialist boat will capsize” and for implying that lower-rank cadres have been abusing privilege and power.

Not The First

One critic wrote of the play: “By making veiled criticism of contemporary people with ancient people, he gives us a •warning,’ saying that if we ‘continue to favour and trust the crafty and trample upon the loyal,’ the ‘good laws and fine ideas’ cannot be implemented and ‘there will be plenty of trouble in the country.’ What does he mean by this? Is Comrade Tien Han actually trying to imitate us by saying that the people want to rise in revolt?” Tien is not the first Chinese playwright or author to fall from favour. Only recently the Chinese newspaper, “Liberation Army Daily,” stated that “ever since the founding of new China, an anti-party line has existed in literary and art circles, an anti-social-ist thread that runs counter to Mao Tse-tung’s thinking.”

But while the Chinese in their current literary rectification campaign are cracking down on “bourgeois and modern revisionist conceptions.” Hen Han is one of the few

who has been publicly pilloried and repeatedly attacked.

Partly this is because he is such a prominent figure in drama and literary circles. But there is another reason: in the old days when China was ruled by dynastic emperors, prominent writers published novels or produced plays intended to “hold up a mirror to the face of society.” These were meant to reflect public concern at the decadence, corruption or moral laxity of the monarchy and his entourage and to serve as a warning that unless reforms were instituted the dynasty might be overthrown. Tien Han has been accused of making a similar criticism of the rulers in Peking because of growing injustices and abuse of power at lower levels. Observers of the Chinese scene in Hong Kong believe it is this aspect of his criticism rather than his interpretation of the character of Empress Wu that has caused the greatest indignation in Peking. There are also other reasons why the authorities are believed to be considering his relegation.

Nothing Missed

He has advocated the uncritical preservation and the “wholesale inheritance” of China's theatrical legacy, as well as the promotion of traditional plays of the feudal era. In other words, he wants to see staged the uncensored plays or versions of famous Chinese plays and opera. The Chinese authorities oppose this and have called for the rewriting of old plays for mass consumption to show up in a good light those who opposed landlordism and capitalism and to recast as villlans, landlords and capitalists and their ilk.

This is all part of a major indoctrination campaign which has been going on ever since ths Communists came to

power to expose the traditional enemies of China’s present-day society. Peking never misses an opportunity to do so and in every form of cultural pursuit, in drama, literature, opera, puppetry and even storytelling, this theme is hammered home.

Reading Restricted

This does not mean that the original versions of famous Chinese plays and novels are banned, but their reading is generally restricted to literary critics or ideological experts. When members of the general public ask to read these works, they are advised to do so in conjunction with a commentary prepared by the Communist regime.

Tien Han is thus regarded as a dangerous rebel. His play has been criticised in the Chinese press as a "big poisonous weed”—and this five years after it was written. This may suggest that the Chinese censors were slow to realise its Import or else they feared their criticisms would have draw attention to Tien’s grievances at a time when China was suffering from economic hardships brought about by the failure of the Second Five-Year plan and the withdrawal of Soviet aid and food shortages caused by natural calamities.