logo
How an agonising relationship with his dad shaped Xi Jinping

How an agonising relationship with his dad shaped Xi Jinping

The Party's Interests Come First By Joseph Torigian; Stanford University Press; 718 pages; US$50 and £41
BY THE time Xi Zhongxun was in his 70s, his teeth were failing him. Tough, chewy foods were a challenge, so during one family meal, he extracted some half-masticated garlic ribs from his mouth and gave them to his son to finish. Xi Jinping – by then in his mid-30s and a rising star in the Chinese Communist Party – accepted the morsel without hesitation or complaint. He took the remains of the ribs and swallowed them.
Xi Jinping was used to leftovers. As a boy, he would wash in his father's bathwater. (The next morning the water would be used for a third time, to launder the family's clothes.) He also understood the importance of deference, for Xi Zhongxun had taught him that children who did not respect their parents were doomed to fail as adults. Every Chinese new year, Xi Jinping would perform the traditional kowtow ritual, prostrating himself before his parent in a display of reverence. If his technique was off, his father would beat him.
These stories are recounted in The Party's Interests Come First, a biography of Xi Zhongxun by Joseph Torigian, an American scholar. Torigian draws on a decade of research using Chinese, English and Russian sources, including official documents, newspapers, diaries and interviews. The book is valuable not only for its portrait of its subject – who was a major figure in the party's history in his own right – but also for its insights into his progeny, now the supreme leader.
As China's unquestioned ruler, possibly for life, Xi Jinping is arguably the most important person in the world. He will be wielding power long after Donald Trump has retired to Mar-a-Lago. Yet information about him is paltry. His every movement is choreographed by a fawning propaganda machine; in the accounts of his life, interesting details are expunged by overbearing censors.
The book is valuable not only for its portrait of its subject – who was a major figure in the party's history in his own right – but also for its insights into his progeny, now the supreme leader.
There are only a handful of ways to understand Xi Jinping, which involve poring over party records or leaked speeches, learning about key moments in Chinese history that he lived through and studying the people who most influenced him. Few people have shaped Xi Jinping more than his father. Xi Zhongxun's relationship to the party and his thwarted ambitions offer clues as to what his son wants for China.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Like many of his generation, Xi Zhongxun's life was marked by tragedy. Born in 1913 into a family of peasants, he was an ardent believer in communism from a young age. His belief strengthened in his adolescent years, he said, as he witnessed 'the tragic mistreatment of the labouring people'. He took part in violent student protests in 1928 and was imprisoned by the then anti-communist authorities. Xi Zhongxun's parents died when he was a teenager: the result, he thought, of the stress caused by his jailing. Two of his sisters died of hunger.
After the civil war, Xi Zhongxun rose fast through the party's ranks and 'entered the very top echelon of the government', Torigian writes. Then, in 1962, he was purged by Mao Zedong for supporting the publication of a novel Mao considered subversive. Four years later, China's paranoid dictator launched the Cultural Revolution, unleashing frenzied gangs who killed between 500,000 and two million people and displaced many more.
Xi Zhongxun was kidnapped, held in solitary confinement and tortured. Around 20,000 people were targeted for having supported Xi Zhongxun, the author estimates, and at least 200 'were beaten to death, driven mad or seriously injured'.
His family suffered, too. They were forced to denounce Xi Zhongxun; one of his daughters committed suicide. A teenager at the time, Xi Jinping was branded a 'capitalist roader' (essentially, a traitor) because of his father's disgrace. On one occasion, the young Xi Jinping was forced to wear a heavy steel cap and subjected to public humiliation. A crowd ridiculed him, shouting slogans including 'Down with Xi Jinping'. His mother joined in the jeering.
Xi Jinping was thrown in prison, where he slept on an icy floor during the winter. 'My entire body was covered in lice,' he wrote. One time, Xi Jinping managed to escape and make his way home. He begged his mother for some food. Not only did she refuse, she also reported him to the authorities, fearful that she would be arrested otherwise. Crying, Xi Jinping ran out into the rain.
What doesn't kill you
The anguish did not stop there. In 1969, aged 15, Xi Jinping was 'sent down' to the countryside with millions of other young people exiled from the cities. He lived in a cave in a desolate part of the country, where girls were sold into marriage for a dowry calculated by their weight. 'Even if you do not understand, you are forced to understand,' he later recalled of that time. 'It forces you to mature earlier.'
Why did both men stay committed to a party that had caused them so much pain? Torigian suggests the answer may lie in What Is to Be Done?, a novel of 1863 by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, a Russian journalist. In the story, a young man named Rakhme sleeps on a bed of nails to strengthen his will. Xi Jinping imagined that he was Rakhme as he endured those cold floors, lice, rainstorms and blizzards. Both father and son may have been influenced by a Bolshevik political culture that glamorised 'forging' – the idea that suffering strengthens your willpower and dedication to the cause.
Throughout his life, Xi Jinping has been loyal to two groups that demand absolute obedience: the family and the party. Both were often 'unfairly' strict, Xi Jinping has said, yet this did not dent his loyalty. Torigian shows how Xi Jinping balances dedication and realism. 'If I were born in the United States, I would not join the Communist Party of the United States. I would join the Democratic Party or Republican Party,' Xi Jinping once told Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister at the time. Abe concluded that Xi joined the party not because of ideology, but as a way to gain power.
After Xi Zhongxun was rehabilitated under Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s, he was put in charge of Guangdong province and began to liberalise the local economy. When Xi Jinping became general secretary of the party in 2012 – the top job in China – many expected him to be an economic reformer like his father. But the assumption that Xi Jinping was any kind of liberal was wrong: he is not interested in creating an open and free country.
He believes in restoring China's greatness and thinks that, to this end, the party should use any means necessary. His experience of injustice has not taught him that arbitrary power is undesirable; only that it should be wielded less chaotically than it was under Mao, by someone wise like himself.
In a little over a decade, Xi Jinping has become the most autocratic Chinese leader since Mao. His regime ruthlessly represses dissidents at home and activists abroad; it enforces a stifling political conformity, forcing many to study 'Xi Jinping Thought'. Such methods are justified, he thinks, because he sees himself as a man of destiny, with a duty to generations past and future. He often speaks of himself as a protector of Chinese civilisation. 'Whoever throws away those things left behind by our ancestors is a traitor,' he told Ma Ying-jeou, a former president of Taiwan.
That attitude is apparent in Xi Jinping's Taiwan policy, which bears his father's influence. Towards the end of his career, Xi Zhongxun was put in charge of unification with Taiwan. The party had ambitious dreams of reclaiming the island, which has been self-governing since China's civil war ended in 1949 and the losing side, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party), retreated there. But Xi Zhongxun died in 2002 with this aspiration unfulfilled.
His son yearns to fulfil it. Xi Jinping has made it plain he wants to take back Taiwan. Those who rule China must remember that 'the territory left by the ancestors must not shrink', he said in 2012. When or how he may try to seize Taiwan – through war, a blockade or other means – is unclear.
What is clear, though, is that his family's suffering has shaped Xi Jinping's dark view of politics. 'For people who rarely encounter power and who are distant from it, they always see these things as very mysterious and fresh,' Xi Jinping once said. 'But what I saw was more than the surface of things. I didn't just see the power, flowers, glory and applause. I also saw the cowsheds (where people were confined during the Cultural Revolution) and the fickleness of the world.' Xi Jinping's formative years made him clear-eyed and cynical, hardened and imperious. The worldview he learned from his father will affect not only 1.4 billion Chinese people, but the whole of humanity.
©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Shangri-La Dialogue 2025: Did China really take a back seat by not sending its defence minister?
Shangri-La Dialogue 2025: Did China really take a back seat by not sending its defence minister?

Straits Times

time14 minutes ago

  • Straits Times

Shangri-La Dialogue 2025: Did China really take a back seat by not sending its defence minister?

Major General Hu Gangfeng (C), Vice President of National Defense University of Chinese People's Liberation Army attends the Shangri-La Dialogue Summit in Singapore on May 31, 2025. (Photo by MOHD RASFAN / AFP) AFP Shangri-La Dialogue 2025 Did China take a back seat by not having its defence minister attend top security meet? SINGAPORE - Almost everyone was talking about China at the Shangri-La Dialogue this weekend. The main question: Why did Beijing opt not to send its defence minister? For the large part of the three-day security forum held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, China was not around to push back against the criticisms levied against it. But it appears that this was a calculated loss that Beijing is prepared to accept. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth mentioned China about 20 times in his speech on May 31, as he urged other countries in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defence expenditure, buy more American arms and buffer themselves against the 'threat' posed by China. French President Emmanuel Macron on May 30 invited the security policymakers and military chiefs attending the forum to think of Russia's aggression in Ukraine as what China might do to Taiwan or the Philippines. The role of the Chinese defence minister is to conduct defence diplomacy and explain China's security positions to other countries. Had he been at this weekend's top security gathering in Singapore, Beijing would have had the podium for over an hour to respond to Washington and address the concerns raised by other delegates. Not this year. For the first time since 2019, China's defence minister did not attend. This meant the platform set aside for China had to be downsized accordingly. Its delegation chief – a military scholar with the rank of a one-star general – spoke in a smaller room to a smaller audience for a shorter time than the minister would have had. He was one of five panellists at one of the three concurrent sessions at the end of the day on May 31. As the vice-president of the People's Liberation Army National Defence University, Rear-Admiral Hu Gangfeng is not involved in combat operations or policymaking. He gave a brief response to Mr Hegseth's speech, dismissing his criticisms as 'unfounded accusations' and going against the spirit of the forum, to reduce and not magnify differences. The Chinese embassy in Singapore, which belongs to the ministry of foreign affairs and usually remains backstage at the defence ministry-driven Shangri-La Dialogue, made the unusual move of posting a response to Mr Hegseth's speech on its Facebook page, describing it as 'steeped in provocations and instigation' and a relentless hyping of the China threat. But China's overall response to its critics at the forum this year was markedly low-key compared with the year before. In 2024, the Chinese defence ministry officials briefed reporters hours after then US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin gave his speech; Minister Dong Jun held court at a plenary session the next day; and just before the forum ended, four or five military experts stood in different corners of a hotel room to answer journalists' questions almost in a speed-dating format. Did China shoot itself in the foot by ceding the space at the annual forum for the US to run with its narrative of rallying allies and partners in the region against Beijing? Not necessarily. A Chinese security expert explained that while the delivery style may differ, whoever represents China at the forum is expected to deliver the same talking points that have been pre-cleared by the senior leadership, at the apex of which is President Xi Jinping, the de facto commander-in-chief. He declined to be named as he was not cleared to speak to the media. Rear-Adm Hu alluded to this on May 31 when pressed to explain the absence of the defence minister: 'Objectively speaking, I'm the appointed person today to convey our thinking and exchange views with you all. I suppose you would've heard clearly our true thinking.' He argued that China's representation at the forum changes over the years, and this variance should be seen as a 'perfectly normal work arrangement that does not impact the actual efficacy of our sharing of defence policy thinking'. But this does not mean that China has given up on the Shangri-La Dialogue and will never send its defence minister again. Rear-Adm Hu reaffirmed that China still values and sees the forum as a 'very good platform to engage and discuss with all parties about regional cooperation in Asia-Pacific'. This raises the question – if so, why didn't Beijing send its top defence diplomat here? Observers have proffered a number of theories for Admiral Dong's no-show. A likely explanation is that since the leaders of China and the US have not talked and decided at the highest level on how to manage the bilateral relations, which are fractious across trade, politics and security, there is not much that their defence ministers can meet and talk about, in practical terms. Having bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the forum in the third-party ground of Singapore is the other main purpose of being here, besides to speak at the forum. For example, when Adm Dong attended the forum in 2024 for the first time as defence minister, his bilateral meetings with the then Defence Secretary was crucial for a reset of China-US military ties, which had stalled after then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi angered China by visiting Taiwan in 2022. Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of bilateral ties, China may have opted for a conservative, wait-and-see approach this year by sending a lower-level representation. Another supplementary consideration is: While Adm Dong appeared to have been in the clear after reportedly being questioned for corruption last year, rumours of other generals being investigated for corruption continue to surface . The absence of high-level military officials would forestall awkward questions, even in casual conversation . As with many things related to the Communist Party of China, the full picture may never emerge. Two scholars in the official Chinese delegation confessed to The Straits Times that they simply did not know the reason Adm Dong did not attend this year's forum. For this year, Mr Hegseth gets the spotlight all to himself. Yew Lun Tian is a senior foreign correspondent who covers China for The Straits Times. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

Scope of each country's defence no longer so neatly defined: Chan Chun Sing
Scope of each country's defence no longer so neatly defined: Chan Chun Sing

Straits Times

time5 hours ago

  • Straits Times

Scope of each country's defence no longer so neatly defined: Chan Chun Sing

While the business of security has become more complex, it also opens up new opportunities for Singapore to work with more partners, said Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO SINGAPORE – Technological and geopolitical changes to the world have intensified security challenges and prompted countries to redefine how they think of their defence in three crucial ways, said Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing. While this means the business of security has become more complex, it also opens up new opportunities for Singapore to work with more partners, Mr Chan told reporters on May 31. Speaking to the media after he hosted visiting ministers and representatives to a closed-door ministerial roundtable discussion, Mr Chan said a key topic of discussion was how 'defence and security can no longer be cut up so neatly based on geography, as per the past'. Instead, there was a strong sense that a geographic concept of security has become inadequate, with European ministers talking about their security being intertwined with that of the Asia Pacific, and vice versa. A more networked world and greater awareness of threats from the information and cyber domains has also prompted new conversations about securing critical infrastructure, such as the underwater cables that link nations to the Internet, said Mr Chan. And whereas defence ministers used to be more concerned about kinetic warfare - the deployment of armed forces in combat - they are today equally concerned about the security and resilience of their supply chains and economies, he added. Mr Chan said a point made at the roundtable discussions was that meeting these challenges would be a long-term endeavour, requiring countries to work together. Ministerial roundtables are a regular feature of the Shangri-La Dialogue, where ministers engage in informal conversations over lunch. 'If we are really serious about building capabilities for the long haul, it must be a commitment across different political cycles,' he said. It also opens up new avenues for Singapore to work with countries that are further away but who have shared interests in developing capabilities, such as to secure supply chains and to counter disinformation, he added. During the 20-minute interview, Mr Chan was also asked about US defense secretary Pete Hegseth's remarks earlier in the day, which included a call for Asian countries to raise their defence spending and to not become economically dependent on China. Mr Chan said ministers at lunch were 'appreciative of (Mr Hegseth's) candor'. But while the ministers were 'cheered' by the US' commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, they were also keen to see how this would translate into tangible action. On the Chinese defence minister's absence at this year's forum, Mr Chan said most, if not all ministers at the roundtable, would have hoped for the presence of the Chinese delegation. This is as participation at the forum has continued to grow, and many countries find it a useful platform to exchange views, he added. For the first time since 2019, China sent a delegation not led by its defence minister, which meant it could not hold bilateral meetings at the ministerial level with other countries, such as the United States. The Shangri-la Dialogue allows countries to have side meetings with each other, which helps minimise the chances of miscalculation or the misreading of another country's intentions, said Mr Chan. 'I encourage all my fellow counterparts, all my fellow defense ministers, that notwithstanding China's absence, we should continue to reach out to China,' he said. 'And I'm sure China, in its own time, will also want to reach out to the rest of the that we minimise the chances of misunderstanding.' To a question by a Chinese media outlet that mentioned Singapore's 'balancing act' between China and the US, Mr Chan said that is not the Republic's approach. 'Singapore is not trying to balance anybody, and we are also not the interlocutor (between other countries),' he said. Instead, Mr Chan said it sees itself as an open and inclusive platform that allows people to come together for frank and honest conversations. 'Where it's appreciated, we will also share with our partners our perspectives, our interpretations, and likewise we appreciate our partners sharing with us their perspectives and their interpretations of events,' he added. Mr Chan said one point that came up during the lunch was the importance of trust, without which it will be difficult for countries to work together on matters of defence. Building trust has to be done at multiple levels: from those in high political office meeting and talking, to soldiers, airmen and sailors having the opportunity to train together and understand each other's concerns, he said. The more such opportunities exist, the greater the chances that the next generation will work together to overcome new challenges, and Singapore will play its part, he added. 'We will always be an open and inclusive platform for people to come together and exchange notes, to have frank conversations with one another,' he said. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

Secret Service Whistleblower Revealed Biden Was So Confused at Times that He Would 'Get Lost In His Closet' at White House, Claims Sen. Josh Hawley
Secret Service Whistleblower Revealed Biden Was So Confused at Times that He Would 'Get Lost In His Closet' at White House, Claims Sen. Josh Hawley

International Business Times

time7 hours ago

  • International Business Times

Secret Service Whistleblower Revealed Biden Was So Confused at Times that He Would 'Get Lost In His Closet' at White House, Claims Sen. Josh Hawley

A Secret Service whistleblower has alleged that former President Joe Biden was so confused at times in the White House that he would "get lost in his closet," Senator Josh Hawley revealed on Friday. Hawley pointed to this striking level of disorientation as evidence, claiming it highlights why the Democratic Party's efforts to hide Biden's cognitive decline amount to one of the biggest scandals in presidential history. "This Secret Service whistleblower actually was assigned to Biden," the Missouri Republican told Fox News host Sean Hannity. "He told me that Biden used to get lost in his closet in the mornings at the White House," Hawley claimed about Biden's mental health. Biden's Mental Health Shocker Hawley said that he spoke to several Secret Service agents while investigating the assassination attempts against President Trump and learnt about Biden's declining mental health. "I mean, the guy literally stumbling around in the White House residence couldn't find his way out of his own closet," Hawley continued. "The president of the United States. "This is outrageous. We were lied to." Hawley's revelation about the Secret Service whistleblower comes amid multiple congressional investigations into on the mental fitness of the 82-year-old former president during his time in office — as well as the extent to which his staff may have been making key decisions. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) is currently investigating whether Biden's aides used an autopen to authorize White House actions and pardons without his direct involvement or awareness. As part of the inquiry, Comer has also called for testimony from Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who served as the White House physician during Biden's presidency. The chairman of the Oversight Committee has suggested that O'Connor may have been misleading in his public reports and statements regarding Biden's health following the president's yearly medical exams. Worse Than It Was Thought Earlier Earlier this month, Biden revealed that he is fighting an aggressive type of prostate cancer, sparking speculation that he may have been dealing with the illness in secret during his time in office. Meanwhile, Senators Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are preparing to hold a hearing next month focused on concerns about Biden's cognitive decline. "This is about a constitutional crisis, where we basically have a mentally incompetent president who's not in charge," Cornyn said during an appearance on Fox News' "The Will Cain Show" Thursday. "The question is: Who is in charge? Whose finger is on the nuclear button or has the nuclear codes? Who can declare war? How do we defend the nation when we have basically an absent president? And those are constitutional issues we need to address and correct," Cornyn argued. An outraged Hawley said on Friday that while "American people could see" Biden's decline, they were "systematically lied to by the Biden White House [and] by the media." "Now we've got to get the facts," he continued, calling the scandal "a huge stain" on the country. "It's amazing we survived it, to be honest with you."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store