Chinese Web Firms Golden Share

The idea behind a golden share is that the government will hold one share in a publicly traded company and, in certain circumstances, can veto measures taken by the Board.  This little trick must leave shareholders wondering what kind of actions the state can trample, and how far a Board can go without being challenged.  Just having a person on the Board representing the government is enough to make it more difficult to do business.  Chinese web firms may find out soon enough, if the draft legislation being floated around business circles is actually enacted [Actually, China has often enforced draft legislation long before it was ever enacted, so they might not have to wait on this one.]

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Li Yuan [China Wants to Own Stake in Web Firms] describes the latest venture in Internet control "giving it more direct influence over company policies on content and censorship", almost as if China needed more control over its Internet.  It already has the most intrusive censorship and content controls of any country in the world.  The central government regularly issues guidance to press and media about what stories they may not comment on, what to say about things they can comment on, and can retroactively decide that something a reporter says fosters discontent.  That is enough to land a person in jail.

Apparently, even the most intrusive controls are not enough to satisfy this government.  Now they want to get a golden share on almost every on-line media company, Tencent Holdings and Baidu as examples.  It isn't like they aren't under control now.  We have to wonder why there is so much recent emphasis on censorship and media content, that follows a crackdown on NGOs, many of which are various human rights and public policy organizations.    China doesn't like those either.

China is Big Brother on steroids.  It is difficult to believe that even more control over the Internet is required.  Can the Party be so insecure that it believes any comment that is out of sorts with their way of thinking needs to be controlled?  They must believe that Internet media is not doing enough to enforce the controls they want on content, or they would not be looking for even more.