In the spring of 2024, Zhu Hengpeng, a prominent Chinese economist and senior government advisor, disappeared without explanation. His sudden vanishing followed remarks he allegedly made in a private WeChat group, where he reportedly criticized China’s economic policies and even hinted at President Xi Jinping’s mortality. For Zhu, these private conversations quickly led to his removal from high-profile posts, an ongoing investigation, and what seems to be a complete erasure from China’s public life.
Zhu’s disappearance isn’t just a personal tragedy; it is a powerful example of China’s escalating crackdown on dissent under Xi’s leadership. What makes this case especially concerning is that Zhu wasn’t just any critic—he was a respected government advisor who had spent over two decades working for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), a think tank that directly influences policymaking in China. His downfall highlights the risks even those within China’s political and academic elite face when they question the official line.
Who Is Zhu Hengpeng?
For over 20 years, Zhu Hengpeng held a significant role at CASS, where he specialized in health economics and became a leading voice on government reforms related to healthcare, hospital management, and social security policy. His work on these issues helped shape China’s approach to public healthcare, and in 2014, Zhu was named deputy director of the CASS Institute of Economics. His research and recommendations held considerable influence over government decisions, especially concerning how China might improve access to medical care and overhaul its hospital system. Zhu was more than just an academic; he was a key player in Chinese policy circles.
In addition to his role at CASS, Zhu held various other prestigious positions, including a directorship at China Meheco Group, a state-owned pharmaceutical firm. As a well-respected intellectual, his opinion was often sought out, and his ideas on reforming China’s social security system were particularly influential. His disappearance has left a vacuum in the academic world, and his vanishing sends a chilling message to other scholars and economists who may also harbor doubts about the government’s policies.
The WeChat Incident
Zhu’s troubles began in a private WeChat group. According to reports, he made comments critical of China’s slowing economy, which has been weighed down by a persistent real estate slump and weak consumer confidence. He allegedly also made veiled references to Xi Jinping’s mortality, an act that, in China, can be seen as outright defiance. Although these conversations took place in a private chat, Zhu’s remarks quickly came to the attention of party officials, who viewed his words as an unacceptable challenge to the party’s authority and Xi’s leadership.
It remains unclear exactly which comments led to Zhu’s detainment, but it is known that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a low tolerance for critiques of its economic policies, especially when they come from well-known figures like Zhu. “Officials should be ‘fearful in their hearts, careful with their words, and restrained in their actions,’” said Gao Xiang, the president of CASS and a close ally of Xi. This statement reflects the heightened scrutiny that party members and intellectuals now face in China.
Zhu’s detainment came at a time when the Chinese government was implementing a strict indoctrination campaign at CASS. Party members, especially those in leadership positions, were forced to sign pledges affirming their loyalty to the CCP’s values and were reminded of the “10 prohibitions,” a list of activities that party officials must avoid, such as collaborating with foreign entities or publishing unapproved materials. Gao Xiang led these efforts, urging CASS members to remain loyal to the party and uphold its discipline.
A Broader Crackdown on Dissent
Zhu’s case is not an isolated one. In recent years, Xi Jinping’s administration has launched an aggressive campaign to silence voices critical of the government, particularly those who question China’s economic direction. Xi’s leadership has been marked by a far-reaching clampdown on dissent, with high-profile figures across academia, business, and even the CCP itself being detained, exiled, or silenced. As one person familiar with the case explained, Zhu’s removal reflects the growing authoritarianism under Xi: “The party has tightened its grip on dissent, with many critics facing detention, exile, or worse.”
Zhu’s disappearance comes at a time when China’s economy is struggling. The country is experiencing a prolonged property market slump, and there are growing concerns over declining consumer confidence. While the CCP has largely tried to project an image of control and stability, internal debates about the direction of China’s economy have grown louder. Some critics, including economists like Zhu, argue that Xi’s policies, which emphasize state control over private enterprise, are hindering economic growth. They point out that China’s aggressive policies to rein in capitalist activities are stifling innovation and slowing down the real estate market, two areas crucial for economic recovery.
Zhu’s economic analyses were a rare voice of reason. He argued that China’s tax policies and social security system were holding back economic growth and needed significant reforms. “China’s macro tax burden is substantial,” Zhu wrote in one of his articles. He explained how the country’s social security expenditures, at just 11.8% of GDP, were much lower than those of OECD countries, where such spending is crucial for ensuring sustainable economic growth. Zhu pointed out that inequality in China was worsening, with urban residents benefiting disproportionately compared to those in rural areas, where social security benefits and pensions were much lower.
Zhu’s criticism, while focused on economic policy, also implicitly questioned Xi’s leadership. He suggested that the government’s heavy focus on state control and limiting private enterprise was creating a more unequal society. This criticism, though not directly aimed at Xi, was undoubtedly seen as a challenge to his administration.
A Chilling Tactic: Enforced Disappearances
Zhu Hengpeng’s disappearance is the latest in a string of enforced disappearances used by the Chinese government to silence critics. The tactic has become a hallmark of Xi Jinping’s leadership. The government’s ability to make influential figures vanish, without explanation or due process, has instilled a culture of fear throughout China. Critics of Xi’s policies, even those with substantial ties to the government, are not safe.
The United Nations has documented 168 unresolved cases of enforced disappearances in China as of 2024. High-profile cases, like that of Jack Ma, the billionaire founder of Alibaba, who disappeared for months after criticizing Chinese regulators, have highlighted the lengths to which the Chinese government will go to silence dissent. Zhu’s disappearance adds to this disturbing trend, raising alarms about the safety of scholars, economists, and business leaders who might express unpopular opinions.
As China’s economy continues to face uncertainty, the government’s crackdown on dissent shows no signs of slowing down. The Communist Party’s campaign to control the narrative, coupled with its efforts to clamp down on dissent, has left the country’s public sphere devoid of critical voices. As one source remarked, “Studying party discipline is a process of forging party spirit and unifying thought.” This rigid discipline comes at a cost, as fewer voices are left to challenge policies that may be pushing China deeper into economic trouble.
Zhu Hengpeng’s disappearance sends a powerful message: dissent, even in private, will not be tolerated in Xi Jinping’s China. The case reflects the broader climate of fear and control that has gripped the country, as the government continues its crackdown on critics during a time of economic instability. Zhu, once a key figure in shaping Chinese policy, has become a casualty of this political purge. His vanishing serves as a chilling reminder that in China, even the most esteemed intellectuals are not immune to the government’s heavy hand.
China is a totalitarian state, run by the Chinese Communist Party. It doesn’t care that the people it is detaining are the people who love China the most – and the people most able to push China into a more prosperous nation.