Pada permulaannya menurut Ezra Vogel, mahasiswa2 bukannya cemas akan kebebasan politik, tetapi akan kebebasannya sendiri, seperti dapat memilih pekerjaannya sendiri, dan tidak ditentukan oleh "pembimbing politik"mereka. Karena penugasan kerja sebagian tergantung pada laporan pembimbing2 politik yang hidup bersama mahasiswa, pembimbing politik tidak disukai, dianggap tidak selalu correct, yang penunjukan kerjanya kalau salah dianggap dapat merusak hari depan mahasiswa. Sesungguhnya mahasiswa2 tidak meluangkan waktu untuk membicarakan sistim pemilihan umum. Tetapi golongan intelektuil dan mahasiswa masih marah terhadap kampanya anti polusi spirituil tahun 1983 dan kampanye anti borjuasi liberalisasi tahun 1987. Dengan terjadinya inflasi 30% karena liberalisasi harga, dan perusahaan negara yang rugi ditutup ( boleh dibuka erus kalau ada managejalan atau kelompok pekerja yang berani meneruskan, tetapi tidak disubsidi lagi oleh pemerintah), kemungkinan lulusan dapat pekerjaan yang baik juga jadi kecil. Masyarakat luas kena akibat inflasi. yang paling menderita orang2 yang dulunya kerja di perusahaan negara , karena selain kehilangan gaji, juga kehilangan subsidi perumahan, jaminan medis, dan uang pendidikan anak2. Di samping itu pertengkaran di tingkat atas antara Zhao Ziyang dan Li Peng, menyebabkan persoalan ini tidak ditangani, sehingga dalam keadaan sudah parah sekali dengan besarnya demonstrasi,yang sekarang menuntut demokrasi, baru Deng Xiaoping diminta memberi keputusan. Sekarang dengan majunya ekonomi, dan banyak perusahaan2, lulusan perguruan tinggi yang berbakat, mudah dapat kerja di swasta. Kalau ekonomi sampai memburuk, dan sulit dapat kerja, ada kemungkinan ribut lagi. Di Wikipedia maupun di bukunya Chua, Wei Ling, disebut tentang Chai Ling yang menginginkan pertumpahan darah di Tiananmen, sehingga pemerintah Tiongkok akan roboh, dan diganti pemerintah baru : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling
Footage from a documentary titled The Gate of Heavenly Peace <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_of_Heavenly_Peace>, shows viewers parts of an interview between Chai and reporter Philip Cunningham from May 28, 1989, a week prior to the Tiananmen Square Incident <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989>. In the footage, Chai makes the following statements: All along I've kept it to myself, because being Chinese I felt I shouldn't bad-mouth the Chinese. But I can't help thinking sometimes -- and I might as well say it -- you, the Chinese, you are not worth my struggle! You are not worth my sacrifice! What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain any of this to my fellow students? "And what is truly sad is that some students, and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to cause our movement to disintegrate and get us out of the Square before the government becomes so desperate that it takes action.... Interviewer: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself? Chai Ling: "No." Interviewer: "Why?" Chai Ling: "Because my situation is different. My name is on the government's blacklist. I'm not going to be destroyed by this government. I want to live. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I don't know if people will say I'm selfish. I believe that people have to continue the work I have started. A democracy movement can't succeed with only one person. I hope you don't report what I've just said for the time being, okay?" The footage has been verified by third-party media specialists as genuine, and is readily available online.[75] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-75> Chai, however, claims that she had been misquoted and that the footage used "interpretive and erroneous translation,”[76] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-64memo.com-76> and in reality the student leaders, including herself, had remained united and at the square until the very last hours of the protest.[76] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-64memo.com-76> Chai and her firm have launched multiple lawsuits against the film's non-profit producers, the Long Bow Group. An initial suit, in which Chai alleged defamation, was summarily dismissed. An additional suit claimed that the organization infringed upon Jenzabar's trademark by mentioning the firm's name in the keyword meta tags and title tag for a page about Jenzabar on its website.[77] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-77> Her lawsuits were subsequently criticized by some commentators, including columnists for the Boston Globe and the New Yorker.[78] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-78>[79] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-79>[80] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-80>[81] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-81> In the end, each of her legal actions against the film were dismissed by the Massachusetts appeals court.[82] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-82> [83] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-83> The Superior Court handed Jenzabar its comeuppance, which is a rare ruling — an award to defendants of more than $500,000 in attorney fees and expenses, "subjected Long Bow to protracted and costly litigation not to protect the goodwill of its trademark from misappropriation, but to suppress criticism of Jenzabar's principles and its corporate practices." in the ruling.[84] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling#cite_note-84>
