The issue of seeking independence does not exist; we have no such impression. What is lacking today is the Youth League’s independent work. In the past, our shortcoming lay in this very area, not in any desire for independence. The Youth League should coordinate with the Party’s central tasks, yet within that coordination there must also be space for the League’s own independent initiatives. The question of independence has long since been resolved. There may be isolated instances here and there—say, a few—but they are by no means widespread. According to feedback from Party committees at all levels, the League’s work has been generally satisfactory: satisfactory precisely because it aligns with the central tasks. So if anyone now insists on finding fault, it is only to call for more activities that are tailored to young people’s characteristics and conducted independently. The League’s leadership bodies, as well as those of the Party, must learn how to guide this work—how to keep faith with the Party’s core missions while at the same time attending to the specific needs of youth and continuously mobilizing the masses.

In the past, under the leadership of both the Party and the League itself, the Youth League played a vital role in supporting revolutionary endeavors across multiple fronts and achieved remarkable results. Whether in cities, factories, rural areas, or schools, victory in the revolution would have been impossible without their active participation. They were highly disciplined and fulfilled every assigned task. Today, however, the revolutionary phase has given way to construction. With peace restored on the Korean Peninsula and land reform completed, the domestic revolutionary struggle has come to an end. Our focus has shifted to building a new socialist society. This requires learning—learning how to lead, alongside adults, efforts to improve agriculture in the countryside, industry in the cities, education in schools, administrative efficiency in government organs, and national defense capabilities in the armed forces, transforming them into a modern, professional military. These are tasks that all citizens must undertake, with the exception of very young children.

Yet the years between fourteen and twenty-five constitute a critical period of physical development; after twenty-five, growth largely ceases. It is also a time for work and study. Neglecting proper nutrition and rest during this phase can be extremely hazardous. Adults, having already spent many years acquiring skills and experience, approach their work differently. Young people, however, are just beginning to learn and labor, and thus face distinct challenges. Many abilities that adults take for granted remain beyond their grasp—for example, farming. A young person who excels at planting at eighteen likely did so only because of prior instruction. Moreover, fourteen-to-eighteen-year-olds and eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds cannot sustain the same intensity of work as adults; they should not be expected to adhere to an eight-hour workday or bear heavy loads. They need opportunities for recreation and leisure; without these, they will feel unfulfilled. After eighteen, romantic relationships and marriage become relevant, a dimension absent among adults, whose personal lives are already settled.

I propose increasing students’ sleep time by another hour. Currently set at eight hours, actual sleep often amounts to only six or seven, as much of the initial hour is spent lying awake. As a result, most students feel chronically sleep-deprived. A formal directive should be issued to enforce this change, without room for debate or compromise. Teachers, too, must get sufficient rest, but above all, young people themselves must sleep well. (Premier Zhou: The Youth League should take the lead.) Let me address the youth directly: first, let us celebrate their good health; second, their academic achievements; third, their contributions to work. Eight hours of sleep is simply insufficient for students. Intellectual youth are particularly prone to nervous exhaustion, often struggling to fall asleep or to wake up feeling refreshed. If nine hours proves inadequate, then we should extend it to ten—a total of ten hours of sleep per night.

The revolution has brought numerous benefits, but it has also exacted a toll: excessive zeal and overwork have left many people utterly fatigued. We must now ensure that everyone remains in good health—the military, students, and cadres alike. Of course, good health does not automatically translate into academic or professional success; figures like Lu Zhishen and Li Da, though physically robust, were far from par in terms of scholarly attainment. Effective learning demands appropriate methods.

It is imperative to establish a minimum of nine hours of sleep; only then can one truly secure eight hours of rest. At present, junior high schools schedule five classes per day, which is already quite demanding. Consideration might be given to reducing this to four, ensuring ample time for recreation and rest. Today, frequent meetings among activist groups severely encroach upon opportunities for leisure, relaxation, and sleep. Such activities should be curtailed. We must strike a balance between study and recreation, rest, and sleep. Right now, the emphasis on learning is overwhelming, while adequate time for the latter is sorely lacking. (Premier Zhou: And there is also too much work.) For worker-peasant-soldier youth, who learn through practical experience, the time devoted to work-study should be proportionate to that allocated to rest and recreation; both aspects require careful consideration.

We need to attend to both ends of the spectrum: pressing forward with study and work, while simultaneously prioritizing sleep, rest, and play. In the past, when we focused intently on one front, the other tended to slip—or even be neglected altogether. (He gestures with his hands to illustrate this point.) I would urge colleagues in the Ministry of Education to press home this message: if you continue to allow things to remain lax, it will never change. Factories and schools operate with great discipline, but meetings proliferate, creating a veritable “five excesses.” Now is the time to tighten up, reducing both the frequency and duration of gatherings. Equally important is the provision of recreational facilities and activities; this, too, calls for greater vigilance. The Central Committee has already decided to cut back on meeting and study time. You have a duty to oversee implementation. If anyone fails to comply, hold them accountable: why are they not following through?

In sum, we must ensure that young people enjoy good health, excel academically, and perform well in their work. Some leaders, preoccupied solely with advancing tasks, neglect the welfare of youth. To counter this tendency, I offer the following reminder: our actions are guided by a single, compelling rationale—to safeguard the healthy development of the younger generation and enable them to thrive. Our own generation suffered grievously from a lack of care for children: adults had access to fine tables and comfortable spaces, while children were denied even the most basic comforts. Infants and toddlers held no voice in the household; should they cry, they were met with a slap. The People’s Republic of China must now reverse this pattern and place the interests of its young citizens at the forefront.

Turning now to the matter of selecting young cadres for the Central Committee: during the Three Kingdoms period, when Cao Cao prepared to march south, the question arose as to who should command the allied forces against him. The choice fell upon a young man—Zhou Yu—who, at twenty-nine, was appointed commander despite widespread skepticism among the older generals. Despite initial resistance, he ultimately won their trust and led the army to victory at Chibi.

Today, there is considerable reluctance to include young leaders in the Central Committee. Some wonder whether the Party has been favoring senior figures while overlooking promising younger candidates. In fact, the Central Committee does indeed select younger members; naturally, selection is based on merit rather than age alone. Currently, over sixty individuals under thirty serve in various capacities, accounting for more than a quarter of the total membership, while those aged thirty and above make up the remaining three-quarters—an assessment that some consider too low. I would argue otherwise. While we cannot be certain about the suitability of every single young cadre, any shortcomings can be addressed through subsequent adjustments, including reappointment or term limits. The fundamental direction remains sound. By and large, these young leaders are fully capable. They are by no means inferior to their elders. Senior comrades undoubtedly bring valuable experience, but their physical faculties inevitably decline with age: vision and hearing grow dimmer, and their movements become slower and less agile than those of younger counterparts. This is simply the natural order of things. We must place our full confidence in young people, even if individual cases of incompetence do arise—there is no need to fear such eventualities.

To persuade those who remain unconvinced, we should emphasize two key points: first, that we must respect and accommodate the unique characteristics of youth; and second, that the Youth League’s work operates within a structured framework, subject to the leadership of Party committees at all levels—a principle that has stood the test of time. This approach is neither novel nor innovative; it has long been enshrined in Marxist theory. It is grounded in reality: youth are, after all, youth. Why else would we have a Youth League? This distinction is universally recognized and deeply rooted in practice. Young people are undergoing rapid physical development, which necessitates different working conditions, especially for those between fourteen and eighteen. There are also gender-specific considerations. Failure to account for these factors risks alienating the very constituencies we seek to serve. Should you fail to address this issue, you may find yourselves supported by only one million people, while eight million stand opposed.

Our work must prioritize the broader masses while also engaging the most advanced elements among the youth. It is understandable that the latter may feel dissatisfied with a more inclusive approach and advocate for stricter measures. However, we must strive to win them over. Some have pointed out that the League’s charter contains numerous obligations but few rights. Has this been rectified? (Hu ××: Eight articles have been revised to seven.) But aren’t seven still too many? (Li Chang: The wording has been somewhat softened.) Indeed, further easing is warranted to accommodate millions of ordinary members. We should not confine ourselves to catering exclusively to the tens or hundreds of thousands who are most active; instead, we must create conditions that enable the vast majority to keep pace. The focus must remain on the many, not merely on the few.

A rule mandating automatic expulsion from the League after four months of non-participation in organizational activities is excessively harsh. The Party’s corresponding provision allows six months. Rural youth tend to be more loosely organized than their counterparts in schools, the military, or factories. Is it really necessary to impose such a strict requirement?

Such draconian measures have no place in the League’s charter. The same applies to the prohibition against “speaking ill of others behind their backs”—a principle that ought to be applied with flexibility. Even once legal provisions are enacted, several years may pass before they are fully implemented. Reality often lags behind policy; for instance, the complete enforcement of the Marriage Law required at least three Five-Year Plans. Many provisions carry a programmatic character. Efforts to eliminate discrimination against women and prevent spousal abuse, while commendable, have yielded only modest results thus far—one million households successfully achieving these goals would already be a significant milestone. The removal of the clause prohibiting discrimination against women was itself prompted by the recognition that it could not realistically be enforced. Combating liberalism is a protracted endeavor; while we may discourage private criticism, outright forbidding it is simply impractical. We should avoid drawing overly narrow boundaries. Some may express dissent within the confines of their homes, others in courtyards, and still others in Zhongnanhai, Beijing, or elsewhere across the country—so long as their actions remain constructive and do not involve collusion with hostile forces in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Clear demarcation between friend and foe is essential; eradicating liberalism entirely would stifle vital intellectual discourse. Many individuals are confined to this limited spectrum, and liberal tendencies persist within the Party.

Credibility is built gradually. In the past, when troops composed disparaging songs about commanders, we neither intervened nor investigated. Yet the military remained intact. It was only through rigorous enforcement of the Three Disciplines and Eight Points of Attention that order began to be restored. Genuine admiration for a leader stems from deep understanding; only when people truly know and appreciate someone do they come to trust them. The Central Committee of the Youth League already enjoys considerable prestige. Those who currently lack such respect will likely come around over time. After all, the Youth League has only been in existence for four years, and the current leadership team has only recently assumed office; it cannot expect instant acclaim. When new faces take charge, initial credibility may be modest. It is unrealistic to expect praise without enduring some measure of criticism or censure.

Small-scale informal communication often arises precisely because formal channels are underdeveloped. As long as democratic life within the organization is robust and issues are openly discussed, allowing such informal exchanges can help alleviate tensions. Once major concerns are addressed, smaller grievances tend to lose their urgency. Problems will always exist; we should not assume that everything can be solved at once. Challenges persist today, and they will continue to do so in the future.

Based on societal progress, the three Five-Year Plans have essentially accomplished their objectives: industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture and handicrafts are largely complete. Nevertheless, this does not signify full completion. Over fifteen years, each Five-Year Plan introduced incremental changes—small steps annually, larger ones every five years. After three such major phases, substantial progress will have been made. National industrialization entails raising the share of industrial output to seventy percent of total economic output, with agriculture accounting for the remaining thirty. Reaching this threshold marks the successful conclusion of the socialist transformation. Achieving seventy percent within approximately fifteen years is a realistic target. Adopting a cautiously optimistic stance is prudent, as it reflects a measured approach to navigating complex global realities.

At present, the vast majority of Chinese agriculture remains in private hands. The socialist transformation must proceed in a deliberate, step-by-step manner, avoiding abrupt or hasty measures. We should promote mutual aid and cooperative organizations on a voluntary basis. Failure to advance along this path risks drifting toward capitalism—a rightward deviation. Conversely, pushing too aggressively leads to “left” deviations. Thorough preparation and a phased approach are essential. Historically, we have avoided launching campaigns without adequate preparation or certainty of success. Your current meeting has been well-organized, indicating that you were indeed prepared. In contrast, our earlier campaign against Chiang Kai-shek began with serious errors of subjective thinking. Only after a thorough rectification campaign were we able to turn the tide and achieve victory. Now, we are engaged in the battle of construction. What does “construction” entail? Essentially, it means completing industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist commercial enterprises—goals that have largely been realized through the three Five-Year Plans. This constitutes the overarching mission of the entire nation. Specific regulations should govern how young people contribute, taking into account their unique circumstances and needs.