Huawei’s ‘brake-gate’: Is patriotism drowning out rational debate in China?

(Edited and refined by Bai Kelei, with the assistance of AI translation.)

A “brake-gate” scandal has plunged Chinese technology company Huawei into a storm of public controversy in recent days. The episode began on 8 October, when automotive information platform Dongchedi (懂车帝) released a video showing that the brake pedal brackets on three Zunjie V800 cars, jointly developed by Huawei and JAC Motors, broke in succession during emergency braking tests.

Huawei, which has long touted itself as “far ahead”, had apparently failed on one of the most basic passenger safety components for its luxury car that has a starting price of 766,000 RMB (US$114,000).

The bombshell sent Huawei, responsible for the Zunjie brand and its intelligent technologies, into the spotlight. JAC Motors, which manufactures the vehicles, saw its shares hit the daily limit-down as up to 10 billion RMB was wiped off its market value.

On the same evening, Zunjie responded by stressing that its braking system exceeded national and industry standards and that no breakages had occurred during actual use by customers. It described Dongchedi’s test as a “non-standard, extreme scenario”, but said it would improve the component’s design and provide users with a free upgrade.

Criticism over company response

The response, which emphasised regulatory compliance while promising a free upgrade and implying that the third-party test had been excessively harsh, drew criticism from netizens, who accused the company of being “stubborn” and sidestepping the core issue.

Before there was any conclusion on why the brake pedal brackets had broke or on the dispute over the test conditions, a second wave of controversy emerged when Dongchedi’s test video disappeared overnight from many online platforms. At the same time, an article published on 10 October by Xinjiang Release, which did not name any company but criticised firms for failing to “speak plainly” when responding to product safety issues, was also taken offline after sparking widespread debate.

Although it remains unclear whether the removal of the content was directly linked to Huawei, many people were reminded of the company’s “bamboo cicada” controversy.

In August, netizens began making memes using the sound of a traditional bamboo cicada toy, which resembled the audience’s exclamations of surprise during a product launch by Huawei executive Richard Yu. Huawei’s legal department took issue with this and complained to major online platforms, resulting in the removal of large numbers of such videos. The move triggered a backlash as even more parodies appeared. Huawei was also accused of being “heavy-handed” and “arrogant”, and of having “become an entity that cannot be criticised”.

Public opinion split by nationalism

The fallout from the brake-gate controversy also polarised Chinese public opinion. On one side were concerns over Zunjie’s quality and safety. The other camp accused social media outlets of sacrificing the reputation of Chinese brands for traffic, using public opinion to suppress and smear Huawei. Some local media outlets publicly appealed for people to “give the home-grown company some time” and not to “let one breakage destroy the reputation of Chinese cars”.

Some also interpreted the negative publicity surrounding Huawei as an attempt to reject Chinese manufacturing and talk down Chinese brands. Even the People’s Daily was labelled “traitorous” by extremists after publishing an article stressing that automotive safety cannot be compromised.

This is a thought-provoking trend. What should have been a fact-based debate over product safety and commercial accountability has become a clash of positions because of Huawei’s association with the Zunjie brand. The discussion has been swept up by emotion and quickly descended into judgement based on political stance.

This is closely linked to the national narrative Huawei has come to embody over the years. Huawei has faced sustained US pressure in the US-China tech war: its chip supplies were cut off, its overseas business was obstructed, and its executive Meng Wanzhou was detained in Canada for nearly three years.

Yet Huawei not only survived the US blockade. With great perseverance, it continued to tackle core technologies before making breakthroughs in 7-nanometre chip manufacturing processes to launch its Kirin chips and propose the “Tao Law”. It moved from playing catch-up to forging new technological paths and became a national beacon.

In September 2021, Meng returned to China in triumph. The moment she stepped out of the aircraft in a red dress drew the attention of many and became, in effect, a lesson in patriotism, binding Huawei ever more closely to patriotic sentiment.

Beyond its commercial identity as a technology company, Huawei has become a symbol of patriotism. But as the aura surrounding a national brand has protected it, some discussions about Huawei have become politicised: criticism of it is construed as “smearing”, while doubts raised are dismissed as attempts to manipulate public opinion. The company does not even need to enter the fray, as it has ample supporters willing to speak up on its behalf. In the process, rational calls to confront problems are easily drowned out by the din.

Key questions for automotive safety

In fact, the brake-gate episode raises many questions. First is the potential safety issue. While Dongchedi’s testing methods and data require further examination and verification, and the controversy surrounding the test itself needs to be addressed, the safety risks it exposed should not be overlooked. Zunjie needs to explain how it will investigate the anomaly, assess the risks and answer to consumers.

Second, amid the rapid developments and intense competition in the new energy vehicles industry, might there have been oversights in product design, proof of concept, research and development testing, or other stages? As vehicular designs become flashier, configurations increasingly intelligent and marketing tactics more elaborate, have the most fundamental qualities of a car such as its safety, reliability and protection been adequately verified?

Third, companies caught in a public controversy naturally need to protect their reputations. But inaccurate information and malicious rumours should still be calmly separated from rational criticism and reasonable questions. Only then can companies avoid having efforts to control negative public opinion rebound against their own credibility.

Indeed, online discourse in China is highly diverse and often intense. There have been cases in which national brands were battered over minor mistakes or even outright smears. There have also been cases of individual brands being excessively hyped and praised. Both stem from emotions that prioritise stance over facts, and neither should be encouraged.

Ultimately, a company’s ability to stand firm amid scrutiny and criticism, then reflect and improve, is a sign of growing maturity. Likewise, supporting “patriotic companies” while accepting that they must face legitimate commercial assessments and bear reasonable corporate responsibilities, as well as tolerating facts and opinions that differ from one’s own position, is a sign of a maturing public discourse.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “华为“刹车门”的立场之争”.

Related: Three students killed in EV crash: Are China’s self-driving cars safe enough? | Tesla’s Chinese rival BYD hits accelerator on smart driving