The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus has submitted a motion calling on China to rehabilitate the 1989 movement that culminated in the June 4, or Tiananmen, Incident. Although the DPP’s intentions are good, the use of the word “rehabilitate” is open to question.
Throughout the history of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), there have been countless cases where false accusations led to wrongful convictions. Many of those unjustly accused or convicted were later “rehabilitated.” Such cases can be divided into two categories.
The first category is where a movement was deemed to have been wrong. In such cases, the people who launched the movement will be punished, while the victims are “rehabilitated.” For example, following the complete negation of the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four were put on trial, and some former leading Red Guards were sentenced to life imprisonment. People who were labeled “capitalist roaders” or “active counterrevolutionaries” during the Cultural Revolution had their rights and reputations restored and received compensation.
The second category is where a movement is deemed to have been correct, but targeted the wrong people. Such cases call for “correction” rather than “rehabilitation.” For example, many people were wrongly labeled as “rightists” during the Anti-Rightist movement of the late 1950s, and lost their jobs or were demoted because of this label. Since the Anti-Rightist movement itself is not considered to have been in error, the most its victims can expect is to get their jobs back or regain their status, but they will not be compensated for their losses.
Whether a case is resolved by “rehabilitation” or “correction,” it is done according to the logic of one-party rule. Where the CCP’s leadership did something wrong, now some of them will be punished, and the party will apologize to the victims and help restore their rights and reputations. That is as far as it goes. The party will not resign from office or share power with anyone else.
Just as in feudal times, when emperors issued public apologies, punished the corrupt and dismissed tyrannical officials, the emperor was still the emperor.
“Rehabilitation” and “correction” are both favors bestowed by the party — favors that it can take back any time. Someone who has been rehabilitated may be declared guilty again. For example, many people who were labeled “rightists” in 1959 had their cases “corrected” in 1962, but when the Cultural Revolution arrived in 1966 they were labeled “rightists” again.
Qu Qiubai (瞿秋白) was a CCP leader who was executed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in 1935. In 1945, the CCP determined that Qu was guilty of “ultra-left putschist errors.” In 1955, his remains were transferred to Beijing’s Babaoshan Cemetery, a gesture that signified his reputation had been rehabilitated. In 1966, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) again labeled Qu a renegade, but in 1980 Qu was rehabilitated a second time. Whatever twists and turns the case took, the CCP Central Committee had the final word.
“Rehabilitation” and “correction” can even be used to strengthen the CCP’s rule. Starting in 1978, the CCP removed the “rightist” label form 550,000 people in five batches. Many “rightists” have said they were overcome with emotion, even weeping and shouting “Long live the Communist Party!” when they were told of their rehabilitation. They were filled with gratitude toward top CCP leaders such as Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) and Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦).
Party leaders have frequently manipulated the process of correcting mistakes to boost their own popularity. It is entirely possible that, at some point, a CCP general secretary will decide to do the same with respect to June 4.
Those who call for the June 4 movement to be “rehabilitated” are in effect praying for an enlightened leadership to set aright past injustices. Although the demand for “rehabilitation” seems to further the cause of freedom and democracy in China, those who make it do not necessarily mean to challenge the CCP’s monopoly on power.
For example, a recent poll of students at Hong Kong University found a majority supported urging the Chinese authorities to make public the truth about the June 4 events, make a positive assessment of the 1989 democracy movement and release imprisoned democracy activists. The students felt the Chinese authorities should apologize to the public, investigate who was responsible for the massacre and pay compensation to people who were injured and to the families of those who were killed. However, the poll did not touch on the question of establishing a democratic system in China.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) once said that there could be no talk of unification until the June 4 movement was “rehabilitated,” as if all that were needed for the Taiwanese to accept unification was for the CCP to offer an apology and rewrite a bit of history.
Those who care about democracy in China should have learned by now that calling for the “rehabilitation” of the June 4 movement is worthless because it won’t help establish democracy in China.
As Chinese dissident Wang Dan (王丹) said, the main point is not “rehabilitating” June 4, but democratizing China. The DPP legislators’ call for the CCP to “rehabilitate” the June 4 movement concedes too much and demands too little.
Liang Wen-chieh is deputy director of the New Society for Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) has motioned to abolish the “Wu Sz-huai” (吳斯懷) clauses of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) — which forbid all Taiwanese who enter China from engaging in any activities detrimental to national security or interests. This motion led the Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) to report her for infringing upon the National Security Act (國家安全法), which Weng called a lawless and undisciplined attempt to threaten a legislator. However, the true lawless and undisciplined person is Weng — the one standing in the enemy
RSS