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 fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS