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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS