Following the 500,000-strong demonstration in Hong Kong on July 1, the deputy director of Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong, Zou Zhekai (
Zou was condemned for this statement, and even people within the left wing felt it was inappropriate. Unexpectedly, similar statements have been used in Taiwan to describe things happening along Taiwan's road toward democratization as a "cultural revolution." The two occurrences are similar in that both denounce and reject the democracy movement.
Even if Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continues to repeat that he was quoting some Tai-wanese businessman, and that his words were taken out of context and distorted, two unavoidable facts remain regarding the use of such a quotation to describe the political situation in Taiwan.
First, Ma agrees with the businessman or he would not have quoted him. Second, the comparison is wrong even if the incident has no bearing on a referendum, because the chaos in Taiwan's political situation is the product of its democratic multiparty system. It has nothing to do with the Cultural Revolution.
Due to the calamity and great suffering the Cultural Revolution caused the Chinese people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has always prohibited discussion and publication of related materials in an attempt at eradicating it from people's memories.
While the average Taiwanese businessman will not understand the true situation during the Cultural Revolution, it is impossible that Ma, once the vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, wouldn't understand. That is why he would not admit to his mistake when it was pointed out.
So what was the Cultural Revolution really all about? As someone who experienced it firsthand, and who has spent many years studying it and thinking about the experience, I can offer a brief introduction.
The Cultural Revolution began in 1966. The reason was that tens of millions of people had died in famines created by the CCP's "Three Red Flags" -- the General Line of Socialism, the Great Leap Forward, and the People's Communes -- in the late 1950s.
Because of these disasters Mao Zedong (
Mao then came out to start the Cultural Revolution's mass movement. He himself wrote the "Bombard the Headquarters" big-character poster and used the Red Guards to incite a rebellion. Across the country, he charged people with being "landlords, rich farmers, anti-revolutionaries, bad elements, rightists, rebels, spies or capitalist roaders" to fight and eradicate Liu and his people.
Because the Cultural Revolution implemented "the Four Big Rights" -- the rights to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates and write big-character posters -- it was said to implement "Great Democracy." This was, in fact, not the case at all.
Mao first denounced the original Political Bureau before setting up the Central Cultural Revolution Group from which he led the Cultural Revolution. Jiang and other members of that group then indicated to the Red Guards who belonged to the "bourgeoisie headquarters."
The Red Guards then used "beating, smashing, robbing, grabbing and looting" to topple and even torture these people to death. Some Red Guards who attacked people belonging to the "proletariat headquarters" were labelled "anti-revolutionary groups" or "active anti-revolutionary elements."
Mao and Jiang even promoted "great disorder under heaven -- the more, the better," inciting struggles among the masses. Liu eventually lost power in the chaos.
"Great Democracy" was thus a way for the dictator to mobilize the masses in the name of democracy. When the people that were to be removed had been removed, and even people who were not supposed to be removed were affected, there was more discontent.
Mao then organized "Workers' Mao Zedong Propaganda Units" to replace the Red Guards. Red Guard leaders, regardless of which faction they belonged to, were taken prisoner. Because Lin had too many enemies within the army, and because he had too high ambitions, Mao purged him too. Forced to flee, Lin died in an airplane crash during his escape. The facts surrounding the crash remain unclear to this day.
After Lin's death, Mao and Jiang turned to then premier Zhou Enlai (
Mao died not long after the excitement. Army leaders then used Hua Guofeng (
Some conclusions can be drawn from these events.
First, the Cultural Revolution was a power struggle permeated with conspiracy and deceit within the top leadership of a dictatorship. It had nothing to do with democracy.
Second, it was led by a legendary leader and that is why the whole people could be blindly mobilized and why they fought each other.
Third, Mao's "Quotations" could only determine the thinking of hundreds of millions of people because there was a lack of free information and because no dissenting opinion was allowed.
The CCP admits that it was "unprecedented."
Taiwan is a diversified democratic society. No single leader holds sufficient power to be able to manipulate the masses into acting blindly according to his or her personal wishes. Seeds of personality cults must of course be eliminated.
Not long ago, a few slogans in a booklet for members of the "Friends of James Soong Society" were revealed; they "must study Soong's thought and identify with Soong's ideals," and "swear to protect Soong to the death," and so on. These slogans are similar to slogans from the Cultural Revolution; to "swear to protect Chairman Mao to the death" and to "read Chairman Mao's books, listen to Chairman Mao's words, act according to Chairman Mao's instructions, and be a good student of Chairman Mao's."
But as soon as these slogans were revealed, PFP Chairman James Soong (
Nevertheless, there are some politicians in Taiwan who constantly long for the authoritarian era, unable to fit in a democratic system, or who think they are infallible, and that they, just like Mao, have become gods. That is cause for concern.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry