Tuesday was the 40th anniversary of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) "May 16 Notice," which is generally agreed to have marked the official start of the Cultural Revolution in China.
The CCP recognizes the 10-year-long Cultural Revolution as "a disastrous decade" which not only brought the economy to the verge of collapse but which also caused the death and persecution of countless thousands; the actual number is still not known. Research has indicated that millions of people, perhaps as many as 20 million, lost their lives as a consequence of the movement. Even more suffered persecution, an estimated 100 million to 200 million people out of a population which at the time stood at only 800 million to 900 million. The CCP brought an end to discussion on the Cultural Revolution in 1981, and it is said that the party tried to distance itself from it. From that point on they did not permit any more discussion or reflection on the subject, and it remains taboo to this day. The CCP even barred Chinese citizens from taking part in any discussion on the matter abroad.
But why distance itself from it, and forbid commemoration of the event? Fifty years ago, following the death of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, during the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev released a confidential report denouncing Stalin's violent abuses and immoral conduct. After this, Mao began to worry that people would give him a similar epitaph, and his May 16 notice clearly stated that "people like Khrushchev are nestling among us."
After years of observation, Mao finally decided that the No. 2 man in the CCP, Liu Shaoqi (
The CCP's distancing itself from the Cultural Revolution fell short of a genuine denial, and because of this, de facto Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (登小平) and other members of the old guard who had been toppled during the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution were at first unable to regain their power. Nevertheless, it was impossible for the CCP to actually deny the Cultural Revolution, for to have done so would have been to cast Mao as the chief protagonist of the disaster. Mao is the spiritual symbol of the CCP itself, and to have pulled him down would have divested the CCP of the legitimacy to govern China.
This is what led the party to propagate the nonsense that Mao had been exploited by Lin Biao and Jiang Qing. Mao may have made mistakes, but there is no denying that he represented the collective intellect. Deng was to exploit the CCP's refusal to deny the Cultural Revolution to settle old scores of his own, designating three types of undesirable personality and unprincipled characters, and branding Lin Biao and Jiang Qing as members of a "counter-revolutionary group."
The Cultural Revolution originated in the despotic structure of the CCP, and Mao's approach was, at base, a philosophy of violent revolution. Despite the reforms and the opening up of the party, the CCP is still as grounded in avarice and violence as ever, with no real likelihood of change. Deng saw the 1989 student movement as another attempt to wrest power from him, and so he gave the order for the massacre. In the ensuing religious and moral vacuum, Falun Gong arose, only to be banned by former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), who saw them as a threat to the CCP's rule. It was just a replay of the Cultural Revolution.
At the moment the CCP is trying to create two camps in Taiwan, conscripting the pro-China element within Taiwan, represented as the "unification headquarters," to come out in opposition against the localization camp, which is being recast as the "independence headquarters." The CCP is trying to win over the hearts of the Taiwanese, but once it has used the pro-unification element to defeat the pro-independence elements, it will side with the pro-independence groups against the pro-unification groups. It is a classic "pitting the barbarians against each other" strategy, and they intend to use it to bring Taiwan to its knees.
Paul Lin is a New York-based political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS