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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS