直面歷史 撫平傷痛

<轉載自2024年6月4日 明報 社評>

今天是六四事件35周年。當年北京大批民眾和學生自發前往天安門廣場，悼念逝世的原中共總書記胡耀邦，表達反官倒、反腐敗的訴求，即使後來事態變得複雜，學生表現亦有不成熟之處，但絕大多數民眾都是出於一片丹心，希望國家進步，事件流血收場是一場歷史悲劇。人事變化，滄海桑田，過去數十年國家發展成就可觀，官方強調對當年發生的事情早有定論，反對任何以此為藉口抹黑中國的圖謀，然而六四事件所遺下的歷史傷痛，仍然需要撫平。

六四事件35周年 愛國丹心應予肯定

六四事件源於1989年4月15日胡耀邦逝世。當時國家正值新舊思潮激盪時期，改革開放摸着石頭過河，有得有失。所有制結構的調整，既為社會經濟發展注入了強大動力，同時亦衍生官倒貪腐等亂象，有官方背景的倒買倒賣投機者橫行，利用當時的特殊環境和條件，啄食民脂民膏。胡耀邦思想作風開放，「一生為民，兩袖清風」，對照當時官場，他的離世在社會引發巨大迴響，北京民衆自發到天安門廣場悼念胡耀邦，藉此表達對官倒貪腐的不滿，其後逐步演變成為一場由大學生牽頭、爭取政治改革的愛國民主運動。由1989年4月15日到6月4日，這一個多月間，不乏和平解決事件契機，可惜一一錯過，最後流血告終，令人遺憾痛心。AdChoices廣告

1989年是重要歷史分岔口，就在六四事件發生後數月，柏林圍牆倒下，東歐變天。冷戰結束後，蘇聯踏上解體分崩之路，俄羅斯人經歷了一場又一場的經濟災難，多年後逐步回復穩定，但已元氣大傷，與西方世界的關係，也一直矛盾重重，現在的俄烏戰爭，本質就是美俄衝突。相比之下，中國則踏上了截然不同的道路。

1992年鄧小平南巡後，改革開放再次全速上路，國家僅僅花了20年時間，便一躍成為世界第二大經濟體。另外，權力當局也汲取教訓，深明「貪腐可以亡黨亡國」，過去10多年反腐肅貪，更屬雷厲風行。國家這30多年的發展，確實令人刮目相看，政治社會環境穩定，無疑是重要前提，然而六四事件仍然是橫亘在民族內部的一根刺，需要拔除。

當局近年強調，對八九年春夏之交所發生的事「早有定論」，惟回顧歷史，由早期的「反革命暴亂」到後來的「政治風波」，當局對事件的定性，亦有調整。2021年，十九屆六中全會通過《中共中央關於黨的百年奮鬥重大成就和歷史經驗的決議》，便以「嚴重政治風波」來定性事件。決議提到事件背後有「國際上反共反社會主義的敵對勢力的支持和煽動」，但同時也重申「國際大氣候」和「國內小氣候」因素並存；決議提到黨和政府「旗幟鮮明反對動亂，捍衛了社會主義國家政權」，但沒有直接定性事件為「反革命暴亂」。當年北京民眾走上街頭，都是出於一片丹心，不應該否定他們的愛國情懷；六四事件不少死難者是無辜百姓，即使當局對這場「嚴重政治風波」早有定論，依然可以還死者及家屬一個公道。

近年世界格局彷彿回到冷戰時期，大國鬥爭激烈，美國大搞「認知作戰」，加緊給中國貼上「反派」標籤，北京則一再重申，反對外部力量藉人權問題干涉內政、遏制中國發展。過去大半年，華府對待加沙戰爭的態度，已充分暴露美國當局在人權問題上的偽善和雙重標準。反華勢力假借民主人權之名，操作六四周年議題，劃清界線有其必要，然而這個日子依然值得抱着愛國家愛民族之心去紀念，重提舊事不是為了挑動仇恨或「軟對抗」，而是希望當局直面歷史，撫平六四事件遺留下來的傷痛。

六四悲劇非無可避免 還原真相顯歷史擔當

六四事件並非無可避免的悲劇，當年權力當局內部對於如何看待及處理廣場上的民眾，明顯存在路線和意見分歧。過去10多年，先後有當年核心人物在境外出版回憶錄，就六四事件講述他們的版本，各人說法不一，甚至互相矛盾。部分死者家屬雖然垂垂老矣，但至今仍然耿耿於懷，一大原因就是很多史實仍然不清不楚。中共並非沒有糾正歷史重大錯誤的傳統。文革後，鄧小平、胡耀邦平反了大量冤假錯案，更否定了文化大革命；百年歷史決議更將文化大革命定性為「十年內亂」，是「最嚴重挫折」、「教訓慘痛」。談歷史就是為了向前看。今天，國家穩定富強，面對複雜的國際形勢也更有自信，當局實有更大空間還原真相撫平傷痛。

Facing History Squarely

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the June Fourth Incident. 35 years ago, multitudes of citizens and students in Beijing headed to Tiananmen Square on their own initiative to mourn the death of Hu Yaobang, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), expressing their opposition to speculative activities by people with a government background ( known as "official profiteering") and corruption. The situation later became complicated, and the students' behaviour was immature to a certain extent. Still, the vast majority of the people acted out of loyalty to their country with aspirations for China's progress. It was a historical tragedy that the incident ended in bloodshed.

The June Fourth incident originated from the death of Hu Yaobang on 15 April 1989. Back then, China was caught up in the competition between old and new ideological trends. The reform and opening up, which was experimental in essence, had both successes and failures. The adjustment of the ownership structure not only provided impetus for social and economic development, but also gave rise to irregularities such as official profiteering and corruption. Speculators with government backgrounds, who bought goods through official channels and made a profit by selling them, rode roughshod over the law. They took advantage of the special environment and conditions back then and chipped away at people's wealth.

Hu Yaobang, a liberal politician in ideology and governance style, was dedicated to the well-being of the people and remained uncorrupted throughout, which was in contrast with officialdom back then. His demise had widespread repercussions in society. People in Beijing headed to Tiananmen Square on their own initiative to mourn him and express their dissatisfaction with official profiteering and corruption. Later, it gradually evolved into a patriotic democratic movement spearheaded by university students who fought for political reform. Over a month or so between 15 April and 4 June, 1989, there were many opportunities to peacefully resolve the incident. Regrettably, none of these opportunities was seized.

In recent years, the authorities have emphasised that a conclusion has long been made on what happened between the spring and summer of 1989. However, looking back at history, the authorities' definition of the incident has changed from "counter-revolutionary riots" to "political turmoil". In 2021, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China passed a resolution to define the incident as a "serious political disturbance". The resolution mentioned "the support and incitement of hostile anti-communist and anti-socialist forces internationally", but it also reiterated that "international macroclimate" and "domestic microclimate" factors coexisted. The resolution mentioned that the CCP and the government "took an unequivocal stance against the riots and defended the power of the socialist state", but it did not directly define the incident as a "counter-revolutionary riot".

Back then, people in Beijing took to the streets out of loyalty to their country, and their patriotism should not be denied. Many of the victims of the June Fourth incident were innocent people. Even if the authorities have already made a conclusion on the "serious political disturbance", they can still restore justice to the deceased and their families.

After the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang overturned the decisions of a large number of unjust, false and erroneous cases, and even rejected the Cultural Revolution. The Centennial Resolution even defined the Cultural Revolution as "ten years of civil strife", "the most serious setback" and "a painful lesson". The point of talking about history is to look ahead. China is stable and prosperous today with greater confidence in facing a complex international situation. The authorities actually have more room to restore the truth and heal the wounds.

直面歷史 撫平傷痛

今天是六四事件35周年。當年北京大批民眾和學生自發前往天安門廣場，悼念逝世的原中共總書記胡耀邦，表達反官倒、反腐敗的訴求，即使後來事態變得複雜，學生表現亦有不成熟之處，但絕大多數民眾都是出於一片丹心，希望國家進步，事件流血收場是一場歷史悲劇。

六四事件源於1989年4月15日胡耀邦逝世。當時國家正值新舊思潮激盪時期，改革開放摸着石頭過河，有得有失。所有制結構的調整，既為社會經濟發展注入了強大動力，同時亦衍生官倒貪腐等亂象，有官方背景的倒買倒賣投機者橫行，利用當時的特殊環境和條件，啄食民脂民膏。

胡耀邦思想作風開放，「一生為民，兩袖清風」，對照當時官場，他的離世在社會引發巨大迴響，北京民眾自發到天安門廣場悼念胡耀邦，藉此表達對官倒貪腐的不滿，其後逐步演變成為一場由大學生牽頭、爭取政治改革的愛國民主運動。由1989年4月15日到6月4日，這一個多月間，不乏和平解決事件契機，可惜一一錯過。

當局近年強調，對八九年春夏之交所發生的事「早有定論」，惟回顧歷史，由早期的「反革命暴亂」到後來的「政治風波」，當局對事件的定性，亦有調整。2021年，十九屆六中全會通過決議，便以「嚴重政治風波」來定性事件。決議提到事件背後有「國際上反共反社會主義的敵對勢力的支持和煽動」，但同時也重申「國際大氣候」和「國內小氣候」因素並存；決議提到黨和政府「旗幟鮮明反對動亂，捍衛了社會主義國家政權」，但沒有直接定性事件為「反革命暴亂」。

當年北京民眾走上街頭，都是出於一片丹心，不應該否定他們的愛國情懷；六四事件不少死難者是無辜百姓，即使當局對這場「嚴重政治風波」早有定論，依然可以還死者及家屬一個公道。

文革後，鄧小平、胡耀邦平反了大量冤假錯案，更否定了文化大革命；百年歷史決議更將文化大革命定性為「十年內亂」，是「最嚴重挫折」、「教訓慘痛」。談歷史就是為了向前看。今天，國家穩定富強，面對複雜的國際形勢也更有自信，當局實有更大空間還原真相撫平傷痛。