Yesterday was 228 Memorial Day. However, over the past eight years, since former president Lee Teng-hui (
First, it is imperative for the public realize that what happened on Feb. 28 56 years ago was not an isolated and random infliction of violence by a government on its people.
There were many contributing factors to the event, ranging from ethnic tension between the Taiwanese and the Chinese mainlanders, the depression and the corruption and autocracy of the KMT regime, among others. On the other hand, the incident can been seen as formally beginning an era of White Terror and government oppression that lasted until a little over a decade ago.
The day symbolizes the oppression of an alien regime against the people of Taiwan. In this regard, it makes sense for the DPP to choose the 228 Memorial Day as the day to remember the Kaohsiung Incident, to make public de-classified files on the incident and demand an apology from PFP Chairman James Soong (
The pan-blue camp has also criticized the DPP of selectively focusing on the Kaohsiung Incident for political consideration, since many former victims and participants of the incident now play important roles in the DPP government. The pan-blue camp has also argued that reclassification of files of the 228 Incident and the White Terror era deserve more attention. But, one cannot help but think that this is perhaps because the Kaohsiung Incident, which occurred only a little over two decades ago, is simply too close in time for the many current pan-blue leaders, such as Soong, to evade responsibility.
Soong has adopted an embarrassingly evasive attitude toward his part of his past. It is true that in order to move on the people of Taiwan must learn to forgive those who have wronged them. But, isn't an admission of wrong by the wrongdoers a precondition to forgiveness? If there was no wrong, what is there to forgive? This is true irrespective of whether the wrong was the 228 Incident, the Formosa Incident, or the Kaohsiung Incident.
Many pan-blue camp members who helped the old KMT regime oppress the people characterized what happened as "a historical tragedy," playing down their own roles and perhaps implying they had no choice about doing the things they did.
But, even if they truly disapproved of the government's wrongdoing, just like everyone else, they had three options -- one, stand up against it; two, keep quiet but take no part in it; and finally, give disgruntled assistance.
It goes without saying what these three options respectively reflect about the moral characters of the ones who take them. While those who chose option one were clearly heros and those who chose option two were ordinary people, those who chose option three were at least accomplices.
If there is anything that should be learned from the 228 Incident, the White Terror era and the Kaohsiung Incident, it should be the priceless value of democracy. It is the only way that a government can sustain power without resorting to bloodshed, violence and gun barrels. The day also reminds us that the nation's democracy today was not without a costly price, giving everyone even more reason to appreciate democracy, freedoms and human rights.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic