Morals have been neglected during Taiwan's democratization because the government and society have ignored the issue of historical justice.
The Chen Wen-chen Incident (
At that time, the KMT government claimed that Chen had committed suicide, however, an autopsy performed by an American forensics expert disputed this conclusion.
But history is not without irony. A few days ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said at an international press conference that the autopsy on Chen was conducted by foreign experts, adding that foreign professionals helped clarify suspicions and showed good faith to the nation. Are these really the facts?
Lies are once again being spread by Lien and Soong, who at the time of Chen's death were high-ranking officials. They make us feel ashamed.
Chen had returned to Taiwan during the Martial Law era. An outstanding Taiwanese, he returned to visit his wife and son after signing a three-year contract to teach at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. With his aspirations and a love for Taiwan, Chen had no reason to kill himself. His corpse was found at his old university.
After an autopsy by domestic coroners, an investigation by Taipei District prosecutors and a review by the Control Yuan, the official explanation was: "There is no evidence of murder. Accidental death or suicide are probable."
The distressed family of Chen, particularly his wife, Chen Su-jen (
The murder of Chen took place within two years of the tragedy in which former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) family was killed.
Lin's six-year-old twin daughters were brutally murdered along with their grandmother on Feb. 28, 1980. His eldest daughter, then nine-years old, was severely injured in the attack but survived.
No arrests have been made in the case. Lin and many Taiwanese believe the attack was politically motivated.
These cases darkened Taiwan's political outlook. Despite being stunned and startled, many Tai-wanese, both inside and outside the country, sought to redress the these wrongs.
Carnegie Mellon president Richard Cyert sent Morris DeGroot of the department of statistics and forensics expert
Dr. Cyril Wecht to Taipei to carry out an autopsy on Chen. After they dissected Chen's frozen body, they concluded: "Chen Wen-chen was a victim of murder. Unconscious, he was pushed down to his death from a fire ladder."
Soong, then director of the Government Information Office, obstructed redress in every possible way. Although he knew that the two Americans came to conduct an autopsy, Soong insisted that Associated Press reporter Tina Chou (周清月) replace the word "autopsy" in her stories with the phrase "inspection of Chen's body." Soong later cancelled Chou's reporter's license and deported her.
The ghost of authoritarianism continues to haunt the nation. On International Human Rights Day last December the PFP hindered Chou from visiting Taiwan and speaking at a conference held by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Soong and the PFP's actions are to be condemned.
To restore the truth, Chen's violent death must be explained. Lien and Soong's allegation that the autopsy was conducted by domestic and foreign experts is a sheer lie. Instead of reflecting on political persecution by the KMT and apologizing for having interfered with the autopsy, Lien and Soong cited the Chen Wen-chen Incident as a pretext for the use of foreign forensics experts, hoping to further their demands for an independent investigation of the March 19 shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Nothing could be more preposterous.
If Lien and Soong still have any conscience left, they should come to the Chen Wen-chen Memorial Foundation to apologize in person within 48 hours.
While in power, the KMT had prevented the foundation from registering under this name.
Yet history manifests itself. Without any awareness of history, the persecutors during the age of totalitarianism brazenly lie in public. In light of their past behavior, they lied deliberately in order to try to win the presidency. But their lies cannot whitewash the history of oppression of human rights.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS