"New immigrants" is a term that can be used to refer to the "Mainlanders" who arrived in Taiwan after 1945 in the wake of the Japanese defeat. In fact, this term is more appropriate than "Mainlanders"; after all, Taiwan is a society of immigrants, made up of different ethnic groups and separate waves of immigrants who have coalesced into what is now Taiwanese society.
The immigrants that came in 1945 from various parts of China constituted an armed community, including government, political parties, military, public servants and ordinary people, so that they were necessarily more isolated from society at large, more defensive and xenophobic.
After 50 years of living in Taiwan, these new immigrants have gradually become integrated and can no longer be easily distinguished from other inhabitants. But because their family background, upbringing and education is different from that of immigrants who came to Taiwan prior to 1945, they naturally have a different perspective on history and culture.
This is most evident in different interpretations of the 228 Incident. Some of the new immigrants feel that the incident has nothing to do with them. Despite this, whenever the incident is spoken of, they feel they are being censured.
Others believe that the incident was a revolt against the government and that in order to maintain its authority, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) acted correctly in using military force to suppress the dissidents. They accept the rationalization of the KMT for its actions.
Still others believe that the Taiwanese rejected the new immigrants, and that the government acted as it did to protect these immigrants.
These points of view and the feelings they represent are understandable. But if the new immigrants isolate themselves from the facts of the 228 Incident, they will never overcome the psychological obstacle that this event represents.
One, the incident was a conflict between the rulers and the ruled. After the defeat of the Japanese, the undisciplined and corrupt forces that took over the governance of Taiwan caused people in Taiwan to lose their initial delight and hope for a new future and fall into the depths of despair. Finally they rose up and demanded reform.
The government ignored the voice of the people and sent soldiers to suppress dissent, arresting and executing many Taiwanese. The victims also included new immigrants and Aborigines. Anyone who was perceived as a threat to the government faced arrest and execution.
Two, the 228 Settlement Committee's list of 32 demands were demands that the Taiwanese people originally made under the Japanese colonial regime. Through a deep understanding of Taiwan's historical development, we can see that these demands are the striving for liberal democracy and independence, and that when the government puts pressure on the people to suppress these ideas, the people will fight back.
Three, during the KMT government's long monopoly on power, it protected its community interests, and used a lock-down policy to suppress Taiwan's history, culture and language. This pressure made it impossible for the voice of Taiwan's community to be heard, creating a gulf of misunderstanding between the Mainlanders and Taiwanese.
The problems created by the one-party state were simplified and represented as a ethnic question, but if we look back over the decades of the KMT's rule, we can see that the true source of the problem is the KMT's need to protect its own interests and those of the community it represented.
Four, the KMT should take responsibility for its misuse of power through arresting and executing Taiwanese without an open trial. In the destruction of life, body, freedom, reputation and possessions, the KMT was flagrantly violating human rights.
Five, the fact that the ethnicity, wealth, status and position of the new immigrants in society was all of a piece is a gross oversimplification perpetrated by the KMT in the course of its rule.
For all of these reasons, the responsibility for the massacre cannot be laid at the collective feet of the new immigrants. We must look at the contemporary circumstances and review the responsibility of those in power. This is the only way to see the problem without it being obscured or muddled.
Some people believe that to bring up the 228 Incident will revive bad memories and inter-ethnic animosity. But this line of thinking cannot stand up to the scrutiny of history.
One of the most popular topics in modern Chinese history is how, after the Opium War, the Western powers invaded China and brought down the Qing dynasty. Doesn't speaking about the invasion of the Western powers in East Asia also revive unpleasant memories?
The history of the Republic of China (ROC) makes much of the 1911 revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty, but doesn't this history also make distinctions between the Han and Manchu peoples, not to mention other ethnic groups? Our history texts discuss these issues, which all have ethnic repercussions, in great detail.
At the same time we say that to discuss the 228 Incident, to record what happened, is to incite ethnic conflict. Isn't this a double standard? Isn't this simply Han chauvinism or a perspective colored by "Greater China" ideology?
The KMT's one-party state educational policy often includes the discourse of Greater China ideology and neglects Taiwan. Subject to this type of education, people are eventually influenced by it, making it impossible for them to take a Taiwanese perspective in looking at these historical questions.
The new immigrants see themselves as "Mainlanders" and become unable to enter into the spirit of a Taiwan community, and might even associate themselves exclusively with the privileged position of the new immigrant regime, making it impossible for them to be objective.
We should pursue historical truth, so that we can find understanding and forgiveness from knowledge of the facts. By sticking our heads in the sand so that we see and hear nothing is simply a way of escaping unpleasant realities.
From the 1990s, when Taiwan began to emerge as a democratic nation, the 228 Incident also emerged as a topic of discussion. This is very gratifying. But in the name of reconciliation between the government and the opposition, the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp, and between the various ethnic groups, accountability for the incident has become blurred.
The facts about the incident have been obscured and it is now difficult to study the 228 Incident from the standpoint of justice, human rights, fairness, rule of law and democracy. This should not be the case in a normal society.
The 228 Incident took place 58 years ago. Although we are not the perpetrators, nor the direct victims, this event has had an impact on our lives. Regardless of our ethnicity, it has left its scar and has become part of our experience of history.
If we face up to what happened and examine our responses, we will have a chance to transcend it, turning our energy to more constructive purposes.
Chang Yen-hsian is the director of the Historica Sinica.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS