Despite President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) repeated apologies to political victims and their families for what they have suffered under the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the government’s recent nomination of former military prosecutor Lin Hui-huang (林輝煌) as one of the candidates for the Council of Grand Justices again proves that Ma’s words are empty, and might explain why many people do not believe him.
Less than a month ago, Ma apologized to the victims of the 228 Incident and their families during an official memorial event, promising that his government would do everything possible to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again.
This is not new. Ma makes similar remarks about three times every year: On 228 Memorial Day for victims of the 228 Incident; on July 15, and the anniversary of the end of the 38-year Martial Law era, to White Terror victims and their families; and to both groups of people on Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day.
Ma might wonder why most people still do not believe that he is sincere about what he says, as he has repeated such remarks each year since he was sworn in as president in 2008 — even starting in 1998 when he was elected mayor of Taipei. However, why should people believe him, especially when his government nominates a former military prosecutor, who took part in persecuting pro-democracy activists, including the late Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介), former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and former DPP chairman Shih Ming-te (施明德), following the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979?
Moreover, when facing criticism from lawmakers and human rights groups over the nomination, Minister of Justice Lo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) defended her decision by saying that Lin is an excellent candidate, and that the Kaohsiung Incident is something that happened “a long time ago.”
True, 1979 might be “a long time ago,” but how could the public trust a person who played a key role in persecuting political dissidents to serve on the Council of Grand Justices, and to defend the fundamental values as laid out in the Constitution?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a girl named Anna Rosmus from Passau, Germany, tried to dig into the city’s past during the Third Reich. Although it was said that the city’s leading figures and prominent families helped to resist the Nazis, her research found that they were not only collaborators, but active Nazi members, and even helped to send 400 of the city’s Jews to concentration camps. Rosmus faced tremendous pressure and threats when conducting the research, and even had to file lawsuits to access the city’s archives.
It has been 36 years since the Kaohsiung Incident, about the same amount of time since the end of World War II when Rosmus began her research on the town’s Nazi past, and those in power in Passau were still trying to cover up what happened “a long time ago.”
Therefore, it might not be that difficult to imagine how Lin would react, for example, if someone filed a complaint stating that it is unconstitutional for the government to keep certain files related to political persecutions classified and prohibit public access to them.
If someone who is part of the injustice is allowed to serve on the Council of Grand Justices, how could the public expect Ma to fulfill his promises about compensating victims and their families, or for transitional justice to ever occur?
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS