Friday last week marked the 35th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) posted on Facebook to mark the event, but also used the occasion to attack the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its “authoritarian and despotic ways.”
Interestingly, it was former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the DPP who designated July 15 as a historic day to commemorate the end of the Martial Law era, and if one looks at how the KMT has been obstructing transitional justice, it is evident which one has been the more “authoritarian” party.
As the party that imposed martial law in the first place, it is understandable that the KMT has always evaded the topic. Nevertheless, to support Chu’s Facebook post, the party posted on its Facebook fan page an explanation for imposing martial law in 1949, with many Internet users commenting on the three main points of its post: context, historical legacy and the party’s promise to take responsibility. As for how the KMT has taken responsibility, it has, unsurprisingly, left that part open.
An interesting question is whether the lifting of martial law really meant the end of it. Even though it ended on July 15, 1987, its specter has continued to haunt Taiwan, as numerous legal restrictions had been introduced to the judicial and administrative system under the authoritarian regime. Aside from censorship, several forms of control and restraint have been written into laws and regulations as well.
Files declassified by the Transitional Justice Commission show that the KMT’s authoritarian monitoring and measures only ended in 2000, 13 years after the lifting of martial law, when Taiwan underwent its first transfer of political power to another party.
The repeal of the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員戡亂時期臨時條款) and an amendment to Article 100 of the Criminal Code have done nothing to mitigate the harm that authoritarianism has inflicted on Taiwanese society. As there were countless related restrictions, transitional justice has been a slow and arduous process.
For example, on July 14, 1993 — six years after the lifting of martial law — the legislature finally repealed language restrictions stipulated in the Enforcement Rules of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法施行細則). Before that, the KMT’s policy to abolish native languages besides Mandarin had left generations of Taiwanese with memories of having to pay fines or stand outside classrooms for speaking their native languages when they were young. The repercussion of this policy was the near extinction of native languages such as Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese), Hakka and indigenous languages.
In the past few years, the government has added Southeast Asian languages and indigenous languages to the curriculum to promote their development.
However, the policy has been heavily censured by the KMT, saying that learning those native languages should be confined to the home or time after school. This blatant move to exclude native languages other than Mandarin shows that the KMT has not changed its authoritarian nature, so how could it convince the public that it can “take responsibility”?
For a party that has never taken a pro-Taiwan stance, it has no right to talk about the anniversary. If the KMT wishes to make amends for its past wrongdoing, it would have to start with offering a sincere apology.
Chen Kuan-fu is a graduate law student at National Taipei University.
Translated by Rita Wang
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s