When Taiwan was under the authoritarian rule of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), speaking about the history of the 228 Incident of 1947 was taboo. Not until the 1990s, when Taiwan democratized could it be shared with the public.
The history began to unfold, and the wrongs suffered by victims and their families began to be redressed. With more studies investigating the 228 Incident, its outline has become clear.
However, some descendants of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) party-state system have found it unacceptable. They have tried to retell the story, framing the 228 Incident as a Japanese scheme, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) instigation or a riot organized by a “mob” of Imperial Japan.
It is not difficult to debunk their fallacious hypotheses. If the 228 Incident were mobilized by Japan, the CCP or a mob, the KMT would not have bothered to conceal its crimes for 40 years.
Many people are fond of nitpicking inessential matters of the 228 Incident, without paying attention to the following key issues:
After the end of World War II, Taiwanese, especially the social elite, looked forward to welcoming China. The nation-wide anticipation of the “motherland” was entirely different from its resistance against Japanese colonizers in 1895. The question, then, is how this turned into a tremendous clash after only one year and four months. Why did Taiwanese become disenchanted with the Chinese regime, and how?
Taiwan was ruled by then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀), and he was referred to as the “new” governor general of Taiwan. The moniker speaks to some key issues: From 1945 to 1947, how did officials from China rule Taiwan? How disciplined were Chinese troops? What was the social order like?
Taiwan was called the “land of rice and sugar,” but after the end of WWII, society had to deal with shortages of both commodities.
In 1947, Taiwan’s industrial production index had decreased to more than half of the pre-1945 index.
This begs the question of what the 228 Incident was essentially about. Was the public forced to rebel against the government? Was it a conflict between ethnic groups? Was it a communist revolt or a cultural collision?
On Feb. 27, 1947, the 228 Incident erupted. Although the situation had been controlled by March 6, Chiang Kai-shek insisted on sending troops to “appease” Taiwanese. Did the so-called “appeasement” result in massacre?
How did the 228 Incident affect Taiwan’s political structure and social sentiment? History provides some answers.
In 1946, more than 1,180 Taiwanese registered as candidates in the Taiwan Provincial Senate Election, competing for 30 seats in the assembly. After the 228 Incident, in the 1951 First Taiwan Interim Provincial Assembly Election, only 140 candidates registered for an assembly of 55 seats. We must ask why.
Chinese archives and documents — such as Testimonies of Chinese Intellectuals Before and After the 228 (二二八前後中國知識人的見證), and more than 50 memoirs about the 228 Incident — provide great sources to understand the past. It is not possible to try to retell the narrative.
There is one final question: Will the 228 Incident be repeated? Taiwan should have learned from what happened 76 years ago. The CCP’s threat — “leave the island intact, forget the people” — should keep the nation alert.
Lee Hsiao-feng is an honorary professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS