Attempts at achieving a form of transitional justice to deal with the fissures brought on by the nation’s complex colonial past are foundering, in no small part due to the lack of an agreement of what is to be preserved, what the goal of a transitional justice program should be, or what historical narrative is to be adopted.
One example is the Ministry of Culture’s proposed legislation to preserve designated sites of injustice. The objective of the bill would be to provide educational opportunities to keep alive awareness of human rights violations perpetrated during the White Terror period of authoritarian rule under the post-World War II Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime.
These sites would be used to keep Taiwanese informed about their past and to achieve a form of healing.
This is not how the KMT sees it.
Suspicious that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government is seeking to use transitional justice as an excuse to politicize the past, KMT legislators on Oct. 30 proposed expanding the scope of the sites to include injustices committed during the Qing Dynasty and the Japanese colonial rule.
Is the scope defined as the White Terror era between the Japanese surrender in 1945 and the end of the White Terror in 1992 arbitrary and unfairly targeting the KMT?
On Tuesday last week DPP legislators and human rights groups told a news conference in Taipei that the KMT proposals were a cynical attempt to trivialize the party’s history of autocratic rule.
How far back does the government need to expand the scope before it stops being arbitrary? The answer to that would be that the White Terror period remains within living memory. Moreover, the KMT still exists. It forms the main opposition in the legislature, where it is doing its best to frustrate the government’s agenda. Its members are elected officials in every administrative region. KMT mayors and county commissioners are at the head of major cities, counties and special municipalities, including the nation’s capital.
By contrast, Japanese colonial rule ended in Taiwan in 1945. The Qing Dynasty ceded all control over Taiwan to Tokyo with the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. From that perspective, the designated scope does not appear so arbitrary anymore.
The term “living memory” can sound a little abstract. Take a look at the article “Daring to remember Taiwan’s past,” published today by Wei Hsin-chi (魏新奇), director of the WTJ Human Right, Culture and Education Association, about how letters from his father, Wei Ting-jao (魏廷朝), incarcerated in the Jingmei Military Detention Center for his role in the Kaohsiung Incident of 1979, brought back poignant memories of weekly family reunions before the father’s death in 1999. He writes: “I had forgotten that I remember it all.”
There is no recrimination in that article, no hate directed at the past KMT regime, only hope and forgiveness. That is the essence and the goal of transitional justice.
Then, there is the article “A question of loyalty to the nation” by former deputy secretary-general of the Lee Teng-hui Foundation Chu Meng-hsiang (朱孟庠), questioning how KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) can identify so explicitly with China when she is a 17th-generation Taiwanese with roots in Chiayi County, and who interprets her father and grandfather’s association with the Taiwanese Cultural Association, founded by Taiwanese democracy pioneer Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水), as representative of their anti-Japanese colonial ideology on the part of a “great China,” as opposed to being informed by a Taiwan nationalist loyalty.
This is the power of narrative and of the ideological manipulation of memory.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
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
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means