So perhaps the pan-blues are to get their way after all. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is, we are told, considering whether an independent commission should be established to investigate his shooting on March 19. Apart from the dubious constitutional position of such a commission -- criminal investigations are entirely a matter for the Judicial Yuan -- it is hard to find fault with the idea. A harsh investigatory light is perhaps the only thing that will get rid of the pan-blues' shadowy claims and refocus attention on the most likely explanation for the shooting: a lone gunman prompted by the pan-blue's obscene election campaign.
If we're in the business of creating special commissions, however, let us not forget that there are a number of other crimes that cry out for high-profile treatment. Saturday saw the 23rd anniversary of the murder of Professor Chen Wen-cheng (
And why stop there? Because it is not just a case of the Martial Law regime getting a little heavy-handed. The Martial Law regime was itself illegal. The KMT regime was not, after all, the sovereign government of Taiwan, but a regime of occupation tasked with the temporary administration of Taiwan. International law is quite strict on what occupiers may not do with regard to changing the society and institutions of the lands they occupy. In this light almost everything the KMT did from 1945 was illegal. What is needed is an investigatory commission into the criminality of the KMT regime itself.
At the seminar on Friday it was pointed out that Taiwan had given priority to providing compensation for the injustices of the past but that money was often not what the victims' families actually wanted. Nor did cash bring the closure that they sought. Taiwan's approach has been both open-handed and mealy-mouthed. While compensating for injustices it has avoided addressing the issue of by whom or for what reason those injustices were performed. As such, justice itself has been ill-served.
This is not an abstract issue. It means the murderers and the torturers of the Martial Law era walk among us with impunity. Should they? Those who gave them their orders still play a major role in Taiwan's political life. Should they?
One of the things we have learned from various attempts at truth commissions and the like in the last decade or so is that emerging democracies are stronger for having had them, stronger for facing up to their past. Only when the dark deeds of the past are scrutinized properly will people understand what was so bad about it all and why we don't want to return there.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS