On Sunday, a group of academics published a report entitled The 228 Incident: A Report on Responsibility that claims former president Chiang Kai-shek (
The report, financed by the government-funded 228 Memorial Foundation and headed by Academia Historica President Chang Yen-hsien (
After it came to power in 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government declared Feb. 28 a national holiday to commemorate the 1947 incident. The tragedy had been the subject of a massive cover-up by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, and the misinformation disseminated as a result has led to distrust and tensions between various ethnic groups.
The report's clarification of the incident, in which many of Taiwan's intellectual elite were massacred, is necessary to put a stop to self-serving politicians or political parties exploiting misconceptions about Taiwan's past to exacerbate social divisions, instead of allowing people to learn something from this tragic event.
Not least among the lessons to be learned is that of forgiveness. But while knowing the truth may allow us to forgive, we must never forget, and those with blood on their hands should not be venerated as heroes.
In 1947, Chiang, who was orchestrating the war against the Chinese Communists from Nanjing, sent a division of the Nationalist Army to Taiwan in response to the 228 Incident. The troops landed in early March and proceeded to slaughter any dissidents, or those who had been framed as such, islandwide in a wave of cruel suppression that continued until after Chiang himself arrived in 1949.
Chiang then introduced martial law. This helped him to consolidate the power of the KMT through the White Terror era, to which both Taiwanese and Mainlanders who had followed the Nationalist Army over from China fell victim. The prison on Green Island (
Whether or not the contents of this report are accepted by Chiang's descendants, they will serve as evidence in a public debate on the 228 Incident. This may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of what actually happened. For example, the true number of victims remains a mystery.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the report's findings or not, the public can learn an important lesson -- namely that even governments cannot escape the judgement of history, and while crimes can be hidden for a time, most will eventually be revealed.
More importantly, Taiwanese should be able to use this incident as a point of reference in debate over the future of cross-strait relations. History tells us that every foreign government that has come to Taiwan -- be it the Qing dynasty, the Japanese, or the Chiangs -- has brought bloodshed in its wake. On the basis of this understanding, it is fair to ask whether, under the unified rule of a communist China, Taiwan has any guarantee of dignity or a secure future.
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