Print

Mail

wiki links

Facing up to history cannot be avoided

On Feb. 28, 1995, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) presided over the unveiling of the 228 monument in Taipei's New Park and gave a speech filled with symbolism, urging the pursuit of ethnic harmony and consensus on a common future goal, and stressing that regardless of ethnicity, people living in Taiwan should bless and care for each other. Since then, the New Park has been known as the 228 Memorial Peace Park.

It is 11 years since Lee made that speech. Has the ethnic divide resulting from historical events been mended? Have different ethnic groups reached a consensus on a common goal? No.

Last Sunday, the government-funded 228 Memorial Foundation published a report entitled The 228 Incident: A Report on Responsibility. The title alone tells us that its objective is to assign responsibility for the 1947 massacre. The report generated much public debate prior to its release, especially since it says that former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was the prime culprit behind the 228 Incident. Many people believe that the release of the report is only going to put the cat among the pigeons instead of allaying ethnic conflict.

Is it really so easy to maintain social calm that all we have to do is ignore a debate over who was responsible for past rights or wrongs? Is it better that we all develop a case of collective amnesia so that as soon as the 228 Incident is mentioned, we say "historic tragedy" -- as if that means that there are no perpetrators, that victims only need compensation and that society at large can find solace and redemption simply in the word "tragedy."

For a society with no understanding of tragedy, that kind of redemption is far too cheap.

Following the collapse of the East German regime in 1989, the East's Ministry of State Security (Stasi) shredded all classified files. The German government then commissioned an organization to reconstruct the 16,000 sacks of shredded Stasi files through advanced computer reconstruction systems.

By 2009, more than 600 million pieces of torn-up files will have been pieced back together and normal people and politicians who worked for or had connections with the Stasi may well come to light. The German federal government is footing the whole bill -- a total of 60 million euros (US$71.3 million) -- for this mammoth jigsaw puzzle.

The Germans clearly do not fear that such a move will incite hatred. To them, the responsibility of perpetrators and the rehabilitation of victims cannot be dealt with simply by the word "tragedy."

How can a historical assessment built on legal concepts not founded in constitutionalism, and conclusions such as "cultural differences" and "differences in understanding" give our children a view of history based on democratic and juridical concepts?

According to the most basic principles of democracy and constitutionalism, a government is mandated by the people. The government maintains social order as specified in the Constitution and its subordinate legal system, and it executes its measures through judicial proceedings.

In what way did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government's actions follow the above standards during 228?

A nation's armed forces are supposed to deal with its enemies -- did Chiang's government really see Taiwan as an enemy state and its people as enemies? How can a government turn its army on its people and then shirk responsibility in a country practicing democracy and the rule of law?

The time has come to attempt to assign responsibility. Rather than muddling and doing away with the memories of past ethnic conflict, we should face these memories based on the principles of democratic constitutionalism.

Lee Fu-chung is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.

Translated by Daniel Cheng
This story has been viewed 1814 times.