Today is the 60th anniversary of the 228 Incident, a political and social watershed that still has the potential to split the nation.
For more than a decade the government has attempted to heal the wounds from the violence and persecution of that era, but despite former president Lee Teng-hui's (
This year, the biggest change has been the government's decision to name dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
It is instructive that so many voices within the KMT remain unwilling to face up to the historical record and concede the criminality of past deeds. Ma's attempts to give the KMT a friendlier face will continue to be foiled as long as extremists and apologists within its ranks defend indefensible conduct by their party heroes.
But the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government deserves criticism, too. Its piecemeal approach to dealing with the issue leaves the impression that it is insincere and irresolute. For example, some of those persecuted still have the label "hooligan" on their household registration certificates, a situation that the Ministry of the Interior ordered to be changed only this year, displaying an astounding lack of tact and diligence on the part of officials.
In another example, regulations authorizing compensation for victims imply that these payments are goodwill handouts instead of compensation for past wrongs at the hands of the government.
The 228 Incident has come to crystallize the beginning of a string of tragedies and abuses that began almost immediately after KMT troops arrived in Taiwan at the end of World War II. These abuses, including the security census and the White Terror that followed the 228 Incident, must never be forgotten if this nation is to arrive at a just reading of the past.
An indispensable part of this process is the release of all information from official investigations -- despite the reluctance of powerful bureaucrats with pan-blue-camp ties and others who wish to avoid inflaming bad memories -- to let the facts be known.
This is an important task, and one which the DPP has inexplicably failed to accomplish. President Chen Shui-bian (
Victims of the 228 Incident and the White Terror included Taiwanese and Mainlanders. The abusers were a clique of autocrats led by the Chiang family and a number of civilians who capitalized on their superior status. The attitude of KMT hardliners over the decades has resulted in all Mainlanders being branded as complicit in the injustice.
It's about time this perception ended. But for this to happen, those with personal responsibility for massacres and persecution must no longer be depicted as national heroes by the KMT.
True forgiveness is only possible with justice and understanding, and understanding must be built on facts and the courage to face up to them -- and the consequences of their release.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS