When former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
In the space of four days, Ma has reversed this position, writing yesterday in the United Daily News that: "Tragic ethnic conflicts such as the 228 Incident are likely to happen again if people allow politicians to continue dividing ethnic groups."
This new stance, which misrepresents the events and political structures of 1947, will probably leave readers rather confused. So, let the facts talk:
After the arrival of the KMT in late 1945, officials and newspaper editorials said Taiwanese had been infected by the Japanese -- on levels of language, culture and identity that can only be sensibly labeled as "ethnic" -- and promised to cure them of their "Japaneseness." This led to stupid policies, such as breaking up families with Japanese members and banning the use in publications of the Japanese language -- Taiwan's lingua franca at the time -- thus severing lines of communication between those of different ethnic groups with limited literacy.
So, ethnicity indeed had a critical role in 228.
All this history may be too complex for Ma to understand. And to this day, Ma may be unaware that his mentor and former employer, president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Yet Ma is the most moderate and conciliatory KMT leader on this issue. He is the KMT man civilized people turn to in the hope of having a dialogue. He can be abused to his face by his foes and he will maintain decorum. Unusual for a KMT leader, he manages to retain a degree of credibility and dignity.
The same cannot be said for most of his senior party colleagues, where there is scant interest in the 228 Incident. Put simply, there is no genuine contrition in the KMT over its criminal past.
The word "responsibility" and apologies may be bandied about, but the KMT has come up pitifully short on what really matters: action.
Action to make amends is the product of true contrition, yet within the KMT, and on its think tank perimeters and across sympathetic academic networks, hardliners consistently act in opposition to the process of accountability. And they still have the upper hand: So-called party moderates rarely speak out with conviction on these matters.
Events that triggered the 228 Incident -- government theft of private property, abuse of international aid, carpetbagging, the killing and mistreatment of ordinary people -- were later reflected in the manner in which top KMT officials made fortunes from the enmeshing of party and state. It is this legacy that the KMT refuses to denounce, let alone seek to correct in a manner respectful of all Taiwanese people.
Instead, we are treated to the KMT and its radical allies saying that accountability for 228 and the White Terror threatens to foment ethnic tension -- a claim that is unspeakably arrogant and malicious.
The real issue is this: Until the KMT can explain why it defends and nurtures extremist views of history and rationalizes theft of public assets, the pan-green-camp voter will look upon it as ill-willed.
Today's KMT leaders did not commit the crimes of 1947 or those thereafter, but they refuse to let go of the booty that the violence helped put in their hands.
Until this changes, the anniversary of the 228 Incident will continue to divide those who want to move forward by facing the past and those who insult the memory of the murdered by lecturing the bereaved on ethnic harmony.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS