Each year, the anniversary of the 228 Incident throws Taiwanese society into an uproar. While some people demand that we clarify the truth and seek out the prime culprits behind the incident, others -- including most media outlets -- characterize this behavior as provoking ethnic conflict and damaging social harmony. Strange logic indeed.
It is essential that we comb through the historical facts of 228 and seek out the source of this debate and the process by which it was formed.
Following the 228 Incident, the KMT government began to keep people connected with the incident under close surveillance.
The party also made great efforts to silence any discussion of the incident. Statistics show that the media issued only four pieces of news related to the 228 Incident between 1948 and 1983, while the number had risen to just 15 by 1987. Evidently, the KMT was determined to prevent this major historical event from being discussed in the public sphere.
But the KMT could not prevent overseas Taiwanese from expressing their differing opinions of the incident. Consequently -- and ironically -- the long-suppressed 228 Incident actually became the seed that grew into the Taiwanese independence movement. In 1983 and 1984, overseas Taiwanese independence activists began to exert pressure on the KMT, prompting the party to adopt certain measures in response.
In 1985, the National Security Bureau initiated the "Fu Chen Project" to collect all the 228 Incident-related files withheld by various intelligence agencies and transfer them to the "Discourse Unit" of the KMT. In 1986, it published a book entitled Brushing off the Dust on the Bright Mirror of History, stressing that it had already adopted an open-minded attitude toward the 228 Incident and that the measures had not been in response to a pro-independence movement.
The book was also the first instance of the argument that "discussing the 228 Incident would be an attempt to damage the nation's unity and harmony" and that those who intended to bring the KMT to account were provoking ethnic conflict.
In 1987, a series of peaceful movements intended to uncover the truth behind the 228 Incident were held. When answering a lawmaker's question about the cause of the 228 Incident in the legislature, then premier Yu Kuo-hua (
In 1985, facing questions during a legislative question-and-answer session by then lawmaker Chiang Peng-chien (江鵬堅), who later became the first chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Yu even said that the 228 Incident was a result of communist subversion in the government.
Afterwards, although DDP legislators became even more critical of the KMT's handling of the 228 Incident, high-ranking government officials chose to shun responsibility and deflect focus from the issue in order to maintain what they claimed to be ethnic harmony. As a result, Mainlanders became even more closely tied to the KMT and had to share this historical burden with the party.
What's worse, the KMT-controlled media repeatedly instilled their version of the incident into the public and argued that anyone attempting to mention the 228 Incident would be creating ethnic conflict. This eventually became the standard tone of the debate, and so the Mainlanders' "original sin" was formed.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (
What Lee did as president is commendable, for he set the course for democratization. Nonetheless, to help the KMT hold on to its power, Lee did not seek to address issues relating to its party-state ideology, state-controlled media, stolen assets or authoritarian system. In doing so he missed the best opportunity to implement transitional justice.
Even though Taiwan is already a democracy, the descendants of Chiang Kai-shek (
Without the truth and responsibility behind the incident fully clarified, offering superficial financial compensation to the family members of the victims only makes them angrier. Having been made scapegoats, Mainlanders reflexively become very defensive when the 228 Incident is brought up.
What's worse, the media, still bound by the KMT's party-state ideology, tends to recite the same old line that the incident was the result of ethnic conflict. As a result, the incident still causes a stir. By attempting to understand the process by which discussion of the 228 Incident came to be associated with stirring up ethnic tensions, we can perhaps resolve those tensions.
Chen Tsui-lien is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS