While Taiwanese all over the nation were holding various events to commemorate and reflect on the 228 Incident last month, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insisted that the massacre was nothing more than an unfortunate instance of public resistance to government oppression.
Not only does Ma's inability to see the forest for the trees demonstrate a complete lack of reflection, but it is also a mark of incredible arrogance on the part of the man who would be the president of the nation.
If the 228 Incident can be explained by simply reducing it to an act of public resistance to government oppression, then almost all the other political conflicts, protests and battles fought throughout the world during that time would neatly fit in this category as well.
Accepting this generalization would mean that we can easily discard theories and research made by political scientists and sociologists on the issue of poltical repression.
Consequently, the Wushe Incident, in which the Japanese military brutally put down an Atayal uprising in 1930, would also, as the then KMT-led education system would have had us believe, was merely public resistance instead of resistance to Japanese colonialism. And the US Revolutionary War would be nothing more than a North American colony revolting against high British taxes on tea.
There would be no need to discuss the complexities of social and economic factors during colonial times, nor to visit other high concepts and values such as freedom, equality and human rights.
Ma's characterization of the 228 Incident simplifies it to a fuse lighting a powder keg. But his comment conceals the more complex and systemic social, economic, cultural and ethnic issues that ultimately led to the event.
This simplification exemplifies why we cannot discard many of the theories from political scientists and sociologists and why they can help us analyze the past and learn from it.
Ma's attitude toward 228 only demonstrates his unwillingness to honestly face and reflect on this important event in the nation's history.
As a beneficiary of the regime that oppressed Taiwanese before, during and after the 228 Incident, Ma has once again showcased his haughtiness and his blatant detachment from ordinary Taiwanese.
His verbal style and choice of words imply that the 228 Incident was caused by "bad officials," of whom the main culprit was punished by execution. Such a suggestion denies any connection between these officials and the regime.
Ma's strategy is to destroy any link between the 228 Incident and the KMT as a political entity.
Once again,"Mr Teflon" gets away with it.
The 228 Incident was the result of a long-term conflict between local economic, social and cultural practices and the cultural chauvinism of a foreign regime imposed upon Taiwanese, its dictatorial political suppression, an arbitrary economic system and the collapse of the KMT in China.
All of us, particularly those who benefited from the KMT, must be prepared to understand and own up to this incident by understanding these diverse and complex reasons rather than turn to the quick, reductionist and haughty explanation that it was a matter of public resistance to government suppression.
Only then will the wound truly heal.
Chi Chun-chieh is a professor at National Dong-Hwa University's Institute of Ethnic Relations and Culture.
Translated by Marc Langer
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