A Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator has proposed a bill that seeks to extend a degree of legal responsibility for the 228 Incident and the White Terror to the spouse, direct descendants and other relatives of suspects.
The proposal is ridiculous, both in political terms and for the fact that it would constitute bad law.
The proposal seems to want to mobilize support from the most steadfast supporters of the pan-green camp.
Using historical atrocities to strengthen the pro-Taiwan vote has worked before, and rightly so, because the pan-blue camp has never offered genuine contrition for the pillaging and abuses its political forefathers committed against Taiwanese people.
With this obnoxious and juridically ignorant suggestion, however, the DPP seems to be either running out of viable strategies or else the ability to keep its small minority of feral members in line -- all at the worst possible time.
Some Taiwanese regard the 228 Incident as a symbol of ongoing injustice and many -- for very good reason -- bear a grudge against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), whose soldiers and agencies have killed so many innocent people and tormented so many others.
The problem is that almost all of the identifiable perpetrators have died of old age. What should be pursued and discussed now is historical and institutional responsibility, not launching some flaccid attack on relatives for events of which the great majority are either ignorant or cannot recall.
DPP Legislator Wang Sing-nan (
This is disingenuous. The law already provides for witnesses to be called to testify if they have first-hand knowledge of a crime.
Forcing relatives of the accused to act as proxy for the accused would be unprecedented. This would not only hurt the nation's reputation but also its human rights environment.
The era of deifying Chiang Kai-shek (
However, to hunt down the families of anyone accused only creates another injustice. Truth and justice is, we can only hope, the common goal of the nation, but over-emphasizing the incident or demeaning the victims of KMT abuses by drawing up hare-brained legislation to increase a party's electoral chances is wholly inappropriate.
Politically, the DPP, by not pulling this bill and disciplining Wang for his strategic ineptitude, has given the KMT a big boost, allowing KMT hardliners to prey on the vicious stereotype of independence advocates as extremists and autocrats-in-waiting.
Wang, for his part, seems to be mostly interested in preaching to the converted to beef up the legislator-at-large vote. But the potential damage that this kind of dumb, gratuitously confrontational politicking can wreak on DPP candidates in marginal seats cannot be underestimated. Except, perhaps, by clueless DPP strategists.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
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
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.