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.
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
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
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS