Print

Mail

wiki links

A poor format for exacting the truth

A bill that seeks to extend criminal responsibility for the 228 Incident and the White Terror era was recently proposed by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers Wang Tuoh (王拓), Wang Sing-nan (王幸男) and Wang Shih-cheng (王世堅) and endorsed by 34 others. The proposed bill would authorize procuratorial bodies to establish a special commission responsible for pressing charges over the 228 Incident, and against oppressors who abused their authority during the authoritarian era, such as government officials, members of the judiciary and police officers.

It also proposes to eliminate, by special legislation, the statute of limitations for prosecuting criminal offenses and even make it possible to prosecute suspected offenders who are deceased. Due to the fact that many of the alleged perpetrators have died, third degree relatives of a defendant would be required to exercise litigious rights and obligations on their behalf.

In other words, should a deceased official be indicted, his or her relatives -- up to the third degree -- must mount a defense for the defendant, without the option of declining. This proposal has become the focus of intense debate.

Opponents question the motives behind such a relentless persecution of descendants, finding it highly suspect, while proponents claim their proposal has been well thought out. However, they are finding it difficult to defend the obligation of third degree relatives to exercise litigious rights on another's behalf, and the implications of hereditary criminal responsibility.

Aside from critiquing the crudeness of the proposed legislation, there are two points which we should seriously consider.

First, transitional justice, as a process, is absolutely necessary to heal emotional trauma, protecting humanitarian values and constructing a basis of fairness and justice for the future.

The task is not only immense and difficult, but also requires a high level of moral and political support. However, in the past 100 years, the low and gradual progress equivalent to "low cost" political transition due to Taiwan's unique historical background has always lacked a thorough review.

In this process of gradual progression, schisms and infighting have characterized the debate. On the one hand, interests clash continually, on the other hand, party introspection and cooperation have been severely lacking. The result is a break in foundational social values and the inability to muster the necessary force to push through transitional justice.

Second, the proposed bill claims to collectively clear Mainlanders by pursuing only the oppressors. The implication is that oppressors were limited to a minority of Mainlanders, so that the majority of them should not be tainted with guilt.

This presumes that ethnic Taiwanese consider all Mainlanders, regardless of when they were born, to be partly responsible for past wrongs.

Apparently, the only way for the "good apples" to live happily ever after is to separate them from the "bad apples." Yet, why should all Mainlanders be suspected? And why should we then wash away their supposed blame? Why not reflect upon the question that has haunted Mainlanders for the last 10 years -- the original crime of discrimination?

Who is it that keeps creating a stereotype to categorize the problem? A group of diverse individuals should never have been regarded as a means to categorize a problem. If those who created this problem in the first place cannot reflect upon their own partial responsibility, how do they intend to deliver justice?

If this bill is passed, it is possible that many of the defendants, whether individuals or groups, will be Mainlanders -- but it is also not impossible that some will be ethnic Taiwanese. No matter what the results, the trial cannot be interpreted as being representative of any ethnic grouping.

Considering this from the perspective of the victims provides an even clearer picture -- from figures relating to compensation for inappropriately handled cases during the authoritarian era, around 40 percent of plaintiffs were Mainlanders. Therefore, this legal pursuit cannot have come from a single ethnic group in terms of victims. So how can we argue that the group of potentially bad apples that are Mainlanders could be reclassified as good apples because of this legislation?

In response to the shortsighted manipulation of those who call for transitional justice, no matter what side they are on, we have only one reply -- look to yourselves and humbly confront the individual histories of each victim.

Chang Mao-kuei is the president of the Association of Mainlander Taiwanese.

Translated by Angela Hong
This story has been viewed 1152 times.