The Chinese-language China Times has mobilized a group of academics to condemn the renaming of the erstwhile Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, calling it political revenge that will lead to more conflict, instead of promoting transitional justice. They even say that President Chen Shui-bian (
One of the academics, a National Chengchi University professor, claimed that Chen is harping on about the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets to divert attention away from his corruption case. The professor suggests that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should establish a commission to unearth the truth behind incidents that occurred during the martial law period.
These academics have distorted the DPP's pursuit of transitional justice, saying it is only an election trick and a smokescreen for Chen's personal political crisis.
But this is not true. Based on investigations conducted by the Cabinet's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission in conjunction with experts on Taiwanese history, the National Archives Administration held an exhibition on documents related to the 228 Incident in March 2001. In the same year, the Compensation Foundation for Improper Verdicts published a book on the legal and historical aspects of political incidents during the martial-law era. Subsequently, in June 2003, the 228 Memorial Foundation held a seminar to discuss recently discovered historical materials related to the 228 Incident. This led to the release of the Report on the Responsibility for the 228 Incident in February 2006, which found that Chiang was primarily responsible for the incident. This should be the most significant reference in the handling of the memorial hall.
Moreover, the Council for Cultural Affairs has operated the Green Island Human Rights Memorial Park for several years, and the military turned a former detention center in Taipei City into Jingmei Human Rights Park last month. Those who are concerned with the issue can criticize the government for its slow and inadequate efforts, but they should not discredit such efforts unless they do not support transitional justice.
I have been among those who criticized the government for doing too little, too slowly. However, having participated in the process and observed it closely, it has become impossible for me to criticize the government. Since the transfer of power in 2000 entailed only the replacement of high-ranking officials, the bureaucratic system still runs according to the old methods.
What is worse, the special legislation necessary for the investigation of truth and responsibility has been boycotted since the 1990s by the pan-blue camp, which enjoys a majority in the legislature.
Admittedly, the transformation of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall into National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall was somewhat flawed. Still, we should accept this in light of the political environment. It is notable that even Chiang's great grandson, Demos Chiang (
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS