Amid the Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) scandal and Da-an by-election, the latest outrage at the controversy-plagued Ministry of Justice might almost have gone unnoticed.
After the Investigation Bureau’s long-disused Ankeng Guesthouse was found full of interrogation documents from the White Terror era and jars containing body parts, the ministry last week presented a report in which it suggested destroying any of the documents that did not “need” to be archived.
The ministry’s reasoning: Preserving the documents could violate the privacy of the people named in them — the interrogation victims of the Taiwan Garrison Command, the government’s Martial Law-era terror apparatus.
At best, the report was stunningly incompetent, particularly in terms of public relations. At worst, it was a move to prevent the contents and history of these documents from coming to light.
The mere suggestion of destroying them is sinister: They are decades-old items of evidence from events that have long haunted the nation’s memory. Year after year, families whose loved ones disappeared with no trace beg the government for closure. Their need to know the fates of those they lost has not diminished.
The discoveries at the Ankeng Guesthouse have layers of significance. Victims and bereaved family members have a right to know what has been found. Additionally, it raises questions that both the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration and members of the former and current Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administrations must face: How did these documents come to be abandoned in the Ankeng building and who knew about them? There can be no doubt that the answers will be ugly.
What the ministry does with the evidence and how it proceeds with an investigation will also reflect on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) efforts to reach out to the victims of his party’s authoritarian past. If Ma does not follow through on his annual call for uncovering “the truth” behind the party’s sins, his credibility on the issue will be irreparably tarnished.
On his first 228 Incident anniversary as president, Ma said that although he was not responsible for the 1947 massacre, he recognized that he had a responsibility to uncover the truth.
“I will focus all my efforts to look into the truth and give the justice that the families deserve,” Ma said.
With a building full of potentially implicating documents from the White Terror era now in his hands, Ma must do the same for these victims of persecution as he has pledged for those of 228.
Members of both the DPP and KMT have called for the truth behind the 228 Incident and White Terror murders to be revealed, yet neither party has backed its words with actions on the Ankeng material. This is why the possibilty of the destruction of the Ankeng evidence so soon after its discovery is disturbing. It raises the concern that a thorough investigation will never materialize and that questions of responsibility will be swept under the carpet.
Considering that staff at the ministry and Investigation Bureau did not take appropriate care of the Ankeng files in the first place, it is unclear why the ministry should now be entrusted with determining which documents are worth keeping and which are disposable. If this opportunity to shed light on the nation’s most shameful secrets is sabotaged, it will be another crime against the Taiwan Garrison Command’s victims.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS