Newspapers have reported the story of a woman named Chang Yi-jung (張旖容), who took it upon herself to search for letters written by her maternal grandfather Huang Wen-kung (黃溫恭) to his wife before he was executed in 1953, during the period of repression known as the White Terror.
Chang discovered that her grandfather had written five wills, which he wanted to be given to his wife. Sadly, this wish was not carried out and it was not until 2009, 56 years later, that Huang’s granddaughter found his last letters, by which time Huang’s wife was losing her mental faculties and was unable to understand her late husband’s final wishes.
Chang should be admired for her determination to uncover the truth. As the granddaughter of a victim of political repression, she has three demands. First, she calls on the government to make an inventory of items belonging to victims and to trace their surviving relatives and return these items to them. Second, she wants the authorities to go through the archives of various departments and to establish a legal basis for the transfer of documents when government departments are dissolved. Third, she wants a formal apology.
Former South African president Nelson Mandela is also a victim of political repression, having spent 27 years in prison for his beliefs and actions. When Mandela was released from jail, the South African government returned his prison writings to him. In Taiwan, the National Archives Administration (NAM) once held an exhibition of documents related to the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979, at which it exhibited private letters written by former political prisoner Shih Ming-teh (施明德), who later served as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Shih objected to the fact that those writings had not been returned to him, but were instead put on show without his permission.
As the national department in charge of archives in Taiwan, the national archives should respond to Chang’s two archive-related demands by checking the records of all departments connected with political repression and the White Terror, and make a complete inventory of documents related to victims of political repression, including letters, confessions, wills and private notes written by them, or about them, when they were under investigation and imprisoned. The archives should also instruct all departments to inform surviving relatives about these documents so that they can claim them.
When it comes to departments that have been dissolved, such as the Taiwan Garrison Command, the national archives should make an inventory of the archives itself, as Chang has suggested. Laws and regulations relating to the transfer of archives should be reviewed and amended if necessary. If private writings or personal items belonging to victims of repression are found among the archives of these disbanded departments, surviving relatives should likewise be informed so that they can claim them.
This year marks the centenary of the Republic of China, and it is time to examine and reflect on the wrongful victimization of people for their political beliefs in the not-too-distant past. Past wrongs cannot be changed, but the future is in our hands. Chang suggested building a wall bearing the names of the perpetrators of repression, which would serve as a warning. It would be equally worthy to build a wall of remembrance bearing the names of the victims, perhaps in the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park in Taipei. It would remind people of past wrongs, and alert this and future generations to the importance of preventing such tragedies from ever happening again.
Hsueh Li-kuei is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
RSS