Martial law era stings still smart
Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. In this quarter century, Taiwan has evolved into a full-fledged democracy and made significant progress toward respect for human rights.
Looking back on the occasion now, the public had already begun to challenge martial law through growing opposition and street protests in the 1980s. The lifting of martial law by former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) in 1987 was a response to inevitable social changes.
The end of martial law led to freedom of speech, assembly and expression. Social movements have thrived over the past decades, pushing forward reforms in various fields, from labor rights, gender equality and agricultural developments to environmental protection, through both clashes and peaceful sit-ins.
Though the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was formed illegally in 1986 before martial law restrictions were revoked, the election of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the DPP in 2000 forced the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) into opposition for the first time in its history and completed the nation’s first peaceful transition of power.
So much progress has been made over the past 25 years. However, more efforts are needed to deal with the legacy of martial law.
Martial law was declared by Chiang Ching-kuo’s father, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), in 1949 after the then-KMT regime in China was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party in a civil war and retreated to Taiwan. During the Martial Law era, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the KMT government to suppress dissent.
The government’s violence against civilians in the White Terror, the 228 Massacre and other tragedies are a collective memory of dark and painful days for Taiwanese.
In an annual ceremony held to commemorate victims who lost their lives or were deprived of their freedom during the era, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as KMT chairman, yesterday reiterated an apology to the victims and their families, pledging to prevent similar incidents in the future.
He stressed the importance of the nation’s democratic system and peaceful cross-strait relations in preventing such tragedies, while vowing to continue promoting cross-strait relations to avoid a war.
As Ma and the KMT continue to focus their efforts on closer economic ties with China, they should remember that China is still an autocracy, while Taiwan has developed into a democracy. Developing economic relations with China is not the ultimate solution to our economic recession, and Beijing’s notorious human rights record is certainly the opposite direction of what Taiwan is pursuing in the post-Martial Law era.
Ma emphasized his determination to atone for the KMT’s past mistakes with his public apology. However, little progress has been made in uncovering the truths behind the incidents.
As a party that continues to insist on a party-state mechanism, the KMT obviously has not learned from its past mistakes and is not ready to fully repair the damage it has done.
The DPP, on the other hand, has also failed to help bring Taiwanese a better tomorrow, as it made few contributions to the nation during the eight years of its administration.
Both the KMT and the DPP should be blamed for obstructing the nation’s developments with bipartisanship in politics. As the lifting of martial law 25 years ago came in response to the public’s demand for change, it is, therefore, important for Taiwanese to demonstrate people power and demand that political parties improve their performance and work harder to bring about a better future for Taiwan.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS