Today marks the 67th anniversary of the 228 Massacre, a brutal crackdown on civilian protests launched by the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime on Feb. 27, 1947, that subsequently ushered in the White Terror era, during which tens of thousands of the social elite — Taiwanese and Chinese — were imprisoned, tortured and murdered.
In view of a national tragedy as catastrophic as the 228 Massacre, the last thing any person of conscience wants to see is its commemoration become a formality, where leading political figures carry out scheduled appearances and rote speeches out of sheer habit, without putting their hearts into it and making an effort to understand the history and the significance of this tragic chapter in Taiwanese history.
To this day, many of the families of people killed during that time, not knowing why their loved ones were taken or where their remains lie, are still waiting for justice to arrive.
The public is voicing its concern and accusing the KMT government of saying one thing but doing another.
As usual, the government has planned a 228 memorial ceremony, this time in Hualien, during which President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is to deliver a speech and present a certificate to the family of Song Chun-lan (宋春蘭) to restore her reputation.
Going by Ma’s previous speeches to mark the occasion, he will most likely expound on how he understands the suffering and pain of the people killed during the incident and renew his pledge to uncover the truth behind the tragedy, promote reconciliation, create a harmonious society and prevent human rights violations.
However, Ma’s sincerity has to be questioned. To what extent does the president mean what he says?
The public has valid cause for concern, as Ma’s words are seldom backed up with action, and in some situations — as in the case of the Ministry of Education’s controversial revision of curriculum guidelines — are the opposite of what he will do.
In Ma’s 228 speech last year, he pledged that he would instruct the ministry to increase the amount of educational material dealing with the incident to teach future generations about the tragedy.
However, the opposite has happened: Rather than expound the materials concerning the White Terror era, the ministry recently announced a revision to the high-school curriculum guidelines that downplay the White Terror era.
In the ministry’s so-called “minor adjustments” to the civic and social studies curriculum guidelines, the phrases “White Terror,” “prisoners of conscience” and “Germany’s Nazis” are removed and the phrases “the persecution of people by a government’s abuse of power” and “a colonial government’s discrimination against colonized people” have been added.
The changes have prompted criticism from academics, who have condemned them as attempts to overlook the cases of people killed during the White Terror era and to legitimize the persecution of political dissidents. Other “minor adjustments” made to the history, civic and social studies, Chinese language and geography curriculum guidelines have also been criticized by academics as part of the Ma government’s “de-Taiwanization” effort.
Ma can attend as many 228 memorial services and clamor as loudly as he wants about his administration’s efforts to bring justice and reconciliation, but the truth remains: The ministry under his leadership is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families who lost relatives during the White Terror era.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers