Two memorial services are scheduled at the 228 Peace Memorial Park in Taipei today to mark the 68th anniversary of the 228 Incident, and many other events have been scheduled around the nation to honor those who were killed, tortured and imprisoned during the subsequent massacre.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is to attend one of the ceremonies this morning, and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is to attend one in the afternoon. Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), whose grandfather was tortured as a result of the Incident, is also scheduled to attend the morning event.
That two separate ceremonies are being held is an indication of the divide that still exists and shows just how deep the wounds of 228 run and how far apart the two sides — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Mainlanders on one side, descendants of early Chinese settlers and Aborigines on the other — remain despite many attempts to bridge the gap. That gap hit the headlines during the Taipei mayoral election last fall, when former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), whose son Sean (連勝文) was a candidate, called Ko’s grandfather and father “traitors” for taking Japanese names during the Japanese colonial era.
Feb. 28 was designated as a national holiday in 1996 by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) — the first Taiwanese to be president and to head the KMT — and the Legislative Yuan made it an official holiday in 1998, though it remains contentious among some in the KMT, including lawmakers who have made sporadic attempts to have it taken it off the list of holidays ever since. In the two decades since Lee made the first official apology on behalf of the government to the survivors and families of the victims, truly open discussions about the Incident, about who was responsible and the extent of the massacre, remain a rarity, with far too many people eager to play the ethnicity card and accuse those of trying to uncover the truth of stirring up ethnic tensions. Bureaucracy continues to ensnare researchers wanting to examine documents from that era.
Other efforts to commemorate, investigate and explain the Incident have fallen foul of the blue-green political divide. Taipei’s 228 Memorial Museum, opened in 1996 by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) when he was mayor of the city — he also changed the name of the park in which the museum stands from “New Park” to “228 Peace Park” — fell victim to partisan politics two years after Ma became mayor of Taipei, and many felt the museum’s later exhibitions were whitewashed as a result.
In 2007, Chen presided over the opening of the National 228 Memorial Museum, which closed for renovations not long after. Ma reopened it four years ago promising to keep investigating the Incident and the resulting massacre that cost tens of thousands of Taiwanese their lives. He said the government had to address the matter as “the government played the leading role in the 228 Incident.” Two years ago Ma asked Academia Sinica to uncover the “real facts” behind the Incident, as if there was still room for debate about what occurred.
The significance of the 228 Massacre in Taiwanese history — and the imposition of martial law and the White Terror era that followed — must be faced with honesty and rigor. It is a crucial component to the nation’s identity. This year, 228 Memorial Day is part of a three-day holiday weekend. In addition to solemn services of remembrance, there will also be an ultramarathon in Nantou County and thousands of people converging on Yangmingshan National Park to see the cherry blossoms. While some may see the holiday activities as a sign of life going on as normal, they also reflect the disconnect between a people and their history and the nation that is their home.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing