Despite repeated promises from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) that the government will continue to do everything possible to compensate the families of 228 Incident victims, the majority of them have reacted with skepticism. Perhaps the president should realize that what his administration is lacking is sincerity.
Ma bows, laments, admits that what the government has done is far from enough, yet year after year, the victims’ families slam the government’s efforts to address their grievances.
If Ma is confused as to why his efforts have not been worthwhile, the answer is simple: Everyone understands that all the hot air is simply part of a political show.
Despite making a show of admitting the mistakes of its past, the government remains reluctant to tell the public who was responsible for the slaughter. We still do not know the names of the military officers or government officials who ordered the massacre — which included the killing and kidnapping of negotiators chosen to represent the public to talk with government officials.
Most importantly, the head of the government at the time is still officially considered a “great man” by the government, and by the president.
Most of the victims’ families — as well as historians specializing in the field — would agree that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) should be held responsible for the massacre, as well as for the decades-long White Terror era that saw the execution and imprisonment of thousands of political dissidents. However, Ma refuses to hold him responsible.
Whenever he speaks about Chiang’s role in the 228 Massacre and the White Terror era, Ma says that, though Chiang did some evil things, he still “made more contributions to Taiwan than mistakes,” and each year, on the anniversary of Chiang’s death, Ma makes an official visit to his tomb to pay respect.
It is unimaginable that any national leader of a democracy would so explicitly show their admiration to a deceased dictator. Try to think how the Germans or people around the world would react if a German chancellor decided to pay respect to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and say that he has “made more contributions than mistakes?”
What would people think if a German chancellor attended a Holocaust memorial service, and apologized to victims and their families while still showing admiration for Hitler?
Moreover, Chiang’s tomb is maintained by government funds, and his statues can be found across the nation. Chiang’s portrait is still on the nation’s coins and banknotes and a large memorial hall surrounded by gardens built in his name still stands in the middle of the nation’s capital. There is no sign that the government has truly reflected and sincerely admitted to the mistakes of the past.
Other than providing monetary compensation to victims’ families, the government still has a long way to go before there can be true reconciliation over the tragedy.
The people of Taiwan deserve to know what really happened during the 228 Incident and the names of the military and civilian officials responsible for the massacre must be made known. The worship of Chiang must stop, and, while recognizing victims who were wrongfully killed or jailed, those who bravely took up arms to fight against the dictatorship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at the time should be honored as heroes.
Only when these steps are followed through can the government say that it has put its full effort into dealing with the 228 Incident, and that there might be a possibility for true reconciliation.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS