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.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS