The 228 Incident, which took place in 1947, is a major human rights event in Taiwanese history. The administration of the time lacked any legal grounds for ordering the massacre that caused tremendous suffering and death to the elite and ordinary people.
However, it was not until 1987 — when democracy and human rights activist Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕) and Saint Mary’s Hospital Luodong superintendent Chen Yung-hsing (陳永興) founded the association for 228 Peace Memorial Day and challenged the taboo surrounding the Incident — that then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) began to officially address this matter.
Since 1995, all presidents have made a formal apology for the event, including Lee himself, and victims and their families have received compensation. Nonetheless, the 228 Incident is a wound that has yet to heal.
Considerable disagreement over the responsibilities and the truth of the Incident remains. Steven Chen (陳士魁), who was appointed the chairman of the 228 Memorial Foundation last year by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, said that he could not concur with Ma, who, since becoming chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 2006, has characterized the 228 Incident as a civil rebellion induced by discontent with the government.
The past should be forgiven, but not forgotten. Only after the truth is clarified and the responsibilities ascertained can wounds be healed and lessons learned to avoid similar events from happening again. However, many of the facts of the 228 Incident remain unclear. If this is the case, how can anyone possibly learn any lessons?
As a consequence, the legacy of the 228 Incident cannot be turned into a positive unifying force for all Taiwanese. Instead, its shadow remains a negative force and an ongoing source of ethnic tensions.
For a long time, the 228 Incident has been regarded in Taiwan as a conflict between the waishengren (外省人) — people who fled from China with the KMT after 1949 — and the benshengren (本省人) — everyone else. Some have said that the 228 Incident is the waishengren’s original sin, and so to commemorate it would have a negative effect on the relationship between different ethnic groups in Taiwan.
The problem is, the so-called waishengren today are not the same waishengren who governed Taiwan during the 228 Incident. Most of the waishorengren were either not born, or had not come to Taiwan when the massacre took place. Most of the ancestors of the waishengren did not even have anything to do with the tragedy. Hence, clarifying the truth and ascertaining responsibility will help Taiwan free itself from unnecessary conflict between different ethnic groups and forge a sense of historical unity.
In light of this understanding, it can be seen that in 1947 the Republic of China (ROC) was under the political tutelage of the KMT, which controlled the government, and the person holding the greatest power in the nation was former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). Subsequent presidents have apologized, and the government has also used taxpayers’ money for compensation, but the responsibilities of the KMT and Chiang remain unresolved.
In one sense, clarifying the basic responsibilities of the Incident can discharge the waishengren from the original sin once and for all, which will provide the necessary foundation for coexistence among different ethnic groups.
In addition, from the perspective of social structure, the cause of the 228 Incident has to do with a clash of cultures as a result of the significant gap that existed between Taiwan and China during that period. Moreover, to bolster its governance, the foreign regime used national power to oppress the original value system in society and subjugate its elite, thereby establishing the cultural hegemony that supported its rule. Those are the main causes of the tragedy.
Based on this understanding, in order to learn the lessons of the 228 Incident and prevent similar events from happening again, Taiwanese should sustain and strengthen the hard-earned constitutional democracy, reject foreign cultural values that run counter to universal human rights and eliminate any possibility of letting the nation fall into the hands of foreign authoritarian regimes again.
Hsueh Hua-yuan is the dean of the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS