Despite President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) repeated apologies to political victims and their families for what they have suffered under the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the government’s recent nomination of former military prosecutor Lin Hui-huang (林輝煌) as one of the candidates for the Council of Grand Justices again proves that Ma’s words are empty, and might explain why many people do not believe him.
Less than a month ago, Ma apologized to the victims of the 228 Incident and their families during an official memorial event, promising that his government would do everything possible to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again.
This is not new. Ma makes similar remarks about three times every year: On 228 Memorial Day for victims of the 228 Incident; on July 15, and the anniversary of the end of the 38-year Martial Law era, to White Terror victims and their families; and to both groups of people on Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day.
Ma might wonder why most people still do not believe that he is sincere about what he says, as he has repeated such remarks each year since he was sworn in as president in 2008 — even starting in 1998 when he was elected mayor of Taipei. However, why should people believe him, especially when his government nominates a former military prosecutor, who took part in persecuting pro-democracy activists, including the late Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介), former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and former DPP chairman Shih Ming-te (施明德), following the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979?
Moreover, when facing criticism from lawmakers and human rights groups over the nomination, Minister of Justice Lo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) defended her decision by saying that Lin is an excellent candidate, and that the Kaohsiung Incident is something that happened “a long time ago.”
True, 1979 might be “a long time ago,” but how could the public trust a person who played a key role in persecuting political dissidents to serve on the Council of Grand Justices, and to defend the fundamental values as laid out in the Constitution?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a girl named Anna Rosmus from Passau, Germany, tried to dig into the city’s past during the Third Reich. Although it was said that the city’s leading figures and prominent families helped to resist the Nazis, her research found that they were not only collaborators, but active Nazi members, and even helped to send 400 of the city’s Jews to concentration camps. Rosmus faced tremendous pressure and threats when conducting the research, and even had to file lawsuits to access the city’s archives.
It has been 36 years since the Kaohsiung Incident, about the same amount of time since the end of World War II when Rosmus began her research on the town’s Nazi past, and those in power in Passau were still trying to cover up what happened “a long time ago.”
Therefore, it might not be that difficult to imagine how Lin would react, for example, if someone filed a complaint stating that it is unconstitutional for the government to keep certain files related to political persecutions classified and prohibit public access to them.
If someone who is part of the injustice is allowed to serve on the Council of Grand Justices, how could the public expect Ma to fulfill his promises about compensating victims and their families, or for transitional justice to ever occur?
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS