In countries with a mature approach to human rights, transitional justice is generally carried out by the political party that takes over after a dictatorship has fallen. However, after martial law was lifted in Taiwan, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) remained in power, implementing a “peaceful revolution.” Small wonder, then, that only a small part of transitional justice was carried out, namely, the half-baked kind that paid compensation through the administrative system without assigning responsibility and only revealing partial truths.
In November 2001, after the Democratic Progressive Party came to power, the National Archives Administration was established as part of the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission. It studied, transferred and digitized documents related to the 228 Massacre and the White Terror held at various agencies to facilitate their use. The administration also organized exhibitions of documents related to the 228 Massacre and the Kaohsiung Incident. Academia Historica, under the leadership of then-president Chang Yen-hsien (張炎憲), published many related documents. These kinds of activities are fundamental to finding and revealing the truth.
In addition, the Council for Cultural Affairs, the precursor of the Ministry of Culture, was in charge of preserving, restoring and opening the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial and Cultural Park and the Green Island Human Rights Memorial Park, but these facilities are still only in the preliminary stages of development and are a far cry from the human rights museums in other countries.
The main reason for this is that the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) did not control a legislative majority and thus was unable to provide a clear legal basis for human rights museums, which resulted in a lack of budget and staff allocations.
That said, studies and overall plans commissioned by the government in the past are beginning to bear fruit, and all that is required is that the government follows the rules and treats these results as part of its responsibilities. Unfortunately it is very difficult to imagine a KMT that would right its old wrongs.
Transitional justice is a complex issue, and it includes such matters as the handling of the KMT’s ill-gotten party assets, a Taiwan-centered outlook on history in the high-school history curriculum and so on. Victims of political persecution and their supporters want to stress the need to review the regulation in the National Security Act (國家安全法), which eliminates the possibility for political prisoners during the Martial Law era to appeal their sentences after the lifting of martial law.
Together, late presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) led the nation for a long time, and they were closely involved in the decisions made in connection to the 228 Massacre and the White Terror era. Their diaries and correspondence should not be treated as family or party assets, but as presidential documents, and as such, the government should have recovered them long ago and made them public.
As for other issues, archives should automatically be made public when the confidentiality period expires, and documents concerning transitional justice and historical truth should be handled according to the regulations addressing the public interest in the Personal Information Protection Act (個人資料保護法). In addition, agencies managing archives should not be allowed to conceal or restrict access to such documents.
Dealing with these issues is no easy matter, and it is incumbent on the next president to initiate the process.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with