It is unfortunate that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) labels proposals for transitional justice made by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as “transitional hatred” or “throwing away the ancestral tablet,” because these proposals offer an opportunity for the KMT to bid farewell to its authoritarian past, while turning Taiwan into a “normal” nation.
With president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) promising to push forward transitional justice, the DPP caucus has proposed bills to take care of the KMT’s ill-gotten party assets, and DPP Legislator Gao Jyh-peng (高志鵬) proposed to revise the National Emblem and National Flag of the Republic of China Act (中華民國國徽國旗法) and the Oath Act (宣誓條例) to remove portraits of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) from public buildings.
However, KMT Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) criticized the proposal on the party’s ill-gotten assets as “too provocative,” while KMT Acting Chairwoman Huang Min-hui (黃敏惠) dismissed proposing to remove Sun’s portrait as “transitional hatred” and former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) compared it to proposing to throw away the ancestral tablet of a family.
There is certainly much more to be done to bestow justice on Taiwanese society and the victims of the former authoritarian KMT regime by disclosing the truth, as well as pursuing the perpetrators; yet, judging from the KMT’s reaction to the initial proposals, strong opposition and fierce resistance can be expected from the KMT when the new government moves forward to achieve transitional justice in earnest.
Today marks the 69th anniversary of the 228 Incident, and in the past seven years, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has offered his condolences and apologized for the government’s role in the tragedy, but the victims, their families and the public never ceased to criticize the KMT for the 228 Incident and the White Terror era that followed.
KMT politicians often asked why the public would not forgive them after so many years and so many apologies — the answer is clear when looking at the KMT’s reaction to calls for transitional justice.
KMT leaders might have apologized, but they have never seemed sincere about it.
Ma apologizes to 228 victims and their families on Feb. 28, but less than a month later, on April 5, he visits the tomb of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to pay his respects, saying that Chiang might have made many mistakes, but he had contributed more to society.
Ma apologizes to victims of the White Terror era and their families on July 15, the day on which martial law was officially lifted in 1987, yet most of the documents related to political prisoners during the decades-long martial law period are still locked up in different government agencies and relatives of the executed political prisoners are still unable to receive the last letters that their loved ones wrote to them before being executed.
The KMT obviously has not learned its lesson, even after its disastrous defeats in the presidential and legislative elections last month as well as the nine-in-one elections in November 2014.
When the DPP tries to push forward transitional justice, the KMT still resists, playing the hate card.
Before KMT politicians ask why the DPP is always using something from the past to gain support from the public, perhaps it should think about why it has given the DPP such opportunity to do so.
Maybe the KMT should be grateful for the chance to bid farewell to its authoritarian past and cooperate to show that it is sincere about reforming itself to win back public support.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers