Transitional justice is a matter of dealing with the past, of a nation facing its own history. People who suffered because of human rights violations and disregard for the rule of law under authoritarian dictatorships are entitled to ask for some sort of compensation from the perpetrators, be it judicial rehabilitation or punishment, or the return of seized assets or monetary compensation.
Since transitional justice is a matter of overcoming the past, it is necessary to put aside the experiences of individual victims when evaluating the injustices of a past regime. Instead, people have to consider the overall picture and evaluate the system as a whole.
Removing authoritarian symbols, uncovering historical facts and addressing violations of the law on the part of political parties that were able to get away with such behavior because it has become “institutionalized” are all necessary components.
If there is nothing more than talk about the future while refusing to address the past, then it would be a hypocritical recreation of past injustices that would allow them to go unaddressed.
It is important to know that, in addition to the more glaring examples of injustices having been done, there exist many subtle peripheral aspects of transitional justice and these cannot be discounted.
For example, when Hsiao Hsiao-ling (蕭曉玲), a music teacher at Zhongshan Junior High School in Taipei, was fired after opposing then-Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) “one guideline, single textbook” policy, the authorities failed to follow due process.
The administrative court muddled through its verdict, telling Hsiao that “there are so many reasons for firing you, so even if some are wrong, there are still a lot of other reasons.”
Taking an uncharacteristically stern approach, the Control Yuan took a special interest in the case and issued a report noting violations of the law and dereliction of duty involved in Hsiao’s dismissal.
Despite this, nothing came of the Control Yuan’s intervention: The court respected the school’s decision to fire Hsiao, saying it had “latitude for judgement” and the city’s Department of Education respected the court’s verdict, saying it had been reached in accordance with the law.
There was, amongst all this, one party that was not respected, however: the teacher herself. Hsiao had exercised her freedom of expression only to be “educated” by the educational system. If that is education, then what need do people have for politics? If that is the law, they why do people need judges?
Then there was the incident with the masked military instructor who on Feb. 26 tore down posters that bore the names of victims of the 228 Massacre, saying that “the content of the posters was inappropriate.”
By comparison, his was a much more direct approach, directly informing everyone that the authoritarian era is still alive and that the pursuit of revealing historical facts is but a pipe dream.
When French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote Democracy in America in the early 1800s, looked at the European society, he lamented that all he could see were “subjects,” not “citizens.”
Transitional justice is a great undertaking: Against the backdrop of a true citizenry, perhaps Taiwanese should start by addressing the more subtle, nuanced aspects of what transitional justice is supposed to be.
Lin Chia-ho is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Law and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
RSS