New Power Party (NPP) Legislator-at-large Kawlo Iyun Pacidal, an Aborigine, has called for provisions dealing with the historical injustices suffered by Aborigines to be added to a draft law on promoting transitional justice. This demand prompted Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康) to question whether the NPP was joining hands with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party to obstruct the transitional justice bill.
There has been a great deal of discussion about this controversy, and it is important to consider whether the scope of legislation on transitional justice should include the oppression and plunder committed by Han people against Aborigines.
The “transition” in “transitional justice” refers to the change from authoritarianism and dictatorship to democracy. During the third wave of democratization that took place in the 1980s, many dictatorships in Eastern Europe, Asia and Central America were transformed into democracies, and the questions of how these countries should handle the legacy of the former dictatorships, how they should compensate the victims and how they could heal society’s wounds became hot topics of research in comparative politics.
Well-known cases of handling transitional justice include the purging of the communist systems of countries such as East Germany and Czechoslovakia. They include measures taken in the aftermath of South Africa’s minority rule; dictatorship and violence in Argentina, Hungary and Yugoslavia; ethnic massacres in Rwanda, and so on.
Various countries’ handling of transitional justice has ranged from relatively harsh measures taken to punish the perpetrators, such as judicial trials, purges of the public sphere and indefinite pursuit of offenders, to relatively mild ones aimed at consoling the victims, such as revealing the truth, reestablishing memories and removing authoritarian symbols from public spaces. The long-term purpose of such “national rectification” efforts is to eradicate the ghost of past authoritarian dictatorships that lurks in dark corners and gnaws away at people’s souls, so as to restore human dignity and consolidate democracy.
Put simply, the concept of transitional justice has a number of important characteristics. First, it is concerned with issues faced by countries that are making the transition from authoritarian dictatorship to democracy. Second, it lays emphasis on human rights and on consoling the victims. Third, it aims to correct the residual harmful effects of the distortion and violence that took place under the former authoritarian systems and to consolidate democracy. Fourth, it emphasizes the pursuit of justice and correctional actions centered on the state. According to this concept of transitional justice, the emphasis should be placed on such aspects as the institutional distortions created by former authoritarian regimes and their violations of human rights.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule in Taiwan started in 1945, when the Republic of China’s governance was still in the “tutelary period” of one-party rule. It is therefore not unreasonable that the draft law on promoting transitional justice should set that year as the starting date for dealing with such issues.
The party-state authoritarian system that was set up in 1949 stressed the party’s leading role in government and the unity of party and state. This system’s influence penetrated all levels and aspects of politics, economy, society and culture, so all of these aspects need to be dealt with.
Central issues that need to be addressed include, for example, the KMT’s monopoly control of state resources during the authoritarian period, which led to a free flow of money between the national treasury and party coffers, and the KMT’s accumulation of immense party assets.
During the legislation of the draft laws related to transitional justice, KMT legislators have said that relevant legislation should not be aimed solely at the KMT’s ill-gotten assets, but should regulate the assets of all political parties equally and without discrimination. However, given that during the period of authoritarian rule no competing opposition parties were allowed to exist, what other party could possibly have plundered state resources and turned them into party assets, as the KMT did?
Should a bill to promote transitional justice take into consideration the question of Han people’s oppression of Aborigines and their plunder of Aborigines’ resources? Perhaps the experience of South Korea could serve as a reference.
According to Seoul National University professor Jung Keun-sik, the term “transitional justice” generally refers to a series of measures carried out following democratization to address and investigate human rights abuses that have occurred during a time of authoritarianism or — usually in a third world country — military occupation.
However, what happened in South Korea slightly differs from this definition. When South Koreans talk about rectifying past wrongs, this includes a variety of issues ranging from the early postwar period to the time when the nation was undergoing democratization, and they include rectification in three aspects — decolonization following Japanese colonial rule, getting rid of the Cold War situation that prevailed under the US-USSR bipolar system, and removing the authoritarianism that existed under dictatorial rule.
In 2005, the South Korean National Assembly passed the Special Act for Reverting the Property of Anti-Nation Pro-Japanese Collaborators, which dealt with the former colonization of the country. Prior to that, it passed the Act on the Non-Applicability of the Statutory Limitations to Crimes Destructive of the Constitutional Order and the Special Act on the May 18 Democratic Movement, and established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was tasked with rectifying history, including what took place under the former authoritarian regimes.
Throughout Taiwan’s history, various political regimes have come and gone and inflicted various kinds of harm on the nation. It is important to reexamine history and rectify past wrongdoings, including the plunder of one community by another and the scars of colonialism and authoritarianism.
However, it is impossible to complete the task of rectifying past wrongs all in one go. To try and cover a myriad of complex and controversial issues in a single draft law would only cause more problems. The bill to promote transitional justice is just a starting point whose goal is to first deal with problems arising from the more recent authoritarian system. After that, laws that deal with problems between Aboriginal and Han people still need to be drawn up. As to how to proceed with decolonization, that task, too, will require legislators’ continued efforts.
Chen Tsui-lien is a professor of history at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Julian Clegg and Tu Yu-an
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath