After the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice (促進轉型正義條例) passed the third legislative reading on the evening of Dec. 5 last year, the personnel issues at the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee have been in a state of suspended animation.
On Feb. 28, a group of students calling for transitional justice poured red paint on Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) sarcophagus at the Cihu Mausoleum in Taoyuan, once again raising the question of how transitional justice is to be implemented.
On Tuesday last week, Premier William Lai (賴清德) during a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Yuan confirmed that former Control Yuan member Huang Huang-hsiung (黃煌雄) would be the next committee chairman.
There have been media reports that Huang, one of the spiritual leaders of the committee, has not only been approved by the Democratic Progressive Party, but that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) also thinks Huang has public credibility and is not a controversial choice.
Given that it has always been difficult for the pan-green and pan-blue camps to reach a consensus, a person must be very willing to compromise — or to be more blunt, be a fence-sitter — to be acceptable to both camps.
The problem is: What will become of the committee’s task of disciplining government officials who are out of line if former Control Yuan members who are acceptable to both sides are appointed?
If police officers would try to maintain good relations with criminals, as well as with law-abiding citizens, what would happen to crime prevention? If you fear offending people, how will you implement transitional justice?
It is common knowledge that the ring of accomplices consisting of the KMT and its affiliate organizations, and the power and privilege they accumulated over half a century, are the targets of the transitional justice act.
As the KMT and the National Women’s League have continued to stubbornly oppose the ill-gotten party assets committee, one can only wonder what it means when they are happy with an appointment to the transitional justice committee.
During his Control Yuan term, Huang ignored the principle of administrative neutrality and recommended that former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) be elected for a second term. When then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) was recalled after he was convicted of leaking information to Ma, Huang opposed a recall.
Whether he will stand on the side of good or evil in the political tug-of-war that is transitional justice is a matter of concern.
Removing damaged tissue can be painful, but it is necessary for a wound to heal. Stitching up the wound because one fears the pain will not heal the wound. Premier William Lai (賴清德), a doctor by profession, understands this kind of reasoning.
Will Taiwan achieve transitional justice through bold and decisive action, or by moving cautiously out of fear of going too far?
If Taiwanese are serious about transitional justice, a transitional justice committee is needed that is relentlessness and not trying to smooth things over.
If the wrong people are appointed, all Taiwanese will lose, as transitional justice will fail, the innocent victims of past wrongs will not be rehabilitated and even the government will be hurt.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
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
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