Today the nation pauses to commemorate the 73rd anniversary of the 228 Incident, a brutal crackdown by the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime against Taiwanese protesters following an incident in Taipei on Feb. 27, 1947.
Nobody knows how many lives were destroyed in the ensuing massacre that lasted into early May 1947, but estimates range from 18,000 to 28,000, many of whom were members of Taiwan’s intellectual elite. The event marked the beginning of the White Terror era, which saw many more thousands of people arrested, imprisoned or executed.
Despite the passing of time, the 228 Massacre and the White Terror still cast a long shadow over Taiwanese society. Although a program of transitional justice to right the wrongs of the past had been discussed for a long time, it only became viable when the Democratic Progressive Party returned to power in 2016.
The independent Transitional Justice Commission, established by President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration on May 31, 2018, has since engaged in the painstaking task of piecing together the actions of the KMT regime between Aug. 15, 1945, and Nov. 6, 1992, to build as complete a picture as possible of crimes carried out by the state.
On Wednesday, the commission achieved a new milestone with the launch of the Taiwan Transitional Justice Database, a searchable online collection of records and photographs of victims of political persecution during the White Terror era, as well as the names and ranks of perpetrators.
While this was an important achievement, perhaps there has been too much focus on unearthing the truth and too little on the other equally important aspect of transitional justice: reconciliation.
Without truth and justice there can be no reconciliation, but without the prospect of forgiveness, the full truth will likely never see the light of day. This is the uncomfortable reality that Taiwanese society must accept if the process is to move forward. Thankfully, there are precedents to follow, such as South Africa’s implementation of transitional justice through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
Established at the end of apartheid, witnesses and victims were invited to give statements to the TRC about their experiences, some of which were selected for public hearings. Crucially, the alleged perpetrators of violence were also given the opportunity to testify and request amnesty from prosecution.
The TRC’s emphasis on reconciliation and restorative justice allowed the truth to be brought out into the open, as perpetrators felt confident that they would get a fair hearing.
While the government has studied the South African process, somehow the reconciliation aspect was lost. The way Taiwan’s commission operates is in many ways more similar to the retributive justice of the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
It is time that Taiwanese ask what is the price of uncovering the truth and what achieving justice means. Is a public airing of the truth a form of justice in and of itself, or does justice require nothing short of civil or criminal prosecution?
The time is now ripe to incorporate reconciliation into Taiwan’s transitional justice process. While the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was too reactionary — and Taiwan’s democracy too fragile at the time — with a term in office already under its belt, the Tsai administration has proved itself to be a prudent and responsible government that would be perfectly capable of handling a full truth and reconciliation process in a fair and transparent manner.
The government should consider providing a guarantee of legal immunity to surviving perpetrators. This could help unblock logjams — particularly in the intelligence services, police and military — over the declassification of files relating to the 228 Incident and the White Terror era, and help dispel concerns within the KMT over the opening up of its party archives.
Without a true process of truth and reconciliation, Taiwan will never be able to put the past behind it and unite as one people.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS