An official Presidential Office news release on April 5 had this to say: “This morning, on the occasion of the 38th anniversary of the death of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) went to Chiang’s mausoleum in Taoyuan County’s Cihu Township (慈湖) to pay their respects.”
At 10am, Ma arrived at the mausoleum and presided over a ceremony outside in which fresh flowers were placed at the site and where attendants bowed and then observed a moment of silence. After this, Ma and Wu entered the mausoleum to pay further respects to Chiang.
With the president and vice president both paying their deepest respects and expressing feelings of bereavement for Chiang, a former dictator and murderer, it is safe to say that no other killer in world history has ever been accorded the amount of respect that Chiang has.
Before this, when the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee was reviewing amendments to the Regulations for Handling of and Compensation for the 228 Incident (二二八事件處理及補償條例), Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康) said that the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was planning a product design competition. For this competition, participants would be invited to submit designs for various creative products inspired by the “happy marriage” and “happy family life” of the former dictator and his last wife, Soong Mayling (宋美齡).
Tuan criticized this plan, saying that Chiang presided over the 228 Incident and the White Terror era and was therefore responsible for ripping marriages — and in some cases entire families — apart, not to mention the disappearances of many people.
The competition was called off after Minister of Culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) requested that the memorial hall cancel the plan, although another member of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Standing Committee still came to Chiang’s defense, saying that without Chiang there would be no KMT.
In response, Ma remarked that history must be looked at objectively, that one must empathize with those who lost their families in these massacres and that nobody should attempt to deny that events such as the White Terror era and the 228 Incident happened.
However, Ma also reportedly said that it is hard to judge a historical figure from just one point of view, but that one must clearly differentiate between right and wrong if the pain caused is to be eased, and if we want the world to know that Taiwan is capable of self-reflection.
Nevertheless, not long after uttering these words, Ma went straight to the mausoleum in Cihu to pay his respects.
So just what sort of differentiation between right and wrong is that meant to be? And just what angle was Ma viewing this particular historical figure from? Was Ma not rubbing salt into the wounds of those who lost their families in these massacres?
Whether we are talking about the 228 Incident or the White Terror era, Chiang was always the killer, while the people of Taiwan were his victims. This is an established historical fact. On the one hand, Ma says we need to empathize with those who lost family members in these massacres, but then he also runs off to Cihu each year to pay his respects to Chiang.
At the same time, Ma has also long given up on Chiang’s goal of shazhu bamao (殺朱拔毛) — a play on words referring to killing then-People’s Liberation Army general Zhu De (朱德) and getting rid of then-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東.)
So, when Ma talks about how it is hard to judge a historical figure from just one point of view, what he really means is that while we need to offer our condolences to the victims, the killer also needs to be commemorated.
Let us stop and think about this for a minute. Suppose a German leader held a memorial for the victims of concentration camps and then every year turned around and commemorated Adolf Hitler. Would everyone think such a leader is on the side of the killer or those that were killed?
Murder is murder and the victims cannot be brought back to life. This is a simple thing to understand. Given that Ma shows so much respect to a “killer,” it follows that Ma is insincere in offering his condolences to the victims. Ma does not only do this in Taiwan, he also does this in China.
Ma once defined the Tiananmen Square Massacre as the CCP regime’s use of violence to suppress a democratic student movement. However, after he became president, he said that 20 years after the June 4, 1989, massacre, China’s economy has succeeded in opening up and this has greatly improved living standards in China.
Ma also said that in the most recent decade, the Chinese authorities have been paying much more attention to human rights. What Ma basically means by this is that the Tiananmen Square Massacre brought about progress, that killers have their reasons and those killed need not be mentioned.
It also implies that the various human rights abuses Chinese people have been subjected to in recent years and the self-immolation of Tibetans are also things for which the Chinese authorities need not take responsibility.
Regardless of whether it is in Taiwan or in China, Ma chooses to take the side of killers, and this is by no means accidental. This is because Ma sympathizes more with dictators than he does with ordinary people. Despite having signed two international human rights covenants, Ma has paid no attention whatsoever to the declining human rights situation in this country.
Ma is manipulating referendums, he is exploiting his dual role as national president and chairman of the ruling party, and he has access to considerable — and ill-gotten — party assets. In addition, he is cooperating with China’s dictators, and not the leaders of China’s democracy movement, in the pursuit of his “China dream.”
This has seen people such as the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama and World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer being refused entry to Taiwan.
This is not only a nightmare for Taiwanese, but also one for the Chinese.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on