The passage of the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice (促進轉型正義條例) has set off debates. Unfortunately, most of them have been misleading.
Prior to the passage of the act, the Ministry of Culture had already developed several mechanisms for public discussion on reinventing the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) Memorial Hall, a relic of the authoritarian era. If it wanted, the Democratic Progressive Party could have easily abolished the Organization Act of National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Management Office (國立中正紀念堂管理處組織法) with its legislative majority, but it chose not to.
Work to promote transitional justice began under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when the legislature in 1995 passed the 228 Incident Treatment and Compensation Provisions (22八事件紀念暨補償條例) and in 1998 the Compensation Act for Wrongful Trials on Charges of Sedition and Espionage During the Martial Law Period (戒嚴時期不當叛亂暨匪諜審判案件補償條例).
However, these measures primarily involved setting up foundations to help victims of human rights violations receive financial compensation, while judicial injustices during the authoritarian era were not addressed.
One of the most important parts of the transitional justice act is Article 6, according to which people unfairly tried during the authoritarian era who subsequently received compensation based on the other two acts can have their guilty verdict and punishment revoked.
Meanwhile, those unfairly tried, but not yet compensated can apply to the transitional justice committee to have their criminal record revoked.
The KMT has questioned whether it is constitutional — specifically regarding the separation of powers — to empower the committee to handle past political documents and judicial cases.
However, the KMT might be overthinking the issue, as there are restrictions on the committee.
One commonly neglected truth is that in March 1947, at the third annual meeting of the KMT’s sixth national congress, the party’s Central Executive Committee and highest-level national defense committee passed a motion to sack and investigate then-Taiwan governor Chen Yi (陳儀) after hearing a report by investigator Liu Wen-tao (劉文島).
However, Chiang Kai-shek revoked that decision using his influence as party chairman. Following the 228 Incident, many people, including former premier Chen Cheng (陳誠), former minister of national defense Pai Chung-hsi (白崇禧) and investigator Chiu Nien-tai (丘念台), all recommended different people as the new head of the Taiwan Garrison Command, but Chiang promoted then-Kaohsiung Fortress commander Peng Meng-chi (彭孟緝) to that position.
Peng later became very powerful and was responsible for killing countless people during the White Terror era.
Although the truth might not bring reconciliation, the KMT should acknowledge how Chiang rejected a better solution to the issues that arose in the wake of the 228 Incident with little regard to the feelings of Taiwanese.
Discussion on transitional justice is meant to promote solidarity across party lines. If tensions that arose as a result of past injustices remain unresolved, Taiwanese politics would remain polarized and the debate over foreign colonial power versus local political parties would continue.
If that is to be the case, how would Taiwanese be able to work together in unity?
Chen Yi-shen is director of the Memorial Foundation of 228.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS