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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS