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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
Deflation in China is persisting, raising growing concerns domestically and internationally. Beijing’s stimulus policies introduced in September last year have largely been short-lived in financial markets and negligible in the real economy. Recent data showing disproportionately low bank loan growth relative to the expansion of the money supply suggest the limited effectiveness of the measures. Many have urged the government to take more decisive action, particularly through fiscal expansion, to avoid a deep deflationary spiral akin to Japan’s experience in the early 1990s. While Beijing’s policy choices remain uncertain, questions abound about the possible endgame for the Chinese economy if no decisive
RSS