After the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice (促進轉型正義條例) passed the third legislative reading on the evening of Dec. 5 last year, the personnel issues at the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee have been in a state of suspended animation.
On Feb. 28, a group of students calling for transitional justice poured red paint on Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) sarcophagus at the Cihu Mausoleum in Taoyuan, once again raising the question of how transitional justice is to be implemented.
On Tuesday last week, Premier William Lai (賴清德) during a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Yuan confirmed that former Control Yuan member Huang Huang-hsiung (黃煌雄) would be the next committee chairman.
There have been media reports that Huang, one of the spiritual leaders of the committee, has not only been approved by the Democratic Progressive Party, but that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) also thinks Huang has public credibility and is not a controversial choice.
Given that it has always been difficult for the pan-green and pan-blue camps to reach a consensus, a person must be very willing to compromise — or to be more blunt, be a fence-sitter — to be acceptable to both camps.
The problem is: What will become of the committee’s task of disciplining government officials who are out of line if former Control Yuan members who are acceptable to both sides are appointed?
If police officers would try to maintain good relations with criminals, as well as with law-abiding citizens, what would happen to crime prevention? If you fear offending people, how will you implement transitional justice?
It is common knowledge that the ring of accomplices consisting of the KMT and its affiliate organizations, and the power and privilege they accumulated over half a century, are the targets of the transitional justice act.
As the KMT and the National Women’s League have continued to stubbornly oppose the ill-gotten party assets committee, one can only wonder what it means when they are happy with an appointment to the transitional justice committee.
During his Control Yuan term, Huang ignored the principle of administrative neutrality and recommended that former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) be elected for a second term. When then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) was recalled after he was convicted of leaking information to Ma, Huang opposed a recall.
Whether he will stand on the side of good or evil in the political tug-of-war that is transitional justice is a matter of concern.
Removing damaged tissue can be painful, but it is necessary for a wound to heal. Stitching up the wound because one fears the pain will not heal the wound. Premier William Lai (賴清德), a doctor by profession, understands this kind of reasoning.
Will Taiwan achieve transitional justice through bold and decisive action, or by moving cautiously out of fear of going too far?
If Taiwanese are serious about transitional justice, a transitional justice committee is needed that is relentlessness and not trying to smooth things over.
If the wrong people are appointed, all Taiwanese will lose, as transitional justice will fail, the innocent victims of past wrongs will not be rehabilitated and even the government will be hurt.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Perry Svensson
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
Former Hong Kong media magnate Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who on Monday was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement and “colluding with foreign forces,” once called on members of the US government for support in his struggle against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Speaking to a forum at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in July 2019, Lai, speaking about the US having the moral authority over the CCP, said: “It’s like they are going to battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in
RSS