The issue of “comfort women,” who were forced to provide sexual services to the Japanese military during World War II, has been pushed onto the political agenda in the run-up to the nine-in-one elections. The use of this emotive issue as a political tool is unfortunate.
On Monday, New Party Taipei city councilor candidates placed a statue of a comfort woman outside the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association’s offices in Taipei, as part of a series of events demanding an official apology from the Japanese government. The candidates involved say the event was not about promoting the party. The timing would suggest it was.
On Aug. 14, the non-profit Tainan Association for Comfort Women’s Rights, with assistance from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), erected a comfort woman statue next to the KMT’s Tainan chapter office. At the unveiling, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) criticized the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government for not pursuing an apology from the Japanese government.
According to many estimates, 80 percent of the 200,000 women forced to work as sex slaves were Korean. The South Korean government has been pressuring the Japanese government on this issue for decades. In 2015, then-South Korean president Park Geun-hye accepted a Japanese apology and compensation of ￥1 billion (US$9 million at the current exchange rate).
However, Japan’s refusal to admit legal responsibility for the abuses infuriated some of the surviving victims. South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed to honor the agreement, but has undertaken to pay compensation from other sources out of respect for the victims who were refusing Japanese money.
Taiwan’s government has also pursued an apology from the Japanese. Aug 14. was not the first time Ma had brought the subject up, having mentioned it in December last year and on March 8, 2016 — International Women’s Day — when he attended the unveiling of the plaque for the Ama Museum in Taipei, which is dedicated to the comfort women issue.
However, he is not right in suggesting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not doing anything about seeking an apology. Nor can he claim the KMT is alone in pursuing the matter.
In Novermber 2008, a resolution was passed by legislators across party lines demanding a formal apology and compensation from the Japanese government to former comfort women in Taiwan. Among those who proposed the resolution were then-DPP legislators Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英), William Lai (賴清德) — who is now the premier — and Pan Meng-an (潘孟安).
Ma is demanding that the DPP do something. He was in office for eight years, but what did he do?
He also fails to mention the atrocities of his own party in suppressing the local population after the KMT fled China and during the Martial Law era. Nor does he bring up the inconvenient truth that during that era, the then-KMT administration sponsored army-run brothels known as “831 special teahouses” (八三一特約茶室) or “army paradises” (軍中樂園), established when former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) was in charge of the Ministry of National Defense’s Political Warfare Bureau.
These cannot be compared directly to the horrific experiences recounted by the comfort women, but the word “paradise” surely does not relay the experience of the prostitutes enlisted.
The KMT itself has much to apologize for. Ma’s disingenuously selective memory and demands for DPP action are politically motivated and a distraction from other dark secrets that transitional justice seeks to shine a light on. They are also an attempt to sully relations between the DPP and the Japanese government by a member of an exiled Chinese government seeking to regain favor with China.
The use of the comfort women issue to further Ma’s and the KMT’s ends is distasteful, although not surprising.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS