Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Huang Kuo-shu (黃國書) admitted he had been an informant for the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) authoritarian regime when he was a student and has announced that he is to resign from the DPP.
This decision should be affirmed, but hopefully he can also tell the whole truth to show his determination to distance himself from his past. He could use the opportunity to promote the implementation of transitional justice.
Taiwan’s democratization was a quiet revolution rather than a stormy event. This reduced the bloodshed, but it also slowed the process of transitional justice. The old state apparatus has not been shattered and the changing ideals have failed to have an impact on many people who lack understanding of transitional justice.
Huang should provide further explanation so a change in ideals is not a sudden event.
I have changed from being a supporter of a “greater China” ideal to supporting Taiwanese independence, but it took 20 years. My support went via the position that there are “two Chinas,” so there has been a constant back-and-forth of ideas.
For these reasons, I always wonder if Chinese who suddenly and fervently begin to support Taiwanese independence really do support it, or if they are simply opportunists trying to score political points.
Distancing oneself from an informant background might not be that complicated, but there is definitely a struggle. If Huang would speak out, perhaps he could teach us something.
An informant is not a spy, but a quasi-spy, as they only conduct surveillance and provide information, while a spy has other, destructive tasks, including inciting counterinsurgencies.
That there are victims, but no perpetrators, in Taiwan’s version of transitional justice has always been the crux of the problem, and it concerns the purpose of transitional justice.
Some people think that the purpose of transitional justice is unity, which could be affected by exposing the truth. Perhaps this is also why Huang might be holding back the whole truth.
However, without truth, Lee Chin-hsiang (利錦祥), the target of Huang’s activities, would wonder who was monitoring him and suspect everyone who had approached him during the Martial Law era. Huang, on the other hand, would feel awkward around Lee. What kind of unity is that?
Of course, telling the truth is not the same as being united. Those in power must first do a lot of work, not only from a macro perspective — to make the perpetrators understand that what they did is a stain on us all — but also to teach those who were targets to be broad-minded and look forward for the sake of national unity. The authorities must work carefully with perpetrators and targets.
The informant, Huang, is a perpetrator and a victim. If he tells the truth and promotes transitional justice, he is a victim. If he conceals the truth and resists the transformation, he is in the same position as his superiors and one of the perpetrators.
Everyone who did harm in the service of the authoritarian system, including informants, are both perpetrator and victim. The degree to which they are each is determined by their actions today.
Former DPP secretary-general Luo Wen-chia (羅文嘉) has said that some people refused to be informants. Such people are heroes, but they are a minority, so it is important to be tolerant of the majority and welcome them back into the fold.
However, whether those heroes who fought against the KMT can resist the temptation of money now is another question.
Huang can talk to his friends or authorities to discuss the most appropriate way to resolve the issue. He must also pay attention to his own safety.
There are many components to transitional justice, and this is just one of them. The vote in Taichung to recall Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟), which was held yesterday, also raised some strange issues, such as some wealthy people questioning his wealth and some local tycoons accusing him of being involved in gambling.
Meanwhile, the KMT — once Taiwan’s biggest party and now the largest opposition party — is colluding with the world’s largest communist party to bully the Taiwan Statebuilding Party. This is not only ridiculous, it is also an attack on transitional justice.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS