On May 18, 1980, students in Gwangju, South Korea, rallied against martial law. The Gwangju Uprising was soon suppressed, as then-South Korean general Chun Doo-hwan sent in troops to crush the protests. Consequently, 154 people were killed, 70 people disappeared and 3,028 were injured.
Fortunately, thanks to photographs taken by German reporter Jurgen Hinzpeter, the world learned the truth. After Chun became South Korean president later that year, the uprising was defined as a rebellion instigated by communists and their sympathizers.
The similarities between events in South Korea and Taiwan’s 228 Incident are remarkable. Both culminated in numerous deaths, and both governments utilized the same rhetoric and narrative to frame the social movement as a rebellion instigated by communists.
One thing is different, though. After his presidential term ended, Chun was on Dec. 3, 1995, arrested on charges of conspiracy and insurrection. Although he denied that he ordered military forces to suppress the protests, Chun was sentenced to life in prison.
In the 1990s, victims of the uprising were compensated. More than 200 teachers and a dozen professors who were laid off during the uprising won a lawsuit in which they demanded compensation from the South Korean government.
On the other hand, although many more people were killed in the 228 Incident — a number that could be 100 times higher than in the Gwangju Uprising — no perpetrators have been tracked down. After 76 years, the slaughterers have not been summoned to stand trial, let alone be convicted.
An even greater difference is how the slaughterers’ descendants reacted. On Friday last week, Chun’s grandson Chun Woo-won knelt down and apologized for what his grandfather had done.
Women who lost their loved ones during the Gwangju Uprising — also known as the “mothers of May — accepted Chun Woo-won’s apology, embracing him in tears.
It was a perfect example of transitional justice. The perpetrators, or their descendants, apologize, and their victims, or their families, forgive them for their wrongdoings. Only thereafter can reconciliation between the two parties be reached.
Taiwan’s case is quite different. Given that the slaughterers of the 228 Incident have not been identified, the grandchildren (or great-grandchildren) of the perpetrators do not have to kneel down and apologize to the victims’ families.
Moreover, some have intentionally distorted the truth, claiming that the 228 Incident was merely an act of pacification rather than a massacre. Some have asked the public to look forward rather than backward. If so, what is the purpose of teaching history in compulsory education? For some, the perpetrators do not have to apologize for their wrongdoings, and the victims should simply reconcile with them.
The 228 Incident is a typical event showcasing the violence of the state. Today, after 76 years, it will be difficult to discover and preserve direct evidence.
During the Sunflower movement in 2014, even though then-premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said that police on March 24 did not use excessive force to evict students from the Executive Yuan, photographs and video footage from the scene proved otherwise. Students were severely beaten; civilians were covered with blood.
Evidence has shown that the “324” incident is a demonstration of state violence. After nine years, the Control Yuan has finally issued corrective notices over the failures of the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of the Interior, the National Police Agency, the Taipei Police Department and the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office. Yet it is still highly doubtful whether the perpetrators will be brought to court.
Apparently, Taiwan still has a long way to go to achieve transitional justice.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Emma Liu
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS