Feb. 28 marks a day of remembrance for Taiwan — memorializing the incident that led to an era of martial law later dubbed the White Terror era.
This year commemorated the 77th anniversary of that pivotal event. The government’s ongoing pursuit of transitional justice includes new legislation aimed at providing an honest account of events and reconciliation.
As a step in the democratization of Taiwan by seeking truth from the past through public transparency, the government commenced a new process of declassifying documents from 1945 to 1992. While the rectification of past injustice is a move in the right direction, the next step in improving government transparency should be to expand Taiwanese’s access through the establishment of a freedom of information act (FOIA).
Late last year, amendments were proposed to the Political Archives Act (政治檔案條例) that passed in 2019. The previous mandate of the Political Archives Act allowed permanent confidentiality for all government records related to sensitive political and national security matters. However, these amendments revised confidentiality requirements.
Future modifications should give the public access to documents from at least 30 years ago. Declassification of documents related to the 228 Incident and martial law represents a significant step toward understanding and historical reconciliation for families who lost loved ones, marking the beginning of a path to justice.
Transitional justice as a mechanism to confront past atrocities through present reforms has been an important part of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) goals throughout her presidency. With the looming shadow of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legacy in Taiwan, the public release of the documents helps tear the bandages off the nation’s wounds.
What are the next steps forward? One direction I support would be to increase transparency between government entities and citizens through a new act that would give individuals the ability to gain access to government documents, in line with the US FOIA.
The US FOIA has provided journalists, academics and everyday citizens the opportunity to gain access to government documents that were previously undisclosed. Its history shaped its eventual creation.
The seeds of the US FOIA began as an act promulgated in 1946; it was called the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 3 of the act allowed US government agencies general discretion in the publication process of government documents.
Because of general concerns that government agencies would withhold more than they disclosed, 20 years later, in 1966, the US Congress passed an amendment to Section 3 that crafted it into a separate act.
The US FOIA, according to its Web site, “has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency.”
With nine exemptions to the act (eg, personal privacy, national security and law enforcement), it requires agencies to grant public access to requested information.
Why does it matter? Transitional justice has provided an impetus to move forward in the democratization process, yet democracy is not just about righting the wrongs of the past. It is about maintaining honest communication with society at large.
For all the faults within the US government domestically and internationally, legislation such as an FOIA allows for a level of openness with the public with regard to files the government would gladly hide away if it were able to do so. By no means a perfect system — there are plenty of examples where the process can take years, or with enough money and the right gusto, one can sue the government to gain access to the documents — the opportunity for the average citizen to seek out information is quite magnificent.
Despite its flaws, the US FOIA offers a crucial level of transparency. While the process can be lengthy and challenging, it allows citizens the right to access information the government might otherwise conceal.
This empowers citizens to hold the government accountable — a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
In Taiwan, the establishment of an FOIA would offer some benefits, as well as challenges.
Enhanced transparency would promote accountability, a level of trust between the government and the citizens, and allow for more informed dialogue. For journalists, increased access to information improves their role as purveyors of truth.
In a time when younger generations of Taiwanese are becoming disengaged in politics, an FOIA can present an opportunity to empower them to be more active in engaging with the government.
Most importantly, it strengthens the democratic values by promoting open governance.
Similar to the new amendments to the Political Archives Act, a Taiwanese FOIA would need to balance transparent openness with national security. There would need to be a robust mechanism for the enforcement of processing requests, managing resources and handling potential conflicts. Public education would be important in the usage of an FOIA to maximize the impact it could have.
So what are the next steps for the potential of such an act to be realized? Were more people to write about this topic, primarily in Chinese, it has the potential to open the gates to public discourse that could lead to debates within the Legislative Yuan.
An analysis of established FOIA frameworks can provide strengths and weaknesses, so Taiwan can implement its adaptation, and, most crucially, move toward the establishment of an FOIA to foster a more transparent and accountable government.
Stephen Ramon Fletes is a third-year student in the International Master’s Program in Asia-Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University.
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS