Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death.
Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is.
Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures, and followed less enlightened years of his rule.
Chiang Ching-kuo was in charge during the White Terror era, Martial Law era, the Kaohsiung Incident trials, the murders of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) family members and the death of democracy advocate Chen Wen-chen (陳文成).
It was not until the late 1980s that he started promoting localization and democratization. Before that, he had continued the iron-fisted rule of his father.
At the same time, he maintained a staunch opposition to Chinese communists, declared that the Chiang family would renounce hereditary succession, worked to “Taiwanize” the government by launching democratic reforms, brought the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement in from the cold and allowed the founding of the DPP in 1986.
Taiwan would not be the vibrant democracy it is today had it not been for Chiang Ching-kuo’s decisions, with all the caveats that the political realities of his day involve.
His legacy is a matter of perspective: of one who was inside the KMT and therefore in a position to benefit from his grip on power, or of one who was outside, like most ordinary Taiwanese, who were subject to forced compliance with the regime’s control. It also depends on whether one is looking at his legacy with the benefit of hindsight, following the relaxation of his grip on power and the holding of direct presidential elections; whether one lived through the dark times of the White Terror, party-state rule and political killings; and one’s distrust of and opposition to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), then and now.
A perfect illustration of this shifting perspective on his legacy occurred about three years ago, on Jan. 22, 2022, when then-president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) spoke at the opening of the Ching-kuo Chi-hai Cultural Park and the Chiang Ching-kuo Presidential Library in Taipei.
In attendance were representatives of the KMT old guard, including former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), former KMT vice chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Tsai’s very presence there was controversial, as it was regarded by the New Power Party and the Transitional Justice Commission as somehow glorifying authoritarianism, delegitimizing her government’s promotion of transitional justice and glossing over the pain of Taiwanese suppressed by the Chiang regime.
In her comments, Tsai did not argue for forgetting the excesses of Chiang Ching-kuo’s rule, concentrating instead on his unremitting and staunch anti-communist stance. One can only imagine how uncomfortable Chan, Ma, Hau and Chu felt.
Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) said at the time that Tsai’s attendance was a good sign of the possibility of national unity, while Chu was less welcoming of her and the focus of her remarks.
His truculence was sourced from the realization of how far the KMT has come from Chiang’s uncompromisingly anti-CCP stance and how Tsai acknowledged the merit therein.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS