In Taiwan, the implementation of the Constitution was overshadowed by the bloodshed of the 228 Incident. The Republic of China (ROC) Constitution was promulgated on Dec. 25, 1946, just two months before the outbreak of the incident in early 1947. The proximity of these events raises an unsettling question: Was there a deeper connection between them?
In 1946, before the incident, Taiwanese could not have foreseen that just three years later, in 1949, the nation would enter a period governed by the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員戡亂時期臨時條款), which effectively suspended the Constitution. Under these emergency provisions, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) declared nationwide martial law in May 1949, thereby putting the Constitution on hold.
In 1946, Taiwanese still believed that the ratification of the Constitution offered a pathway out of dictatorship, initiating a system of suffrage to dismantle a corrupt authoritarian regime through democratic elections and institutional reform.
That year, 18 Taiwanese delegates to the National Assembly for the Establishment of the Constitution took the initiative to voice their concerns during the National Assembly convened in Nanjing, urging the full implementation of the Constitution without delay.
The history of implementing the Constitution is recorded in a letter from Lin Lien-tsung (林連宗), one of those Taiwanese delegates, addressed to his daughter Lin Hsin-yu (林信貞). He wrote: “After the Constitution was passed, no date had been set for its implementation. In response, we Taiwanese delegates demanded that the Constitution be implemented in Taiwan immediately. To make every delegate from other provinces in China understand our situation, we invited members of the national press and fellow delegates to repeatedly explain our position.”
Lin Lien-tsung’s letter was not merely a personal account — it reflected real political action. His advocacy was formalized into an official proposal, documented in black and white as Proposal No. 61 in the Record of the National Assembly (國民大會實錄).
In Proposal No. 61, 11 Taiwanese delegates, including Lin Lien-tsung, Chang Chi-lang (張七郎) and Huang Kuo-shu (黃國書) — but not Lien Chen-tung (連震東), Lee Wan-chu (李萬居) and Liu Ming-chao (劉明朝), as they did not participate in the proposal — joined forces with other delegates from other provinces. In total 71 delegates submitted a unified proposal for the restoration of suffrage rights to ROC citizens. The proposal demanded that the government promulgate the Constitution within 10 days and implement it within six months.
The advocacy for constitutional democracy sent shockwaves through Taiwanese society. Members of the former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) — revived as the Taiwan Provincial Political Construction Association after World War II, and not to be confused with the current Taiwan People’s Party founded by then-Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) in 2019 — took to the streets waving banners in support of holding general elections, and calling for democratically elected county commissioners and mayors.
The TPP had been co-founded in 1927 by Chiang Wei-shui (蔣渭水) and others, but was dissolved by the Japanese colonial government in 1931. In January 1946, former members and activists regrouped and established the Taiwan People’s Association, which was soon forced to rename, and became the Taiwan Provincial Political Construction Association that March. The association requested universal suffrage as early as in June 1947.
Meanwhile, the ROC government postponed the implementation of the Constitution, later announcing that it would be enacted on Dec. 25, 1947. Then-Taiwanese chief executive Chen Yi (陳儀) further obstructed Taiwan’s path to democracy by introducing a three-year local government political plan. Yet in the face of growing resistance, protesters pressed forward, resorting to any means available to push for democratic reforms and transform Taiwan into a “model province,” where democratic elections would be held as soon as possible.
The opposition leaders played a vital role in spearheading Taiwan’s early pro-democracy protest movement. They recognized that the mass movement leading to the 228 Incident represented the largest civil uprising in Taiwan’s history up to that point — one that compelled the ruling authorities to confront the public’s demand for universal suffrage.
At the heart of this democratic struggle stood the Constitution — which served as the most powerful legal foundation for the opposition’s calls for political reform and universal suffrage.
On March 7, 1947, amid mounting pressure from the protest movement, Chen announced that July 1 would be election day for county and city heads. However, the brief concession was followed by the brutal crackdown of the 228 Incident, as Chiang Kai-shek ordered military forces into Taiwan.
Opposition figures — many affiliated with the Taiwan Provincial Political Construction Association — were systematically targeted and assassinated. Lin Lien-tsung and Chang were among those killed; Lin’s body was never found. Chang’s sons, Chang Chung-jan (張宗仁) and Chang Kuo-jan (張果仁), both medical doctors, were arrested and executed by firing squad alongside their father.
President William Lai (賴清德) has demonstrated a willingness to engage with Taiwan’s history. As he continues to articulate his vision, it is hoped that Lai would come to fully recognize the sacrifices and bloodshed of those who fought for democracy. Only through such historical awareness can the Constitution be reaffirmed as the enduring cornerstone of national unity.
Huang Heui-jiun is the author of A Vanished Political Party in the 228 Incident.
Translated by Lai Wen-chieh
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS