On Saturday last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) emphasized the significance of Retrocession Day, which it recently restored as a national holiday. It was not alone. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) also marked the “Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration,” framing itself as Taiwan’s successor state.
The KMT views Taiwan as having been restored to the Republic of China (ROC) on Oct. 25, 1945, when the ROC accepted Japan’s surrender at Taipei’s Zhongshan Hall, then known as the Taihoku Public Hall.
During the ceremony, the surrender of General Rikichi Ando, the last Japanese governor-general of Taiwan, was formally accepted by ROC representative Chen Yi (陳儀) on behalf of the Allies — several other representatives of whom were present. Japan’s surrender is also celebrated on the Korean Peninsula, with the North and South marking Liberation Day on Aug. 15, when the Empire of Japan formally surrendered there after World War II.
While Aug. 15 marks the end of WWII, it is not formally celebrated in Taiwan. The much-disputed Oct. 25 date should simply be seen as the anniversary of the beginning of ROC rule — and the latest instance of Taiwan falling under the authority of an alien force.
It was the official handover of Taiwan to be governed by the ROC as a representative of the Allied forces following an interim “government-less” period. Having entered the modern era and thrown off the yoke of Japanese colonialism, Taiwanese came to be ruled by the ROC, which perceived itself as heir to the “motherland.” Taiwan became a province of what they believed to be Asia’s first democratic republic and for a time, that was celebrated.
The question is, what meaning does “motherland” hold for Taiwanese today and for how many has the initial welcoming soured into resentment?
After less than a year and a half of ROC rule, the 228 Incident erupted in 1947. On March 19, 1949, martial law was declared and on Oct. 1, the ROC was expelled from China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). After that, Taiwan was under 38 years of quasi-colonial control by the exiled KMT.
In 1971, the ROC, led by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), lost its seat at the UN to the PRC. Taiwan fell short of retaining recognition as a country, leaving a state of uncertainty that has persisted even after democratization.
Taiwan’s democracy in the 21st century, achieved through a quiet revolution, encompasses several political parties, including the KMT, but the KMT’s fall from absolute power has not led it to prioritize democratic development or national security.
In the post-Chiang era, the KMT has turned a blind eye to its own history of conflict with the CCP — never mind the PRC’s ambitions of doing away with the ROC and swallowing Taiwan whole — leaving the nation to contend with the consequences of the KMT and the CCP continually uniting against it.
Oct. 25 as Retrocession Day is meant to spotlight a Chinese restoration of Taiwan. In reality, it marks nothing more than the start of the ROC’s rule — much the same as June 17, 1895, marks the beginning of Japanese rule. The Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan after its defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, but after World War II, Taiwan emerged neither liberated nor independent. Instead, Japan’s defeat and the end of one colonial occupation came in the form of a handover to the ROC. To frame that as “retrocession” is a perverse distortion of history.
The ROC’s KMT and the PRC’s CCP stake claims linked to Retrocession Day — even though the PRC was yet to be established in 1945. The later-exiled ROC colonialists at the time would never have acknowledged the PRC’s distortions of today.
Conceptualizations of retrocession and liberation are subjective. If Taiwan is to have a day commemorating liberation after the end of World War II, it should, like South Korea and North Korea, be independence day on Aug. 15.
Retrocession Day should be rejected by Taiwanese.
As for the KMT, its transformation from opposing the CCP in the Chinese Civil War and the post-war period to growing increasingly closer to it today is a major contradiction.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS