The 228 Massacre is the one most grievous tragedy ever happened in Taiwan’s post-war history. For the longest time, it has also been the biggest political taboo in which people can not publicly discuss it or research it. Despite so, the 228 Massacre has imprinted a strong mark in Taiwan’s history.
1. The truth of the 228 Massacre was purposely obscured
The shadow of the 228 Massacre has only been gradually lifted after the “Justice and Peace Movement of the 228 Massacre” in 1987. Main appeals of the movement then included calls for disclosure of historical data, establishment of monument and memorial museum, designation of memorial holiday, government’s apology, and indemnification for losses and harms suffered by 228 Massacre victims. Although all of which have slowly been realized given concession on the part of the government, it appears that the government wishes to write it off at one stroke without further attempts to understand the core issues. The government thinks it has done its share of responsibility by paying the indemnity, and that the public thinks the event has been given a full closure as victims and their families receive monetary consolation. Underneath thesuperficial memorial services and monetary indemnification however, the true history behind the 228 Massacre has been blurred and forgotten.
2. There was no real introspection of the 228 Massacre
It is inconceivable to think such a situation would take place in democratized Taiwan. Under the Kuomintang’s autocratic regime, it oppressed human rights, arrested political dissidents and maneuvered countless unjust judicial cases. Although people were full of anger and discontent, it was understandable then that given the time and atmosphere at the time, people dared not to speak out, and express their dissatisfaction and opposition.
In today’s free and open society however, we are still unable to face the historic significance of the 228 Massacre despite the fact that Taiwan, following waves of democratic movements led by our pioneers, is democratized at last and that the fear over discussion of the 228 Massacre has been lifted. This shows that the history of the 228 Massacre has not really been introspected and the attribution of offenders’ due responsibility in the 228 Massacre has not been clarified. It also suggests that Taiwan, although democratized, still dares not to touch on core issues concerning the historical truth of the 228 Massacre nor probe relevant attribution of due responsibility under the hat of vacuous tolerance, reconciliation and ethnic harmony.
3. Background to Research Report on Responsibility For The 228 Massacre
After the Executive Yuan established the 228 Memorial Foundation, the foundation has since been actively engaging in various works such as screening and distributing indemnification payment, sponsoring commemorative activities, and issuing scholarships. It also sees itself duty-bound to research and find out who should be responsible for the 228 Massacre, an issue that has been the long-time expectation of the victims and their families.
With that mission in mind, the foundation in 2003 started to plan on a project that aimed at clarifying and attributing offenders’ due responsibility in the 228 Massacre. Research Report on Responsibility For The 228 Massacre was authored by board members Huang Hsiu-Cheng, Hsueh Hua-Yuan, Chen Yi-Shen, Chang Yan-Hsian, and scholars Lee Hsiao-Feng, Chen Tsui-Lien and Ho I-Lin. Professors Chen Tze-Lung and Huang Mao-Rong authored the legal discussion culprits’ criminal and civil liabilities while Professor Cai Zong-Jhen compared the study with that in the Nazi Massacre.
The foundation undertook the project at the end of 2003 and completed it after monthly discussion that took place throughout year 2004. Aside from the preface and conclusion, the book is divided into four parts: the causes of the Massacre and its damages to Taiwan, responsibility on the part of decision-makers in Nanjing, responsibility on the part of Taiwan’s military and political authorities, and responsibility on the part of individuals involved in the Massacre.
4. Clarification on who should be held responsible for The 228 Massacre
So far, lots of historical data about the 228 Massacre have been disclosed, including publications by the Taiwan Provincial Government’s document committee, Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History, and the National Archive Bureau. There have also been quite a few narrated accounts on the event. However, there has not been any book written on the attribution of due responsibility for the 228 Massacre, issues which the book wishes to probe.
In the chapter titled The Causes of the Massacre and its damages to Taiwan, it explains the background, the course of the event, the crackdown by military troops and the damage the Massacre made to Taiwan. It analyzes in depth each link in the 228 Massacre, details of which serves as the basis for the study on who should be held responsible for the 228 Massacre.
In the chapter titled Responsibility on the part of the decision-makers in Nanjing, we think Chiang Kai-Shek should bear the biggest responsibility because he, then the supreme leader who controlled all information and knew all about the development of the Massacre in Taiwan, yet still decided to send troops to Taiwan and launch the crackdown that resulted in great casualty among the Taiwanese people. Chiang Kai-Shek not only failed to discipline Chen Yi and relevant military and political officials, but he, on the other hand, promoted Chen Yi to the post of Jhejiang Province governor and Peng Meng-Ci to the post of Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command commanderin- chief. This suggested that Chiang Kai-Shek was oblivious to theopinion of Taiwanese people and viewed Taiwan public’s appeal for political reform as acts of treason and rebellion. Aside from Chiang Kai-Shek who should bear the biggest onus, the chapter points out those Control Yuan members Yang Liang-Gong and Ho Han-Wun who came to Taiwan for an investigation into the Massacre failed in their duty to supervise. The chapter also notes that Minister of National Defense Bai Chong-Si, originally came to Taiwan to console the people, was unable to stop the Massacre. He chose to buy into Chen Yi’s rhetoric that did not reflect the real public opinion in Taiwan.
In the chapter titled Responsibility on the part of the military and political authorities in Taiwan, it states that other than Nanjing government’s highest leader Chiang Kai-Shek who should bear the biggest responsibility for the Massacre, the military and political authorities in Taiwan had their share of responsibility as well. Administrative leader and commander-inchief of Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command Chen Yi should shoulder the greatest responsibility on the part of the military and political authority in Taiwan; the chief of Staff of Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command Ke Yuan-Fen and commandant of Kaohsiung fortress Peng Meng-Ci came in second; Military police’s fourth regimental commander Chang Mu-Tao, commandant of Keelung fortress Shih Hong-Si, commander of 21st military division Liou Yu-Cing and relevant intelligent agents and security officers were also responsible for incitement and killings.
In the chapter titled Responsibilities on the part on individuals who involved in the Massacre, it discusses responsibilities of informers, people who framed others, media worker, and members of public organizations. Although thesepeople were neither commanders nor decision-makers, they nonetheless should bear some share of responsibility for going along with the crime.
5. Pursuit of social justice
Through state power, the ruling authority carried out a massacre via systematic methods that led to difficulty of the task afterward in uncovering the truth and nailing the main culprits. It is especially so with the 228 Massacre, in which the Kuomintang hid away related documents, twisted facts, and resorted to threats and oppression that made it hard for others to dig out the truth. Anyone who wished to trace the responsibility and rake up the truth behind Kuomintang's ruling of Taiwan in the early years of post-WWII risked offending the great image of then supreme leader Chiang Kai-Shek. Doing so not only assaulted the rationality of the Kuomintang's regime, but also violated the values long planted by the Kuomintang. Against all odds however, history shall return to be history, the truth needs to be uncovered and attribution of historical responsibility needs to be probed no matter the amount of difficulty ones encounter.
After World War II, the Germen introspected and investigated responsibilities of the Nazi’s massacre of Jews. Germen can introspect, why can't Taiwan? It has been 60 years since the World War II ended but many historical questions remain un-dealt with, let alone introspection. The 228 Massacre is Taiwan’s greatest pain that still influences Taiwan today. Only by facing, and clarifying due responsibility can we establish social justice, learn the lesson, reconcile, support each other, and love Taiwan.
(Chang Yan-Hsian is the chairman of Academia Historica and convener of the Memorial Foundation of 228’s “228 Massacre Truth Research Task Force”)