After the 228 Massacre, the so-called “BanShan” working for the government came under lots of criticism from the general public, whom thought they had sold out Taiwanese. Many oral accounts recorded that there were lots of cases in which these individuals served as stool pigeon for the intelligent and security agencies and cooked up charges against others. Certainly these people should shoulder certain share of responsibility as well. On the other hand, according to official investigation reports, the ruling authority attributed the happening and enlargement of the Massacre to local social elites, especially some rank-andfiles within the public organizations or media workers whom were given the charges of inciting the disturbance. Regardless of whether it was public view or official report, so long as the group or an individual were involved, we all needed to reexamine them and clarify due responsibility, be it sever, light or innocent.
“BanShan” refer to those who were Taiwan born, grew up in Taiwan and later lived in China mainland for a while and worked for the Kuomintang government and exposed themselves to Chinese culture and politics. Such kind of experience was considered too far off for locals who lived in Taiwan under Japan's colonial rule with limited access to outside information and knowledge. By logic, these so-called “BanShan” ought to act as the bridge between the Chinese government and Taiwan society. However, the far most important role many of these “BanShan” played prior to their return to Taiwan was calling upon the Chinese government to “restore” Taiwan. Although there were some “BanShan” who made some suggestions to the Nationalist government on what it needed to look out for when taking over Taiwan, their influences however were limited because the Kuomintang authority usually took lightly the suggestions proposed by the “BanShan”, or disregard them all together.
After the war, “BanShan” took up posts within the parties, army, and politics after their return to Taiwan. Chen Yi’s government originally relied on the “BanShan” to be the bridge between the Taiwan Provincial Executive Office and Taiwan people, but some of them started taking advantage of their posts and exploited their office, hence became the beneficiary in the process of the Nationalist government’s “take-over” of Taiwan. Given there was this intrinsic competition between this group of people and local elites to start with, these “BanShan” failed not only in their responsibility in the early years after the war to act as the bridge between the government and the Taiwan people; they, on the contrary, became the obstacle between the government officials and the people. After the 228 Massacre broke out, Chen Yi used “BanShan” such as Speaker of Taiwan Provincial Parliament Hunag Chao-Cin, Taiwan Provincial Parliament General-Secretary Lian Jhen-Dong, Parliament member Lee Wan-Jyu, and member of National Political Assembly Lin Jhong to mediate and attempted to restore the order and guarantee public security. Although these people got involved in their capacity as mediators, they however, consciously or unconsciously, passively or voluntarily, somehow helped Chen Yi and the authorities in putting down people’s resistance.
Some other “BanShan” were highly regarded by the ruing authority that they took part in the military crackdown and became the ruling authority’s accomplices. Among them, head of the of Military Commission Investigation and Statistic Bureau’s Taiwan Station Lin Ding-Li, President of the South China Bank Liou Ci-Guang, Defense Commandant for the Hsinchu area and Hsinchu County Magistrate Su Shao-Wun were typical examples. Wang Min-Ning, who took over chief of police service division after the Massacre, and Huang Guo- Shu, who was appointed defense commandant, also played important roles in the official armed suppression. The “BanShan” were most criticized for offering blacklist to the military and intelligent unites, and via the hands of the military and intelligent agents, root out Taiwan’s social elites. People in the public generally believed that it was with the help of these “BanShan” in the process of “pacification” and “purge” that the Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command was able to list “heads of rebellion” that subsequently resulted in the arrest and killings of many social elites. Whatever the real situation was, it was certain that the “BanShan” benefited from the Massacre, which was obviously from their promotion in the later days.
The official investigation report attributed the causes of the Massacre to “incitement by ambitious politicians,” and that “the Communists whom wished to seized the chance to instigate.” The report obviously attributed the cause and enlargement of the 228 Massacre to leaders of “the Communist Party,” “the Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district),” and “the Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group.” Therefore, besides arresting the Communists during the military crackdown, orders were also directed to dismiss The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group, and restructure the Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district). However, after analyzing the organization and activities of each group, it was found that it was impossible for the Communists to plan the Massacre in advance. And although the Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district) had lots of its rank-and-file members took part in the demonstration, they were all found to be independent and not structural actions. The Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district) was not a general public organization but a special organization with position parallel to party headquarters in the political tutelage stage. Therefore, after the war, lots of left wings joined the organization. These people surely were quite discontented with the government’s corruption. In fact, power struggles among the party factions had long surfaced before the 228 Massacre that the party and the party caucus competed with each other furiously. After the Massacre, the conflict among factions accelerated. However, excluding the in-flight among the factions, calls by the Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district) were generally rational requests for political reforms. So, rather than probing responsibility of the Three Principle of the People Youth Crops (Taiwan district), we should examine conflicting issues within the National government’s overall operation and system.
Besides the question of the political system in the political tutelage stage, chairman of the Kuomintang’s provincial headquarters Lee Yi-Jhong, who controlled the public organizations, also needed to bear certain share of responsibility. Among the groups the provincial headquarters attempted to control was The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group. The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group owned its legal establishment to the support of the Kuomintang’s provincial headquarters. But after tits establishment, the group actively put forward the request, calling for implementation of autonomy election and so not to be a figure-head organization of the party’s provincial headquarters. Although Lee Yi- Jhong and Chen Yi were unhappy with the move of the group, they still requested the leader of group Chiang Wei-Chuan to help pacify the people after the 228 Massacre happened in a bid to buy more time for troops to be dispatched from China mainland. After the crackdown began however, the authority claimed The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group during the massacre had publicly sought veterans from the Japan regime to betray the country. The authority used it as an excuse and ordered the group to disband. From its establishment and dismissal, The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group had always been a subordinate to the CC (Central Club) faction ---the provincial headquarters. During the protest, the Chen Yi government used The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group to buy more times, but the group was forced to disband after it served the Chen Yi government’s purpose. The suppression and massacre brought massive casualty to the group that many of its cadres were missing, or murdered, and only those who hid around or fled the island were able to escape misfortune by sheer good luck. It could be said that The Native Taiwanese Democracy Promotion Group was the group suffered the most among Taiwan’s public organizations. By contrast, the “Taiwan Provincial Constitutional Reform Association,” made up mostly by “BanShan”, later initiated “the Taiwan’s New Culture Movement Committee” after the 228 Massacre. Many of the members later became political upstarts. Responsibility of this group of “BanShan” is most worth investigating.
After the 228 Massacre, the official self-evaluation report pointed out that media must shoulder some share of responsibility and that “influence of improper public opinion” was one of the causes that led to the Massacre. It attributed people's anti-government action as result of the newspapers’ reports being overly sensational, or that the reporters abused freedom of the press. However, according to the academics’ analysis, the caused of Massacre was not prompted by “too much speech freedom” exercised by newspapers or periodicals. The truth of matter was that authority then had already imposed close supervision of the media, and that news outlets were merely reported the events as how they truly happened. With truthful coverage, what appeared daily in the newspapers were mostly news about military fired shots, policemen mid-behaved, officials involved in corruptions, and skyrocketing inflations. It was impossible to conceal the real situation and---with the fast transmission of the news---the media indeed had an influence on the development of the matter. But one can not go according to this and holds the media responsible for expansion of the Massacre. There was another saying that pointed finger at the broadcasting radio stations as the reason that caused the expansion of the Massacre. The authority thought that after the “228 Massacre Handling Committee” was established, regional broadcasting radio stations were seized by people and broadcasted content that aroused people’s anti-government sentiment. Such an accusation was totally one-sided, The truth of the matter was that local gentry and some officers had also used the radio stations to call upon the people to stay calm.
If responsibility of the media was to be probed, the greatest problem lied with the Central News Agency. Under the Nationalist government’s political tutelage rule, the Central News Agency, ran by the party, was basically used as the organ gathering information. The Central News Agency set up its Taipei branch after the war, with Ye Ming-Syun as the man in charge, whose main work was to pass news covered in Taiwan back to the main office in Nanjing. However, a batch of “original manuscripts of Central News Agency's code telegram” recently unearthed suggested that its reports totally took the side of the Chen Yi government, even that of the military’s. In the text of telegrams, they were all about Mainlanders being beaten, while news on what truly happened in the public and people’s thoughts and feelings--- for example, Taiwanese being shot to dead and such---were neglected. The telegrams even suggested the government to dispatch troops. Because the Central News Agency was one important channel the Nanjing government relied on to learn about the political situation in Taiwan, the information the agency transmitted clearly influenced a certain degree on Chiang Kai-Shek’s decision to dispatch troops to Taiwan.
While investigating the responsibilities of people involved in the Massacre, there were roles played by people in the bottom level perhaps can also be regarded as part of the accomplice structure, namely, the tip-off providers providing information to even the highest authority level. This kind of role included also the commonly called “stool pigeon” and informers, or incriminators. Many historical records suggested the kind of “stool pigeon,” or informers hid and acted as plan-clothed agents. Among the scenarios narrated by these records were most apparent in three accounts: 1) during the “228 Massacre Handling Committee’s” meeting at Jhongshan Hall, the original 32 requirements were increased to 42 requirements; 2) the saying that there were the so-called “rabbles” attacking the navy’s office in the Yuanshan area on March 8, and 3) Control Yuan member Yang Liang-Gong of Fuchien and Taiwan was attacked by “ruffians” on his way from Keelung to Taipei after arriving Taiwan.
After the army arrived in Taiwan on March 8, the authorities arrested and killed a lot of people whom took part in the riot and the protest. Many local elites and social leaders who did not participate in the riot or the protest however did not spare from the misfortune that many of them, including people representatives, professors, lawyers, writers, doctors, and reporter were arrested and murdered as well. On March 20, Taiwan Provincial Executive Office island-wide launched the so-called “search the country and eliminate rebels” operation, and demanded people to hand over weapons and “the evil person” by threatening to punish all the relatives or friends of those whom committed offenses. In the course of “search the country and eliminate rebels,” people were arrested, executed mostly without open trials. Behind the purge movement, numerous cases were cooked up by informers and incriminators. It could be that the informers collaborated out of fear of being implicated. But for those who cooked up charges and framed others, they often used the mean to retaliate on their personal rivals, or to carry on power struggle.
The identity and behavior of most stool pigeon, informers, and incriminators were oftentimes concealed that it was hard to find out their real names, let alone their true identities. As the result, it was difficult to probe responsibility of these individuals. Even if real names or concrete identities were given, it was still difficult to get hold of hard evidences to prove their acts. Besides, even if these stool pigeons and informers’ identities can be identified, they should not be held accountable for the Massacre solely on their own. These stool pigeons, informers, and incriminators merely offered the information as references to the intelligent agency, or higher authorities. It was the responsibility of these intelligent agency and officials in charge to investigate and verify the tips they received. These intelligent agents and officials should bear more responsibilities than that of the stool pigeon, informers, and incriminators for not verify the information they received but chose to completely believe the one-sided words of the stool pigeons, informers, and incriminators. Not to mention that the authorities used these stool pigeons to act as plain-clothes agents to incite the situation in order to achieve certain political purposes. Stool pigeons or the persons who act as plain-clothes agents were merely tools, the chief masters behind the scenes were the ones that should shoulder the most responsibility.
(Lee Hsiao-Feng is professor at National Taipei University of Education’s Graduate School of Taiwan Culture / Ho I-Lin is an associate professor at the National Taipei University’s Department of Social Education)