2012年9月1日 星期六

How to govern Taiwan - Part 2

In 1898, 児玉源太郎 Kodama Gentaro (1852-1906) assumed the post of the 4th Colonial Governor General of Taiwan. He invited his close friend and colleague 後藤新平 Goto Shinpei (1857-1929) [pictured above] to be the Chief Civil Administrator and jointly, they ruled Taiwan for 8 years. Although in reality, Goto was the true governor or the governor in residence and Kodama, the governor in absentia, since the latter was often busy elsewhere in the Japan Empire.

Goto's governance of Taiwan had both short- and long-term components. In the short term, a ruthless iron-fist rule was applied. In order to put down the resistance that had continued since 1895 when the Japanese occupation started, 1,023 rebels were executed in the year 1899 alone. By 1905, a total of 32,000 men were punished or killed. For long-range planning, Goto mobilized resources and manpower and conducted an extensive study of the old habit/custom of the Taiwanese. And from which a number of conclusions were drawn and strategies developed:

(1) The 生物学の原則 Biological Principle for the governance of Taiwan:

Goto was initially trained as a physician who had also done research in Germany (1890) and the results had earned him an MD degree in Japan. The utilization of the scientific method in his other duty as an administrator was therefore a matter of course. This biological principle was essentially to leave things as they were and not to go against Nature. Goto pointed out that it was not possible to, for example, change the eye position of a carp to that of a flounder "ヒラメの目をタイの目にすることは出来ない". To put this in practice, Goto advocated that any effective administering must adapt to, not to alter local circumstances, since people were the product of social customs and systems and were set in their ways.

[A side issue here: this biological principle has often been quoted out of context as evidence of the Taiwanese having been treated by the Japanese as "生物living things", i.e., animals, as opposed to "人humans".]


(2) The 3 traits of Taiwanese:

So what kind of Taiwanese did the society produce? People with 3 traits of weakness, it seemed: (1) fear of death (2) greed, and (3) vanity. These were actually universal human frailties, not necessarily specific to the Taiwanese [not to all Taiwanese anyway, more below]. Regardless, since each one could be easily dealt with in a specific manner, hence the formulation of Goto's 治台三策Three Policies for Governing Taiwan. A search of the original documents proves unproductive, thus the exact wording of the 3 traits remains unclear. The frequently cited version in Chinese appeared on page 14, Vol 145 of 台灣民報 published on Feb 20, 1927, in an article written by 菊仙 (real name: 黃旺成, 1888-1978):


「後藤新平氏在臺灣做民政長官的時候,從臺灣人的性質上發見了三條的弱點,因為要利用這弱點,所以定了治臺的三策:一、臺灣人怕死--要用高壓的手段威嚇的[1. Fear of death -- therefore the Taiwanese could be threatened with high-pressure tactics]。二、臺灣人愛錢--可以用小利誘惑的 [2. Greed or amorous love of money -- Taiwanese could be bribed with small favors]。三、臺灣人重面子--可以用虛名籠絡的 [3. Overly vain or obsession with face-saving -- Taiwanese could be plied with empty titles of renown]。」

The intent of this article was actually to refute the fear of death assertion citing as proof, the failed application of policy No 1 by 內田嘉吉 Uchida Kakichi (1866-1933). In Uchida's role as the Chief Civil Administrator (1910-15), the use of deadly force had not deterred Taiwanese rebels at all. Of the many rebellions under his watch, the most notorious, also the last of its kind, was the 噍吧哖事件 (1915-16) of Tainan, in which the Taiwanese fought unsuccessfully for religious freedom and 1,413 men were later arrested and charged, with 866 sentenced to death (95 executed) and 453 to terms in prison. After the Diet [國會, Ko-Kai, Japanese Parliament] expressed grave concern over the excessive severity of the punishment, the death sentences were commuted to life in prison. Uchida served less than one year (1923-24) as the 9th Governor General and was unceremoniously removed.

That the Taiwanese were not all the same was already known to Goto, however. To him, the Taiwanese could be separated into two camps, the well-to-do gentry [仕紳] upper-class and the rest, and the three human frailties were applicable to the more educated gentry minority, not the vast number of often rebellious common folks. Realizing that in what was really a Confucian society where the gentry class had always commanded respect from the common people, Goto then went to work. By applying Policies 1-3 judiciously, he was able to gather a group of collaborators to negotiate with the fearless rebels on behave of the Japanese. This first attempt was a trial run. It would not be as successful as advertised, at least not productive in the short run, and large revolts continued, well into 1915, after Goto's term ended in 1906.

To probe even further, Goto had also found that the origin of the facing-saving vanity was actually an extension of piety, a merit central to the centuries-old Confucianism.

This, however, seems a stretch. Perhaps the simplest interpretation is that when an authoritative figure (e.g., the Governor General) asked a Taiwanese of some prominence to perform a task, the latter would feel obligated to use all his connections and power to complete the mission, or risked losing face and worse his social standing.

Nonetheless, on a more fundamental level, the Confucius teachings had long been exploited by the ruling class in China, and people were taught since childhood to be respectful of Heaven, Earth, emperors/rulers, parents, and teachers, in that order. And indeed throughout Chinese history, many had chosen to die before betraying their emperors/leaders and their heroic deeds popularized and the heroes honored as martyrs. This ultimate sacrifice was not incompatible with and might have even spawned the Japanese Bushido. Goto decided that the early attempt of erasing Chinese culture, complete with the demolition of the Confucius Temple in Taipei (built in 1882) was a monumental mistake. Confucianism was therefore re-instated and propaganda-worthy cultural events such as honoring the elders and poet gatherings were held, thereby earning the trust of the Taiwanese gentry. The long-term strategy envisioned by Goto essentially formed the core principle of the governance of Taiwan, i.e., by controlling the gentry class first and the commoners would automatically follow. This strategy had proved successful starting at when the revolts finally stopped in 1916 and Taiwan entered a peaceful period until almost the end of the colonial rule in 1945. [Note: One of the richest men of Tamsui and a prominent member of 台北仕紳 (Taipei Gentry), 許丙 (1891-1963), was even elected to the Diet in 1945 as a representative in the Upper House.]

Led by the rich and famous propped up by the Japanese, Taipei Confucius Temple was re-built in 1925 much to the delight of the general public. And for the next 2 decades, a whole generation of Taiwanese was educated, beginning with the compulsory elementary schooling, to be loyal subjects of the Japanese emperor. In the end, however, the assimilation [皇民化 or Japanificaton] was never completed. It is still unclear if this process would ever be successful, it having been interrupted by the surrender of Japan at the end of the Pacific War. Although, in preparing for the war in 1942-45, the governance of Taiwan had shifted away from the Goto Confucianism approach to unadulterated Japanese militarism. This, compounded with the exposure to western democratic ideas and more important, a discontent simmering in the background - stemming from the subtle yet real racial differences between Taiwanese and Japanese, the overt favoritism of the Japanese on all levels, and the forced abandonment of Taiwanese language and religion - had raised the awareness of the Taiwanese identity, however ill-defined at that time.

Unfortunately, an incomplete Taiwanese identity, often confused with Chinese nationalism even among the Taiwanese themselves, rendered it open to character assassination.

During the 1945 Nationalist take-over of Taiwan (above, the welcoming and celebratory banners displayed in Taipei), the Taiwanese law-abiding citizenship was derided as the result of the Japanese slaverizing education [奴化教育], based on a fear of the law rather than the healthy respect of it as that shown by other civilized peoples in the world. The orderly society during the transient absence of law-and-order authorities between Aug and Dec, 1945 was deemed an exhibition of Taiwanese meekness. And the proud work ethic? Well, simply a sign of total submission to their Japanese masters. These dismissive assessments plus the mis-reading of Goto's study proved hugely incorrect. And the long-dormant rebellious Taiwanese character of the Qing era was finally awaken in 1947, in the 228 Incident.


15 則留言:

  1. So the Nationlist's assessments of Taiwan governance and Taiwanese character in 1945 were gravely wrong. But that does not mean that the latter-day DPP is therefore in the right. Basically, knowing what's wrong still produces no answer to what is right.

    Of course EyeDoc you made no mention of DPP. It's just that I find the self-righteous DPP intolerable and can hardly keep my mouth shut. What has DPP done that is right? Make Taiwan more "democratic?" Democracy means only one thing: Making decision on public matter by vote. If DPP wants "more democratic" to mean you can have more different "voices", then the story of the Towel of Babel (http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/11.html) may serve as a small beacon for their voyage to their land of "Social Justice".

    I would support DPP if only DPP could learn to ask the right question. Something like suppose that there is a way out of this mess, this antagonism of Taiwanese vs. Chinese, then what would that be? I suppose their intelligences have come up with only 1 answer and that is to get rid of KMT. Too bad, all these years of education and learning and this is their conclusion.

    But back to the history lesson. So after 1916, when revolts had quieted down somewhat, how did the Taiwanese take the Japanese Rule? Did they find life under the Japanese masters agreeable? What were their moods and how were their economic situations?

    回覆刪除
  2. Hi Herman,

    DPP is not mentioned because it was not around in 1945 (some of their leaders were not even born at that time). Also, this may surprise you, but not everyone is a fan of the DPP. Their view of the Taiwan history is quite incorrect (not that they care). Their narrow party platform is anti anything China 逢中必反. This is, however, not the same as trying to get rid of the KMT as in through a purge in the Soviet style or overthrowing the ruling gov't by force. Not at all. The noises that you hear are political dramas, verbal give and take, characteristic of democracy and eventually compromises are reached. Look at the two-party US system and you hear the same noises.

    I do wish to make more points for you since you obviously came to Taiwan in 1949 and left some years later:

    One must realize that there are two generations of KMT. We have no problem with the current generation as we are all Taiwanese. On the other hand, the older generation had mishandled the recovery of Taiwan. Had Taiwan not been regarded as a conquered land as when in 1683 and the Taiwanese not treated as 漢奸 with deadly consequences, it would have been quite different. By all accounts, most Taiwanese were excited to be re-joining the motherland since 50 years of Japanese rule was relatively short, not long enough to have transformed all Taiwanese into Japanese. Regrettably, that did not happen leaving the current KMT to right the historical wrong. President Ma has expressed in 2006 that the 228 was 官逼民反. This is a fair assessment despite other opposing views.

    Also, fighting against Japan is not uniquely Chinese. When Taiwan was ceded in 1895, the resistance continued. A good example: the Lee family 忠寮李家 in Tamsui (EyeDoc's grand-maternal relatives) organized a resistance force of 500 men only to see Leader 唐景崧 fled back to China, leaving us holding the empty bag. With zero help from the Qing, it is not reasonable to expect the Taiwanese to fight on for another 50 years. Just like the followers of the old KMT, stranded in China, it is equally unreasonable to expect them to fight on from 1949 until now. So the Taiwanese must live under a different regime, just like the mainland Chinese, under the CCP rule.

    "Did they find life under the Japanese masters agreeable? What were their moods and how were their economic situations?" First, Taiwan was not a Japanese serfdom. May I make a suggestion: instead of reading research theses and scholarly reports, talk directly with any Taiwanese in their 70s or older when you visit Taiwan, you'll get a much better understanding. Of course, this is also part of the Taiwan history that still needs to be faithfully recorded. This is now on-going, at least in Tamsui.

    回覆刪除
  3. AC論説#410 by Andy Chang provided partial answer to Herman, unfortunately it was written in Japanese.

    「中華民国を打倒しなければ台湾は独立できない。」
    本質問題を提起し、その問題の解答を見つける。さらに問題の本質
    を逸らせる議論を提起する疑わしい人間を摘発していくのが解決の
    近道である。



    [AC通信:No.410]Andy Chang (2012/09/01)
    [AC論説] No.410 台湾丸の彷徨(9) 設問と解答

    ?誰も私と同じだろうか??
    ジュウル・ルナアルの「ルナアル日記」からである。60年前の1953
    年、台北の古本屋でルナアル日記(全7巻)とエドモン・ロスタンの
    ?シラノ・ド・ベルジュラック?を買った時の感動を思い出している。
    ルナアルの「にんじん」、「葡萄畑の葡萄作り」を読んだのは二年前
    の19551年だった。

    閑話休題。誰も私と同じだろうかと言う設問には、すでに同じでは
    ないと言う解答が出ている。ルナアルの凄さは、同じではないと知
    っていながら敢えて同じだろうかと問いかける事によって、人は改
    めて同じではないと言う解答を反芻し反省することにある。

    これは大切な確認作業である。たとえば:
    1.台湾は独立できるか?台湾人は本気で独立運動をしているか?
    2.民進党や台湾独立連盟は独立運動をしているか?
    3.中華民国は民主国家だろうか?台湾に自由民主はあるのか?台
    湾が国でなくても国連に加盟が出来るのか?
    4.選挙で政権(中華民国の)を取ったら正名制憲で中華民国を台湾
    国に変更できるのか?どうやったら達成できるか?

    解答はいずれもノーである。すべての答えは只一つ:
    「中華民国を打倒しなければ台湾は独立できない。」
    人民は解答を知っていながら誰も言わないし、本気でやらない。

    ●民進党に対する疑問

    民進党は本気で台湾独立を目指しているか?
    民進党の「十年党綱領」には一言も独立に言及していない。それで
    も「言わなくてもやる」と信じる人が居る。政党ならどんな目標が
    あり、どうやって達成するか明確にすべきである。

    今年一月の選挙の前には、今回が最後の戦いだ、負けたら大変な事
    になると宣伝していた。ところが選挙に負けたら、たちまち4年後
    には勝つと言い出した。民進党は選挙に勝てば中華民国をどうする、
    正名制憲を達成すると表明したことがない。目標が国民党に勝つだ
    けで台湾独立はやらないなら、政党闘争しか目標ではない。それな
    らなぜ国民党に勝たねばならないかを人民に知らせるべきだ。もっ
    と呆れたのは、選挙に負けたあと、民進党はもっと国民党寄りにな
    るべきだと言った政治家が居たのである。民進党が小さな国民党に
    なってどうする?

    選挙に負けたのは国民の信頼が足りなかったのだが、負けてすぐ中
    国訪問を始めたのも理解できない。人民の信頼を得るために努力せ
    ず、中国参拝をして人民が民進党を信じるようになるとは思えない。

    民進党が選挙に勝てばすべてよくなるような印象を与えるのも甚だ
    疑問である。民進党は立法委員選挙で過半数を取ったことは一度も
    ない。総統に当選しても立法院(国会)で過半数を取らなければ政
    策は難航するし、懸案である公民投票改革も通らない。

    ●中華民国を倒す

    新聞は連日のように司法不公平、行政独裁を訴えている。司法、行
    政が民主的でないなら独裁国家である。独立するなら中華民国を打
    倒しなければならない。しかし民進党は中華民国打倒を主張したこ
    とはないし、台湾独立連盟も打倒中華民国を主張した事がない。

    中華民国を倒すのは革命である。革命は流血だからやらないという
    なら独立はやらないということだ。だが誰も無血革命の策略を研究
    発表した事がない。無血革命の第一歩は軍隊と警察を目標として、
    国民党が警察や軍隊を使って暴力行使ができないようにする。次に
    警察と軍隊が民主運動に味方するよう宣伝すべきである。軍警の大
    部分が台湾人である。台湾人の男子はすべて徴兵制度で武器の使用、
    戦術、組織と統率などを学んでいる。彼らに欠如しているのは中華
    民国を打倒する勇気である。

    台湾は明らかに独裁国家なのに、一部の台湾人が勝手に台湾は民主
    国であると外国に宣伝し、アメリカが喜んで台湾は民主国家だから
    独立運動をするなと言い出す。

    ●台湾は独立すべきか

    殆どの台湾人は独立を望んでいる。だが、ルナアルのように「台湾
    は独立すべきか?」と問えば半分賛成で半分反対となるだろう。反
    対する理由はいくらでもある。まず現状維持、アメリカが賛成しな
    い、中国が攻めて来る、民進党は信用できない、などだろう。つま
    り台湾人は国民党独裁に怯えているのだ。

    これらの理由が本音でないのも確かである。それでは「台湾人はな
    ぜ本音を言う事が出来ないのか?」と聞くべきだ。本音を言う事を
    恐れる民衆に独立を宣伝しても効果はない。だが、ルナアルのよう
    に設問すれば問題反芻し反省する機会が与えられ、国民は本音を探
    るようになり、独立を目指す気概が生まれるだろう。

    ●陳水扁の病気釈放

    陳水扁は無実の罪で18年の刑期をうけて監獄で非人道的待遇を受
    けている。それなのに台湾の民衆の半分は陳水扁を憎み、彼が監獄
    に入れられているのを当然と公言する。民進党も最初から陳水扁に
    無慈悲な態度をとり続けてきた。

    最近になって非人道的な待遇を受けた陳水扁の健康面と精神面に異
    常をきたし、本気で病気保釈を要求する人が増えた。更に最近にな
    るとアメリカの元司法長官で国連人権賞2008を受賞したラムゼ
    イ・クラークが台湾に来て陳水扁を訪問したあと、記者会見で「
    陳水扁の受けている待遇は非人道そのものであり、彼の病状から見
    て病気保釈させるべきである」と述べた。クラーク氏はこの後、「台
    湾人民は陳水扁の病気保釈についてもっと声を大きくすべきだ」と
    も述べた。ラムゼイ氏は台湾人民の意見が一致していないこともわ
    かっていたのだ。民進党の党首・蘇貞昌はラムゼイ発言の後になっ
    てから陳水扁の病気保釈に賛成声明を出した。

    ラムゼイ氏の釈放要求の後でも、台湾人の間では陳水扁の有罪論争
    と、病気保釈の違いがわかっていない議論が続いている。病気保釈
    は人道問題だが、罪の有無を論じて病気保釈に疑問を呈するのは、
    議論を混乱させる国民党の策謀だろうと疑う人も多い。

    ●設問と解答

    議論を混乱させるのは国民党の策謀かもしれない。人道問題の正義
    の理論を避けて罪の有無を提起する、それにウマウマと騙される台
    湾人も智恵が足りないといわざるを得ない。

    ルナアルのように本質問題を提起し、その問題の解答を見つける。
    さらに問題の本質を逸らせる議論を提起する疑わしい人間を摘発し
    ていくのが解決の近道である。

    ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇
    AC通信バックナンバーは:http://www.melma.com/backnumber_53999
    メルマに入ったあと、左側上部の「登録する」ボックスをクリックし
    て登録すれば記事は自動的に配信されます。
    ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇

    回覆刪除
  4. Dear Anon:

    Interesting post, one "deep green" man's opinion of course. As Herman, the blogger also has questions for the DPP: 民進党に対する疑問.

    While DPP no longer advocates independence, it is not an implied goal (「言わなくてもやる」), however. The reality is that it simply lacks overwhelming popular support. As also stated in the post: 「台湾は独立すべきか?」と問えば半分賛成で半分反対となるだろう.

    Elsewhere in the post: How to achieve a bloodless revolution? The answer is a somewhat simplistic "control the military and the police". Then this gentleman proceeds to insult the intelligence of the Taiwanese in the 設問と解答 section.

    IMHO, the pressing issues in Taiwan now is how to remain competitive economically, given S Korea and Singapore are now way ahead of Taiwan. This is an emerging consensus, not 議論を混乱させるのは国民党の策謀かもしれない; although the KMT-DPP partisan 內鬥 is hardly the answer. There must be a different way.



    回覆刪除
  5. To EyeDoc,

    Me and my big mouth. Let me edit my question to "Did they find life under the Japanese Rule agreeable?" Of course it was lack of due diligence on my part to not think of asking local elders directly such questions. Good. More things to talk about when I come back to Taiwan. Thanks for reminding me this simple yet effective way of learning.

    It was soothing to hear that not every one is a fan of the DPP. Although technically not much information is revealed in that statement. But it sure is one heck of placebo. I'm relieved.


    To Anon,

    Thanks for providing the info. Sorry I don't know Japanese. Just reading the Kanji portion I see it say something about Taiwan Independence and Chen Shui-bian in jail. But without knowing Japanese my understanding of its message is simply inadequate.

    Please let me know what DPP has DONE (instead of talk) that you consider is right or good for Taiwan? EyeDoc's mentioning of economic competitiveness (and balanced life) is to me a definitive measure of good government. This issue is so complicated that not even the best and the brightest know how to solve in present time. For each solution that an honest economist can come up with, there will be hordes of scheming minds that are ready to implement some channeling, some ways of diverting the profits into their pockets. 双拳不敵四腿, two fists can't fight against four legs. I fail to see what economic kung-fu that DPP alone has in their sleeves.

    回覆刪除
  6. Hi Herman,

    Your re-phrased question indicates a willingness to accept Taiwan's true past. It deserves another post with details which we will try.

    This blog actually records history from a common man's perspective. Much like you, we are also trying to understand the past and learn from it. Certainly the past should not be exploited to perpetuate, for example, the disharmony between Chinese and Taiwanese now reside in Taiwan. This is what DPP has done. On the other hand, misunderstanding of the Taiwanese character from the old KMT era still persists. Ironically, your favorite writer (?) 李敖 has taken advantage of the gap in knowledge (and his personal experience), and now become an anti-KMT historian favored by both DPP and CCP. This is not right, either.

    The current political fights between the two parties cannot be viewed through the prism of the White Terror era when the opposition was silenced. Democracy in Taiwan is maturing, already the envy of the rest of Asia. Ultimately into what form we still don't know, but we do know the system will no longer revert back to the form that harms the common people. Both the Taiwanese and the post-1949 Chinese have had enough of that already. Mr Andy Chang writes [comment above in Japanese] that Taiwan is now ruled under a dictatorship. This is absurd. On the other hand, without DPP making the noises, it may well turn into one. The reason why we are not concerned is that in the past 25 years, these fights are no longer to the literal death. Progress in Taiwan in this respect is astoundingly fast.

    And you are right, even the best are hard-pressed to find the solution for Taiwan's economical future. We can and must all collectively try.

    回覆刪除
  7. { Mr Andy Chang writes [comment above in Japanese] that Taiwan is now ruled under a dictatorship. This is absurd.}

    If you disagree with Dr. Chang, you should write him directly @ Andy Chang

    回覆刪除
  8. { Mr Andy Chang writes [comment above in Japanese] that Taiwan is now ruled under a dictatorship. This is absurd.}

    If you disagree with Dr. Chang, you should write him directly. His address is (bunsho2@gmail.com)

    回覆刪除
  9. Thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps Dr Chang needs to be informed that Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975. And if you are in agreement with Dr Chang, please enlighten us as well.

    回覆刪除
  10. Attached AC論説 may have the answers you are waiting for. Happy reading.

    独裁国家に抗議しても効果はない。台湾が台湾人の国になるために
    は中華民国亡命政権を追放しなければ達成できない。
    台湾人は67年来の歴史を振り返って真剣に中華民国を倒す研究をす
    べきである。


    [AC通信:No.411]Andy Chang (2012/09/07)
    [AC論説] No.411 「幌馬車の歌」と「包青天」

    台湾の日本語世代の9割以上は「幌馬車の歌」を知っている。今で
    は80歳以上の日本語世代は少なくなったが、歌えなくてもメロディ
    だけは覚えている。

    時代は変って1993年代になると「包青天」と呼ぶテレビドラマが大
    人気となり、毎日午後1時になるとどの家でもテレビをつけて包青
    天ドラマを見ていた。30歳以上の台湾人は今でも包青天ドラマの主
    題歌を覚えている。

    ●幌馬車の歌

    幌馬車の歌は作詞山田としを、作曲原野為二で昭和7年ごろデビュ
    ーした歌だが、台湾では白色恐怖時代の決別の歌として知られてい
    る。1947年に起きた2・28事件の後、蒋介石政権は1949年に警備総
    司令部より戒厳令を発布し、特務(日本の特高と同じ)を使って叛
    乱分子を自由勝手に逮捕、監禁、拷問にかけ、民間調査では20万人
    が逮捕、拷問を受け、5000人以上が銃殺刑、数万人が有期徒刑を受
    けて緑島(火焼島)と呼ぶ監獄島に島流しされた。

    言い伝えによると、政治監獄では銃殺刑が行われる前日には既に処
    刑があるというニュースが獄内に広がり、処刑当日の夜明け前に処
    刑者が呼び出されると、直ちに幌馬車の歌の大合唱が起きて処刑者
    を送り出したと言う。

    特務の政治犯狩りは権力の濫用だけでなく特務の素質に大きな問題
    があった。ろくに文字も読めないシナ人特務が、学寮の寝室でマー
    ク・トゥエーン(中國語訳:馬克吐恩)の「トム・ソーヤーの冒険
    (湯姆歴險記)」を発見して学生を逮捕し、「マーク(馬克)」とはマ
    ルクス(馬克斯)の弟である、トムの「冒険」とは反乱だと言って
    学生を疲労尋問にかけたという実話がある。

    白色恐怖とは法も何もあったものでなく、中国人の特務が勝手にか
    けたありもしない嫌疑で有識者の無差別逮捕と拷問、政治裁判で銃
    殺や徒刑を実施したのだった。この恐怖政治は1991年に「懲治叛乱
    条例」を廃止し、1992年に「中華民国刑法、第百条」を修正するまで
    続いた。1992年、今からたったの20年前まで台湾における中華民
    国はこのような恐ろしい独裁政権だったのである。

    ●テレビドラマ「法青天」

    刑法第百条が修正された翌年の1993年、テレビドラマ包青天が全体
    湾を風靡した。包青天とは包拯(999-1062)、北宋時代の開封府の府
    尹(長官)だった人で、当代の権勢を濫用する役人や、公権濫用する
    貴人の子弟、富貴を嵩に悪事を行った者たちを厳正に処罰したと伝
    えられている。このストーリーをテレビドラマにしたので、長い間
    独裁恐怖に怯えていた台湾人の大きな共感を呼んだのであった。言
    ってみれば日本の「遠山の金さん」が大いに受けたのと同じである。

    ほとんどの台湾人は幌馬車の歌を知らなくても、包青天の主題歌を
    知っている。1990年代から2000年代の台湾は、白色恐怖時代の「決
    別の歌」を忘れ、司法改革の期待に満ちた時代だった。台湾人民は
    国民党の白色恐怖から開放され、司法がまかり通る時代になると思
    ったので包青天ドラマが大歓迎されたのであった。

    やがて1996年に台湾人の李登輝が国民総選挙で総統に選ばれ、つづ
    いて2000年に陳水扁が当選すると民主自由の時代が来たと思った。
    陳水扁時代に馬英九が市長時代に市長の公費濫用、公用クレディッ
    トカードをニューっヨークに住む娘に使わせていたことなどで起訴
    され、人民は司法の正義に大きく期待した。

    ところが中華民国の司法官は馬英九の公費濫用案を「宋代の不文律
    では国家公費を私物化できる」とか、「馬英九に犯意がなかった」な
    どとして無罪判決となり、期待は大きな失望となった。民主化と司
    法の改革に失敗したのである。宋代の包青天ではなくて宋代の不文
    律で悪官僚が無罪となる、何とも皮肉な話である。

    ●馬英九の陳水扁裁判

    2008年に馬英九が総統に当選すると、たちまち陳水扁元総統を「国
    務機密費横領」、「収賄」、「国外違法送金」などで起訴した。案件を
    裁いた裁判官が陳水扁無罪を宣告すると、馬英九は直ちに権力を使
    って裁判官を更迭した。最終的に機密費横領や収賄罪などは無罪と
    なったが、無理に収賄罪で18年の判決を受け、すでに4年も監獄に
    入れられ、最近になってラムゼイ・クラークが訪台して陳水扁の病
    気保釈を要求しても、馬英九が、「病気でも保釈をすれば陳水扁は自
    由になれる」と放言したため保釈の審議は停滞したままである。

    この外にも台湾人政治家や学者などを検察官が勝手に罪状を作り上
    げて起訴し、裁判にかけ、長い裁判の月日を通して政治力を削いで
    しまうようになった。蒋介石時代の特務恐怖から一転して、国民党
    は検察官(特務)と司法濫用で台湾人を罪に陥れ、民主自由、正義が
    通らなくなったのである。

    つまり台湾は、戦後40年の白色恐怖から20年の民主化と司法改革
    の失敗を経て、馬英九の独裁に戻ったのである。特筆すべき点は、
    蒋介石時代の暴虐、独裁から一転して、馬英九の司法悪用で恐怖政
    治を敷く時代となったのだ。

    ●李登輝元総統の起訴

    2008年の総統選挙で李登輝は民進党の謝長廷を支持せず、馬英九を
    支持した。2007年ごろの講演(日本の金沢)では公費濫用の罪に問わ
    れた馬英九を「彼は比較的クリーンだ」と述べたほか、台湾の声
    (2007)、小林よしのりのインタービュー(SAPIO, 2009)などでも李
    登輝は繰り返し「馬英九は比較的クリーンだ」と述べている。

    2008年に馬英九を支持した李登輝が、2011年になって2012年の総
    統選挙で馬英九を支持せず、民進党の蔡英文支持にまわり、各地で
    馬英九を批判する演説をした。すると1011年6月になって国民党の
    検察官は突然、李登輝を「20年前の総統時代に779万ドルの国安機
    密費を横領した」廉で起訴すると発表したのである。

    この発表は選挙応援で李登輝が蔡英文支持の発言を控えるよう、司
    法裁判の恫喝で圧力を加えたと見られていたが、選挙が終った2012
    年になると検察官は実際に李登輝を起訴し、案件は目下法廷審理中
    である。

    ●今でも独裁である

    台湾はすでに民主国家であるから独立をする必要はないと李登輝を
    はじめ、たくさんの政治家が民主国家、国連加盟を主張している。
    これが台湾の独立を阻む最大の原因となっている。

    台湾人は67年来独裁政権の下で苦しんできた。昔は白色恐怖の特務
    の特権濫用があり、今では司法を濫用して台湾人を違法裁判(カン
    ガルー・コートと言う)に掛ける悪辣な独裁国に変身しただけであ
    る。台湾人は司法不公平とか司法暴力などで馬英九政権を攻撃し、
    司法改革を叫んで法廷前で座り込みを続けるグループもある。

    独裁国家に抗議しても効果はない。台湾が台湾人の国になるために
    は中華民国亡命政権を追放しなければ達成できない。民主国家とか、
    座り込み抗議、民主的デモなどで政権を倒せるはずがない。台湾人
    は67年来の歴史を振り返って真剣に中華民国を倒す研究をすべき
    である。

    ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇
    AC通信バックナンバーは:http://www.melma.com/backnumber_53999 
    メルマに入ったあと、左側上部の「登録する」ボックスをクリックし
    て登録すれば記事は自動的に配信されます。
    ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇

    事を読んだら、あなたの評価をつけてください。
    評価

    回覆刪除
  11. Dear Anon,

    Thanks for taking the effort. I see nothing new in this article. Most of the stuff can be found online and in print, all uncensored. This does brings up one point and I'll quote Tony Blair: "In a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree." This is the Taiwan now.

    Andy Chang states that "台湾人は67年来独裁政権の下で苦しんできた。昔は白色恐怖の特務の特権濫用があり、今では司法を濫用して台湾人を違法裁判(カンガルー・コートと言う)に掛ける悪辣な独裁国に変身しただけである". This is a reach. Truly a leap. This, and カンガルー・コート in particular, is an insult to the Taiwanese legal system. And the assertion of 独裁国に変身 is still absurd.

    回覆刪除
  12. "While DPP no longer advocates independence, it is not an implied goal (「言わなくてもやる」), however. The reality is that it simply lacks overwhelming popular support. As also stated in the post: 「台湾は独立すべきか?」と問えば半分賛成で半分反対となるだろう. " How much do you figure the principles you discuss apply today in lack of support for something like independence: 1. Fear of death 2. Greed 3. Vanity? Or just to call a spade a spade for something that seems to be already achieved?

    回覆刪除
  13. That is a complex issue. I probably should emphasize again that 1-3 are still invoked by mainlanders today to characterize, or more accurately character-assassinate the Taiwanese. Thus the answer to your query is none of the 3. To put it simplistically, the lack of support is from pragmatism based on self-preservation. Also, nothing that's already been achieved lasts forever. The Taiwanese are a patient lot.

    回覆刪除
  14. I just wonder this. Eliminate fear, greed and vanity and get down to the core. Will Taiwanese people then say, at the end of the day, that our country isn't a country, and an independent one at that. Those are like excuses to obscure the reality. If we take away the "yeah, but" reflex, what do we have? If we're not worried about being attacked, money to made from investment in China and five thousand years of history (archeology), which we are somehow connected to, what will we say then?

    回覆刪除
  15. I see where you are coming from. The DPP has struggled with these same ideological issues for years and still have not come up with a coherent conclusion/solution. This, however, does not mean the Taiwanese are resigned to accepting the CCP rule. Historically speaking, we don't need the 5000 years, the Taiwanese "independence" spirit has survived since 1683. This will remain the key to future survival.

    回覆刪除