Putting Taiwan to the Torch

Putting Taiwan to the Torch
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 13, 2007

Comment: What is the significance of the incident discussed in the following China Times editorial?

Simply that the fundamentally fascistic nature of the Taiwan independence movement is becoming clearer with each passing day. My characterization of Taiwan independence as a fascist political movement motivated by self-hating anti-Chinese racism is being borne out by developments such as the Grass Mountain arson incident.

The Grass Mountain arson incident can be considered a watershed moment, a turning point, for the worse. With the Grass Mountain arson incident, Taiwan independence movement thuggery has transitioned from verbal expressions of self-hating anti-Chinese racism, to physical expressions of self-hating anti-Chinese racism.

Will the Grass Mountain arson incident be remembered as the precursor to a "ben tu" Taiwanese version of Kristallnacht, the infamous pogrom against Jews in Germany and Austria in 1938?

I fear that it will, but hope that it won't.

Does the Grass Mountain arson incident foreshadow a repeat of the tragic 228 Incident of 1947?

I fear that it does, but hope that it doesn't.


TTV News: Accident? Arson?


Arrows point to Evidence of Arson

Putting Taiwan to the Torch
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 13, 2007

Forensic analysis has confirmed that the Yangmingshan Grass Mountain Chateau fire was the result of arson. But so far investigators have no clues as to the identity of the arsonist or his motive, nor do they believe his identity or motive will necessarily come to light in the future. It would seem however, that to ruling and opposition party political figures hoping to make political hay out of the fire, the truth is irrelevant.

Prosecuting a case requires evidence. Because surveillance equipment inside the Grass Mountain Chateau suffered fire damage, this case will not be easy to solve. Facilities dedicated to Chiang Kai-shek in Taoyuan and Ta Hsi have also been the targets of graffiti artists. The recent succession of "Purge Chiang" campaigns, statue-toppling incidents, and other political acts, give one even more reason to suspect that the Grass Mountain Chateau arson was politically motivated. On the other hand, how much we can say is limited by how much evidence we have. Without concrete evidence, speculation is useless, even counterproductive.

But ruling and opposition politicians don't seem to care whether the police investigate or not. They have already arrived at their own conclusions, and are already engaged in verbal warfare. They make either subtle insinuations or engage in broad satire. The Blues accuse the Greens. The Greens lash back at the Blues. Even the fact that Taipei mayor Hao Lung-ping and his father Hao Pei-tsung dined at the Grass Mountain Chateau ten hours before the incident has been cited as reason for suspicion. Never mind the lack of any logical connection.

A fiery conflagration has supplied the ruling and opposition parties with additional ammunition to use against one another. It has allowed them to project their ethnic prejudices onto one another and for them to offer one-sided, arbitrary interpretations. It has allowed them to exploit an arson case about which the truth remains unclear, spinning the incident for maximum political advantage during an intensely fought election, with utter disregard for the lasting suspicion and hostility their behavior will generate.

What is the truth? Perhaps it was politically motivated venting of anger. Perhaps it was some arsonist's momentary impulse. We still don't know, but few people on the island are suprised. Because recently a succession of crude, high-profile political gestures, intended to overthrow past symbols of autocratic rule, have increased social unrest and widened Taiwan's internal divisions.

Following a succession of such acts of "political arson" by the ruling regime, one cannot rule out the possibility that some individuals may have been stirred up enough to resort to extreme measures. With enough agitation, enough manipulation, enough provocation, conflicts will always get out of control. Even the cleverest arsonist cannot guarantee that the fire he sets will not get out of control. Often, for his own gratification, he will ignore the potential disaster he might precipitate. Likewise, when political figures provoke mutual hostility and encourage ethnic divisions, ignoring the consequences of their "political arson," when all sorts of "purge Chiang" campaigns are already proceeding at full speed, when a stray spark becomes a raging firestorm, can they really pretend to be surprised? If one deliberately provokes conflict, conflict is what one will get. Who can guarantee that he will be able to limit the scope of the conflict? The consequences will be borne collectively by 23 million people. Repeated acts of "political arson" have already left Taiwan scarred and on the verge of suffocation.

In the wake of democratic reform, one must of course demand justice. But "transitional justice" ought to be defined as rectifying the mistakes of the past through self-introspection, in order to establish a more civilized, more perfect social order. When we condemn the White Terror and compensate its victims, we need to identify those behaviors which were unjust. But more importantly, we need to ensure that such injustices will not be recur in the future. Let us ensure that such dictatorial behavior never recurs in this land we love, and that posterity is never subjected to such humiliation and fear again.

Taiwan's "transitional justice" is merely willful retaliation that substitutes one tyranny with another, merely "victor's justice" that turns black into white, merely an instrument in the service of political campaigns and power struggles that stop at nothing and ignore all costs. Resorting to the same crude methods as past authoritarians to tear down the symbols of past authoritarian rule not only fails to consider the feelings of other ethnic groups, it provokes ethnic hatred and reaps political benefits from that collective hatred. This kind of "transitional justice" involves no justice, only a transition. The result is a society that has banished rational thought, sanctioned mob rule, and enthroned the arrested logic of "us" vs. "them."

Taiwan's politicians compete to see who can inflict the most grievous wounds on the body politic. No one seems either willing or able to heal those wounds. The ruling regime plays upon the ethnic majority's historical grievances. The opposition exaggerates ethnic minority insecurities. Neither side seems willing to dissuade their comrades from engaging in inappropriate statements or behavior for the sake of Taiwan's long term welfare.

In such a society, no one engages in dialogue, everyone engages in diatribes. No one hears anyone else, everyone hears only himself. No one tolerates dissent, or empathizes with anyone with a different background. We have been incarcerated by those who insist on reopening historical wounds, poisoned by those who prevent the wounds from healing. We look on helplessly as blood gushes from these deliberately inflicted wounds, and as the nation's lifeblood drains away.

The flames from the Grass Mountain Chateau fire, regardless of what the arsonist's motives may have been, have cast a flickering light on the sad state of Taiwan society.

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.04.13
草山行館這把火 燒出台灣多少迷惘與悲哀
中時社論

經過鑑識，陽明山草山行館的火災確定是人為縱火，但縱火者及其犯案動機至今仍毫無線索，將來未必能夠水落石出。但對企圖藉機炒作的朝野政治人物來說，真相似乎並不重要。

辦案要講證據，由於草山行館裡的監視錄影設備受到大火損毀，此案看來追查不易。儘管桃園大溪也同時傳出前蔣公行館遭到噴漆事件，在近來一連串「去蔣」、「拆銅像」等政治爭議下，令人更加有理由懷疑草山行館是一起出於政治動機的縱火案，但畢竟有一分證據說一分話，沒有具體證據，現在怎麼揣測都是白搭，也無助於廓清事實。

可是朝野政治人物似乎不需要警方偵辦，自己就已對案情推演出各種論述，並且再次大打口水戰。或含沙射影，或明嘲暗諷，藍的指控綠的，綠的反擊藍的，連事發前十幾個小時台北市長郝龍斌和父親郝柏村曾去草山行館吃飯都被影射，也不管其中有什麼邏輯可言。

一場無名火，提供了更多朝野相互指責的火力，大家在其中焦躁地投射出各自的族群情結，以完全片面獨斷的解讀，把一件真相未明的縱火案作對自己最有利的詮釋，以求在戰況激烈的選舉中勝出，卻無視於族群間的猜忌仇視繼續加劇。

真相到底是什麼？可能是有政治動機的縱火洩恨，也可能只是某個縱火犯的臨時起意，我們還不知道，可是，對於這種事，很多人倒也並不全然意外。因為，在近來一連串蓄意以粗暴手法高調打倒昔日威權的象徵動作後，社會不安與族群對立已經增溫，台灣內部的分裂敵視益加擴大。

在執政當局一連串的「政治縱火」之後，不能排除某些人的情緒被煽動到逕行採取激烈動作。有煽動、有操弄、有挑撥，就可能發生失控衝突。再高明的縱火者，也很難保證火勢一定能控制在某個範圍內，但卻往往只為了自己爽，而無視於可能造成的災難。同樣的，政治人物長期以來不斷擴大仇視、挑撥族群對立，無視後果地進行「政治縱火」，之前種種「去蔣」動作已經如火如荼了，如果真的擦槍走火出現失控事件，也不會在意料之外。蓄意挑動衝突，當然會引發衝突，誰能保證一定可以控制衝突的規模？而後果，當然是二千三百萬人共同承擔。一再的「政治縱火」，早已把台灣燒得傷痕累累、奄奄一息了。

在民主改革之後，當然應該尋求「轉型正義」。但「轉型正義」的意義，應該是在反省與矯正昔日過錯的同時，努力重建一套更文明美好的價值體系。我們譴責白色恐怖、彌補受害者時，不只要指明那些行為是不公不義的，更要確定公義是非將從此得到信仰與捍衛，讓那些踐踏人權、粗暴獨裁的行為不再重演於這塊我們深愛的土地，讓子孫後代永遠不必體驗那種屈辱與恐懼。

但是，台灣最近執行的「轉型正義」，卻是以暴易暴式的恣意報復，是勝者為王式的顛倒黑白，更是為了選舉造勢或權力鬥爭，而不擇手段也不計後果的廝殺工具。用和昔日威權者同樣粗暴的手段拆解威權象徵，非但不顧及不同族群者的歷史情感，甚至是刻意刺激不安全感以挑撥族群仇恨，然後在族群仇恨中收割政治利益。這種只有「轉型」沒有「正義」的政治煽動，結果很容易導致整個社會完全失去理性思考空間，任由近乎暴民政治的狂暴、片面、非友即敵的弱智邏輯宰制。

看看台灣，政治人物似乎人手一把刀，都在忙著割裂戳刺，然後用自己刺出的傷口進行血淋淋的政治炒作，再也沒有人有空間或有能力進行彌合癒療了。執政者挑動多數族群的歷史悲情，在野者誇大少數族群的不安全感，沒有一方能為台灣長遠福祉考量而強力約束黨內不當言行。

這樣的社會，只有對罵，不再對話；只選擇自己喜歡聽的話，不再包容及傾聽不同的聲音，也不再體諒關懷不同的族群。我們被執著於歷史創傷的人捆綁，被不允許創傷癒合的人下毒，在蓄意製造的嶄新裂痕中傷痛流血，眼睜睜看著台灣的生機一點一點流失，但是無力自救。

草山行館那把火，不管動機為何，至少照出了當前台灣社會的創痛與悲哀。