INTRO.
On February 28, 1947, and during the several weeks thereafter, there occurred a popular uprising of Taiwan's people, known as the "228 Incident," sparked by the corruption, malfeasance and brutality of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) government of China, which at the end of World War II had "liberated" the Taiwanese from their Japanese colonial oppressors. As the consequence of the KMT government's brutal suppression of the uprising, tens of thousands of Taiwanese, including many of Taiwan's intellectual elite, were rounded up and massacred; and over the ensuing four decades of martial law, many more Taiwanese were caused to mysteriously disappear or were wrongfully imprisoned.

How are the psychic wounds inflicted by the 228 Incident still reflected in present-day Taiwanese society? And how must we go about healing those still-festering wounds in order to bring about harmony between social groups in Taiwan? On February 15, the Cheng Nan-jung Foundation conducted a roundtable discussion with the aim of promoting understanding of examining such questions. The Taiwan News here presents the first of two installments of excepts from the discussion, moderated by Foundation chairman Lee Min-Yung.

INTRO.
1947年2月28日，台灣爆發大規模民變，持續數週的暴動與鎮壓，史稱「二二八事件」。此歷史事件乃肇因於二次大戰後，欲「解放台灣」於日本政府殖民統治的國民黨政權，所行之種種貪污、蠻橫行徑。結果經國民黨政府的血腥鎮壓，成千上萬的台灣人被逮捕、處決，其中包括許多台灣知識界的菁英份子。事件發生之後，長達四十餘年的戒嚴，使為數更多的台灣人神秘失蹤或遭受冤獄。

二二八事件的歷史創傷如何反映在今日的台灣社會？面對這個持續擴大的傷口，我們應如何行動，才能為台灣社會各族群帶來和平？主辦單位鄭南榕基金會，為加深一般民眾對二二八事件極其影響之了解，特別舉辦座談討論，由基金會董事長李敏勇先生擔任主持人。本報特別整理部分精采內容以饗讀者。

LEE MIN-YUNG, Moderator: In 1947 there occurred the 228 Incident (February 28th Incident). Because not long thereafter martial law rule was instituted, it wasn't until 1987 and 1988 that movements could be initiated to redress the wrongs done to the victims of the 228 Incident. As of this day, after reflection upon and discussion of that event, can we say that social justice has now been done in Taiwan? In 1997 Taipei City established the 228 Memorial Museum, which may be considered as a sort of milestone in the 228 Incident justice movement of the past decade-plus. What we wish to ask, however, is: Have the people of Taiwan truly internalized the incident's historical lessons? Have we carried out the reform missions which ought to be carried out with respect to our political affairs, culture and history?

主持人李敏勇：1947年，台灣發生二二八事件，之後不久即進入了戒嚴的統治體制，因此直到1987、1988年，才陸陸續續有各種運動為二二八事件的受害者平反，並且反思、討論事件發生至今，台灣的公義是否已經得到彰顯？1997年，台北市成立了二二八紀念館，可說是這十幾個年頭以來，二二八運動就某種形式上的一個段落，但是我們要問的是，台灣人民真的記取了歷史的教訓，在政治、文化、歷史裡完成我們應該要完成的改革任務了嗎？

I'm sure that the participants in today's roundtable discussion undoubtedly have many deep feelings about this incident of more than 50 years ago, which has had such an enormous impact upon Taiwan. Although, having now entered into the 21st century, we've witnessed a change of ruling political parties, following that change, we've also clearly noted numerous manifestations of instability with respect to our people's sense of uncertainty about our Taiwan-centered national identity, and with respect to our process of democratization. Although, following the change of ruling parties, the political clout of those who must bear the onus for the 228 tragedy is no longer so strong, in the future there nevertheless remains a potential for political upheavals.

我想今天來參加這場講座的人，在回顧五十多年前這個影響台灣社會至鉅的事件時，心裡一定有許多的感觸。我們在進入二十一世紀時，看到了政黨輪替，但是之後也深刻感受到政黨輪替後，人民對國家主體性的不確定以及民主化過程的種種不穩定的現象。雖然政黨輪替後，二二八事件裡的罪魁禍首政治勢力不再如此強大，但是未來還是有許多可能產生的政治變局。

The 228 Memorial Museum has now been in operation for 5 or 6 years. Beginning in 1987, in the 228 peace and justice movement [for redressing injustices in connection with the 228 Incident], energized by the Tang Wai political movement ["Tang Wai" referring to a coalition of dissidents opposed to dictatorial Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) rule], street demonstrators were commonly beaten by civil and military police. And before 1997, there was nothing that the families of the 228 Incident victims could do but weep in silence. The sense of hurt stemming from the history of the 228 Incident, however, isn't merely a matter of the problems of victims' families. The entire society of Taiwan has been victimized. Therefore, in our contemplation of the 228 Incident, we can't be narrowly concerned about conditions for government compensation of victims' families, as if it were an ordinary civil-law dispute.

二二八紀念館至今已經五、六年了，從1987年開始，我們透過黨外運動來做二二八和平公義活動，當時在街頭示威的民眾還會被警察、憲兵毆打；而1987年以前，二二八受難家屬更只能暗自哭泣。但是二二八歷史的苦難並不只是家屬的問題，整個台灣社會都是受難者，因此我們看待二二八事件，不能只關心政府國家體制補償的條件，把它當成一般的民事糾紛處理。

In fact, many of those who were victimizers from 1945 to 1949 - primarily officials who came to Taiwan from China during that period - can't identify with Taiwan with a sense of personal security. Thus, looking at the matter from another point of view, these victimizers are likewise victims in that, while they see themselves as members of the victimizing group which must take responsibility for those past misdeeds, up till this day they still haven't been able to get redemption, and they don't know how to face the problem.

事實上，很多1945到1949年間的加害者－－主要是當時從中國到台灣統治的官員－－並不能很安心地認同台灣，因此從另一個角度來看，這些加害也是一種被害者，因為他們認為自己是加害集團的一員，一起負擔了那些罪過，至今仍未得到救贖。他們也不知道要怎麼面對這個問題。

Today we've invited two keynote speakers to discuss their views on this topic from the perspectives of political science and historical research. We first ask Prof. Shih Cheng-feng to speak.

今天我們請兩位主講人分別從政治學的角度與歷史研究的角度，述說他們對這個主題的意見，我們先請施政鋒施教授。

SHIH CHENG-FENG (Professor, Tamkang University Department of Public Administration): First, I'd like to discuss, from the perspective of political science, what constitutes "social justice" and "peace".

施正鋒：我先說由政治學來看什麼叫「公義」、「和平」。

Conventionally speaking, "peace" is quite narrowly defined: It means no bloodshed, no resort to violence, no engagement in war. This is a negatively defined "peace," and we aren't satisfied with this kind of peace. Following the 228 Incident, for example, the frequency of major instances of violence and killing decreased considerably. Although we then no longer witnessed deaths, and although there were no more instances of larger-scale arrests and executions, given the inequality existing between ethnic groups at the time - one of them controlling the country, the others being controlled - could you, under such a system of social-class relations, live contentedly? Over the past decade of democratization, although ethnic groups' statuses in society have gradually become more equal, the sense of mutual alienation between ethnic groups stubbornly refusing to associate with each other has yet to be improved.

就傳統的說法來看，和平是非常狹義的：它代表不流血、不用暴力、不戰爭，這是消極意義的和平，我們對這種和平是不滿意的。例如二二八事件後，重大暴力死亡事件發生的頻率就少了許多，雖然我們看不到死亡，沒有大規模的逮捕、槍殺事件，但是當時社會族群之間的不平等－－一個是控制國家，其他的皆被控制－－在這種階級關係下你過得開心嗎？過去十年的民主化，族群的地位漸漸比較平等，但是族群間的那種老死不相往來的疏離關係，仍然沒有得到改善。

Between the two extremes of bloody conflict and submissiveness of one group to another, is there some third road we can take? This would constitute the positive sort of peace which we seek - employing social justice in order to promote harmonious relations between people, and setting a better foundation for relations between social groups predicated upon affirmation of the value of human life and of human dignity.

在極端的衝突流血事件與屈服之間，是不是有第三條路可走？這就是我們想要追求的正面的和平－－以社會公義來促進人跟人間和諧的關係，在肯定生命價值、人性尊嚴的前提下，建立一個比較好的社群關係。

Violence comprises three aspects: The first type of violence is direct violence, which is to say, bloody conflict; the second type of violence consists of oppressive, unequal relations; the third type is cultural violence, which consists in utilizing the media and education to tell you what's right and wrong, what's good and bad, what's beautiful and not beautiful, with the aim of thoroughly molding your sense of values. Even up until very recently, I've noted that my son's geography textbooks are still full of talk about how China's culture is 5,000 years old, while Taiwan's has only a 400-year history and is an underdeveloped culture; about how China has great rivers, while Taiwan has nothing more than little streams. The objective of such textbooks is none other than to convey a certain sense of values: China is more exalted, Taiwan cruder. The result is that after little kids enter school and begin studying, they feel it's a shameful thing to be a Taiwanese. This is constitutes another form of violence and oppression, and looking at things from this perspective, we still can't find any "peace." It is to be hoped that in the future, members of each ethnic group who are born and grow up in Taiwan can do so in a state of equality, and that, despite having differing political stances, they can nevertheless respect each other's freedom of speech.

暴力有三個程序，第一種暴力是直接的暴力，也就是流血衝突；第二種暴力是壓迫、不平等的關係；第三種是文化的暴力，也就是透過媒體、教育告訴你什麼是對或錯、好與不好、什麼是漂亮或不漂亮，徹底形塑你的價值觀。直到最近，我看我兒子的地理教科書，還是充滿了中國文化五千年，台灣只有四百年，是發展不成熟的文化；中國有江、河，而台灣祇有小溪而已。這些教科書的目的不外乎要傳達一種價值觀：中國比較高尚，台灣比較粗俗，所以小孩子進入學校讀書之後，就覺得身為台灣人十分丟臉。這是另外一種形式的暴力與壓迫。從這個角度來看，我們還看不見和平。未來希望生長在台灣的各個族群能生而平等，即使大家政治立場不同，也可以尊重對方的言論自由。

The second [idea I wish to discuss] is "social justice." The narrow definition of "justice" is "equality", particularly with respect to the distribution of resources. But what I want to talk about here is a broader sort of social justice, which is defined as comprising "fairness" and "righteousness".

第二個是公義。狹義的定義是平等，尤其是資源的分配。但是我想說的是一種較廣義的說法，也就是把公義的定義分為「公平」、「正義」。

Previous political regimes - be it [Chinese] alien regime or [Japanese] colonial rule - were based on differential treatment with respect to either political system design or employment of people. Our efforts over the past few years have achieved a modicum of results. For example, the [Ministry of Education's] Mandarin Promotion Council has recently drawn up a linguistic rights draft law, its key content consisting in designation of all languages of the four major ethnic groups - recent immigrants from China, aboriginal peoples, the Minnan people [i.e. those of southern Fukienese ancestry], and the Hakka people - as national languages. [NOTE: The Chinese-language name of the council, literally translated is the "National Language Promotion Council." Its current official English name is a vestige of authoritarian days, when the Mandarin Chinese language, basically similar to the language spoken in Beijing, was taken as the sole national language.]

過去的政權－－不論是外來政權也好，殖民統治也罷－－不論在制度的制定與人才的進用上都是差別待遇。這幾年我們的努力得到了一點成果，譬如國語推行委員會最近擬定了一套語言公平法草案，內容最重要就是將四個族群（新住民、原住民、閩、客）的語言都是國家語言。

As for the matter of "righteousness", in the case of the 228 Incident, which persons should be sought out to take responsibility for it? If they're willing to come forward to acknowledge their responsibility, how should they be dealt with? What actually happened in the 228 Incident? Why did it occur? Who did what? What was the order of events? To this day, the facts of these matters still haven't been dealt with in a reasonable manner.

正義的部分，譬如二二八事件，那些人應該要負責？如果他們願意站出來表示負責，應該要如何處置？二二八到底發生什麼事？為什麼會發生？什麼人做了什麼事？怎麼進行的？這些事實到現在還沒有得到合理的處置。

Let's take a look at examples from other countries. Following World War II, in facing up to the slaughter of Jews, although there are some Germans who've been reluctant to acknowledge guilt, the attitude of the German people as a whole has been one of remorse, admitting that they committed murder. Whereas from the time of the 228 Incident up till present, has anyone made apologies?

我們來看外國的例子。二次大戰後，德國人面對猶太人大屠殺這件事，雖然有人不甘心承認，但基本上他們的態度是道歉的，他們承認殺了人。而二二八事件發生至今，有人道過歉嗎？

We might further look at South Africa's way of handling things. Under its former "apartheid" system, numerous black rights movement activists were tortured and murdered, but [the South African authorities] claimed that they died by hanging themselves. During his three-year tenure as chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), Desmond Tutu, Anglican Church Archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, encouraged wrongdoers to voluntarily come forward and acknowledge their guilt and to clearly describe the entire course of events of [officially sanctioned violence under apartheid], such being the condition for receiving a amnesty from the council. Only in this way could the victimizers not worry so much [about telling the truth], and only thereby could victims' families find out exactly how their loved ones were murdered.

再看看南非的做法。過去在種族隔離制度下，許多黑人人權領導者都受到刑求與殺害，但是卻對外宣稱他們是上吊自殺的。南非前開普頓大主教、諾貝爾和平獎得主圖圖在“真相與和解委員會”擔任主席的三年經歷中，便鼓勵這些曾經犯過錯的人出來認罪，對社會大眾清楚解釋整件事的來龍去脈，大主教才赦免你心裡的罪。這樣子犯罪的加害者才能比較安心，受害者的家屬也能清楚知道受害者是如何遇害的。