Q. In the introduction to your book you maintain that its position is on the side of neither the government, Chinese Communists nor Taiwanese independence movement. Can you clarify this a bit?

A. I advocate three types of respect. Among these there is respect for birth--no one can choose their parents, race or place of birth. I was born in Taiwan and am what is called "Taiwaneses-Hakka," and I naturally take this as my starting point.

The second is respect for race. There is no way to cut one's self off completely. Apart from this, I also advocate respect for one's profession. No matter how cheap or expensive it might be, any profession deserves respect. My profession is only to be an academic, which is all I can do .

All of these together make up my "fourth position." This is the position of the academic, of the Chinese race, and of the people of Taiwan.

Q. In writing your book you have adopted a narrative approach interspersed with critical comments. How then did you try to reach an objective standpoint? Was there some kind of investigative preparation?

A. With any kind of historical research, especially recent or contemporary, for which many of the people involved are still alive, it is comparatively easy to be coolly objective. Yet it is also, therefore, difficult to get a true picture and description. A critical-narrative approach does not necessarily lack objectivity; if there is no critical discussion then all that is left is the collecting of material--the selection of material might still not be objective and it might even be forged.

I think that whether or not the research is objective depends on whether the materials are accurate, on the ability to make an independent examination, and whether the angle of approach is sufficiently comprehensive. Only the tests of time and the criticism of society will tell.

Opening up the memory of society

Q. Apart from it not being easy for you to collect materials for your research into the February 28 Incident, what was your greatest difficulty?

A. The biggest difficulty was my own main idea when I started out, which was the difference between "memory of a social nature" and "memory of a society." What I mean by "memory of a social nature" is the views of the general population, while the "memory of a society" consists of documents and reports from that time.

Most people's prejudices can be subjected to documentary research and investigation and are purged by the passing of time until a more healthy condition develops. But the February 28 Incident has been seen as a taboo subject for the last forty years, not a subject that is open and for investigation. The views of the general population are still stuck in the stage of "outsiders mistreating the natives," with there being no way to get over this.

Many of those who lost relatives in the Incident say that I am speaking for the Kuomintang. In fact, I am not speaking for anybody but rather maintaining the position of a social scientist. People were also sacrificed from my own family so I can appreciate the value of life and I fully sympathize with the feelings of those left behind. But as a social scientist and an historian, I want to brave the anger of the masses and boldly challenge commonly held opinions--because I am not just writing history for a small number of people.

Our society really lacks the honesty that comes from self-confidence. It is always a matter of parroting what others say, and even a lot of scholars are compliant rather than willing to brave the wrath of the masses. I think that probably after two or three years everybody will slowly come to accept the new views and thinking in my book.

Q. There is much criticism in your book of the so-called "half-mountains"--people who left Taiwan and lived in mainland China during the Japanese occupation, then came back after retrocession.

A. My writing on this might cause quite a stir because in the past people thought that Chen Yi was the ring leader of the disaster. In fact, Chen Yi lacked ability and had a lot of power that he was not able to wield, while under the banner of the anti-Japanese war, a lot of "half-mountains" came back to Taiwan to grab a slice of the cake. Many of those who suffered injustices were secretly accused by "half-mountains."

Nevertheless, the "half-mountains" and mainlanders should not be looked at separately. In this respect, I was not very clear in the book. In the coming academic work there can be a more detailed exposition.

Love and hate from where to where?

Q. You have called Love and Hate--February 28 a book for a non-specialist readership. What did you hope the result would be of publishing this before you publish an academic work?

A. In the past, the way in which I have researched every case has been to open up the materials I have collected so that academics can engage in mutual research and criticism. Then I would go about writing the academic version, and finally the version for a non-specialist readership. The reason that this time it was the other way around, with publication of the non-specialist book first, was that I felt as though everyone had gone mad and that they were all talking gibberish. People who had not even looked at the event were daring to come out and talk about it. If I did not come out and speak clearly again, then I do not know where this direction would have led people to in the end!

I haven't laid down conclusions in any chapter of the book. This is a way to get people to think. I hope that everybody will continue to work hard at researching the issue and not stay stuck in this circle of "who killed who" and who should take responsibility.

Q. How is the edited collection of academic research and materials on the February 28 Incident progressing? Of what use has the release of official documents been to you?

A. My past research into the February 28 Incident has relied completely on my own coverage. The government's opening up of the archives, and the mainland doing so too, has naturally been of great help for the research.

Love and Hate--February 28 could not use these resources in time, but the coming academic version will naturally have even more resources. I plan to complete the edited collection of documents and academic articles within two or three years.

Q. How do people overseas see the February 28 Incident? How do their views differ from the views held here?

A. Basically, there is no great difference--there is also a lot of self-pity and self-comforting. People are very strange: they all like to wear different clothes, but are not willing to have different ideas. They just want to find a scapegoat and then everyone is satisfied.

How to stitch up the wounds of history?

Q. Today, more than 4O years after the tragedy, what are your feelings after having spent 36 years doing research into the February 28 Incident ? What are your views on the government's handling of the February 28 Incident?

A. This was a tragedy that developed out of a people facing the challenge and chaos of modernization. What is particular about the February 28 Incident is that Taiwan, after having been partitioned for fifty years, had returned to the motherland for only sixteen months when it happened. You can say it was a "double tragedy." But, no matter what, our attitude towards this historical tragedy should be to hate the event not the people; to forgive but not to forget.

The government is already trying to smooth over the wounds. President Lee has offered humanitarian consolation and Premier Hau has invited representatives of the relatives of those who suffered in the incident to dine with him. All of this is certainly to be approved of, but I think it is still not enough.

First there should be a serious apology and satisfactory compensation ought to be paid to the relatives. As well as this, the Academia Sinica should set up a research institute for Taiwanese history and open up the documents related to the February 28 Incident that are kept there, so that they can be examined by relatives and scholars. Research into the February 28 Incident has just begun--it is certainly not finished.

Exiles in mainland China can also be invited back to have a look. As for building a memorial hall, I am against it. Chinese people have always paid attention to hardware and not considered soft ware. Tell me, what kind of things will be displayed at this February 28 memorial hall? I am not even very keen on the idea of a memorial plaque.

To sum up, if the puss is not squeezed out of the wound, glossing it over with plaster is no use. This is how the wounds of the February 28 Incident should be dealt with.

[Picture Caption]

(photo by Huang Lili)