Taiwan: A History of Agonies
Ong Iok-tek1
Avanguard Publishing House, 2015
Reviewed by Aldric Hama
“Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese; the Taiwanese alone are the true masters of Taiwan.”
Dr. Ong Iok-tek
Following their flight to Taiwan, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese
Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang, claimed to be the legitimate government of China andmade plans to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and “recover the mainland.”At the same time, the CCP has claimed that Taiwan is an integral part of China—any“conflict” between the two is an “internal matter.” More recently, the Kuomintang, whoalways view themselves as mainlanders, have advocated reunification—with the condition
that the CCP somehow vanishes from existence. Most Taiwanese, however, reject the ideaof reunification, as they do not consider themselves mainland-Chinese and consider Taiwan
a sovereign state.2 Much to the consternation of the CCP, to this date, Taiwanesesovereignty is ingrained into the Taiwanese peoples’ psyche, and not merely a byproduct of
Taiwan’s political liberalization in the 1980s or waning Kuomintang social influence. The
current book, Taiwan: A History of Agonies elaborates Taiwan’s past as a state independentof China and its subjugation over time by its vastly powerful neighbor.
Professor Ong Iol-tek wrote Taiwan: A History of Agonies in 1964. The book was
posthumously translated from the original Japanese into English and published in 2015.
Born in Tainan, Taiwan in 1924, he graduated from prestigious Taihoku (modern-day
Taipei) High School. Being fluent in Japanese, he continued his education at Tokyo
Imperial University. Because of the deteriorating wartime situation in Japan, Ong returned
to Taiwan. While in Taiwan, Ong wrote a number of plays that were critical of theKuomintang. Kuomintang repression of the Taiwanese began in earnest with their arrival
following Japan’s surrender and peaked with the “2.28 Incident,” in which thousands of
Taiwanese were massacred over a period of several days beginning February 28, 1947-Ong’s older brother was killed during this time. Ong emigrated with his family to Japan,
where he re-entered Tokyo University and earned a doctorate in the “Taiwanese” language3.
As a linguistics professor in Japan, he garnered the support of the Japanese people for
Taiwanese independence and founded the pro-independence group Taiwan Youth, which
1

In the current review, family names are presented first followed by given names.

2

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/10/29/2003658136;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/02/yes-taiwan-wants-one-china-butwhich-china-does-it-want/?utm_term=.46e8547568fe
3

Ong’s biographer does not elaborate, but is probably referring to the Taiwanese variant of Hokkien.

1later became the World United Formosans for Independence. He died in Tokyo, an exile
from his native land, in 1985. While a linguist by training, Dr. Ong presents Taiwan’s“agony” in the manner of a skilled historian, as an engaging historical narrative. Ong neverfails to point out that despite foreign occupation, the Taiwanese considered themselves aunique, autonomous people throughout. It is Ong’s aim, as noted in a chapter written by
Ong’s daughter, that the world fully comprehends that “Taiwan does not belong to China.”
In the past, a “nation” or a “nation state” was defined as one that contained people
that share, “or at least believe that they share, a substantially common history, culture andancestry.”4 The nation state is in effect the home of an extended family. One could further
suggest that the goals and aspirations of the extended family are reflected in the polity,
which is, in turn, bound to respect and promote the goals and aspirations of its family. A
common cultural, historical and, perhaps, genetic heritage, among citizens encouragessocial harmony and where such commonality, unity is lacking and social cohesion is
maintained through force.
Over time, as with most “politically incorrect” concepts, nations are no longer basedon fundamental commonality but on convenience and vague notions of inclusion. One
could wonder whether or not Taiwan is merely a “country,” that is, a geographicallydefined area encompassing a group of people lacking a common genetic heritage, sharing
little or nothing in terms of cultural and social conventions, a common language or history.
Many of today’s political states, such as those in Africa, were haphazardly created with thecollection of peoples that happen to be in the area at the time. By contrast, nation statessuch as those in Europe, North America and East Asia have previously jealously guarded
their historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Migration of culturally and ethnically diverse
populations to these areas following World War II has greatly altered notions of nationhood.
Given modern politics that are encouraging mass migration, perhaps there are few true
states today.
If the peoples’ feeling of distinctiveness and unity is at the same level of intensity asthat of Ong’s, one could indeed define Taiwan as a true state (“nation state”), a group ofpeople distinct from the Middle Kingdom. Indeed, Ong suggests that the “struggle between
Taiwanese and the Chinese” is an “ethnic” one. The “Chinese immigrants,” the Hakka andMinnan, originated from southeast China, what is now Fujian and Guangdong Provinces,brought their particular “customs, traditions and language” and settled in Taiwan during therule of the Ming Dynasty Wanli Emperor (1573-1620). The “immigrants” encountered theAustronesian, “Malayo-Polynesian” “indigenes” and competed against them for arable land,
eventually forcing them from the plains to the central highlands. Intermarriage between theimmigrants and aboriginals was likely—Ong states that “some [aboriginals] were4

Pearson, R. (2004) The misuse of the term “nation state”. Mankind Quarterly, 44, 403-418.

2

assimilated [with the Han].”5 A wave of mainlanders arrived following Japan’s defeat, butcontemporary Taiwanese consider themselves completely separate from mainlanders.
Given their unique genetic and cultural inheritance, Taiwan could indeed fit the definitionof a nation state.
The current book raises a number of fascinating insights which go against
conventional wisdom concerning Taiwanese history. Given the author’s stance, his message
will likely find hostile reception from those clamoring for absorption within the People’s
Republic.
Lack of a long-standing claim by mainland China to Taiwan.
Ong shows that the Ming and Qing Dynasties were pretty much blasé concerning Taiwan,
considered at the time a “no-man’s-land,” of no particular economic or strategic value—the
Chinese authorities tightly regulated immigration and deported illegals. The Hakka andMinnan fled to Taiwan nonetheless to escape poverty and war. As Taiwan was alreadyoccupied by an alien race and given that the Chinese ruling class placed themselves at thecenter of the celestial order, the ruling class probably did not feel any great need to expand
its rule over “barbarians.” A number of riots and rebellions arose within Taiwan due in partto the Qing’s hands-off, arms-distance policy. Only “unlucky officials” were sent to servein Taiwan.
Without strenuous objection from the Middle Kingdom, barbarians such as the
Dutch and Spanish established their presence in Taiwan in the 1600s. The Japanese at thetime also sought to “permanently settle” Taiwan and went as far as seeking “tribute” from
Taiwan—without success. Rather than merely dismiss Dutch colonization as sheer
exploitation, Ong points out that the Dutch did increase Taiwan’s “sphere of the economy,”
expanding its trade beyond China, thereby “weakening its economic ties with themainland…” The Taiwanese economy expanded such that the Dutch increased importationof “war-torn, hunger stricken” mainland peasants. The Dutch even allowed “outstanding
immigrants” to form autonomous assemblies. The immigrants eventually vastly
outnumbered and out-competed the indigenes; the Chinese immigrants were “pioneers
whose indomitable spirit overpowered the ‘spirit of the earth.’”Furthermore, the Dutch attempted to raise the indigenes out of poverty, building
schools and giving them for the first time a written language, resulting in a “remarkable”
rise in the aboriginals’ “level of intelligence.”

5Lin, M. et al. (2001) The origin of Minnan and Hakka, the so-called “Taiwanese”, inferred by HLA study.
Tissue Antigens, 57, 121-199; Chen, C.-H. (2016) Population structure of Han Chinese in the modern
Taiwanese population based on 10,000 participants in the Taiwan Biobank project. Human Molecular
Genetics, 25, 5321-5331.

3

While their fortunes rose during Dutch rule, the Chinese immigrants nonethelesssought to oust the “red-haired barbarians” and take Taiwan for themselves. The Chinese
immigrants instigated a number of rebellions by agitating the indigenes. The Dutch
responded by employing indigenes, who butchered numerous Chinese. The violence led toa decline in immigration from the mainland and a concurrent decline of an economy thatwas immigrant-dependent—a warning to the present to those who believe that immigrationis the solution of population decline and economic growth.6 The Dutch were eventually
forced out of Taiwan by an anti-Qing warlord, Zheng Chenggong (“Koxinga”).7 The
grandson of Koxinga, Zheng Keshuang, surrendered Taiwan to the Qing in 1683 andTaiwan was incorporated into Fujian Province. Nonetheless, the Qing disclaimed
responsibility for criminal acts committed by the indigenes, including beheading foreign
seamen who became stranded on Taiwanese shores.
Benevolent Japanese rule of Taiwan.
Taiwan and Penghu (the Pescadores) was conceded to Japan by the Qing with the Treaty of
Shimonoseki (1895), settling the Sino-Japanese War. In defiance, loyalist Chinese
established a “Republic of Formosa.” Former Qing officials held executive and legislative
positions in the short-lived republic and pledged fealty to the Qing. As the Japanesemilitary arrived to secure Taiwan, to avoid capture, the Republic’s leaders scrambled out of
Taiwan. In Taipei, Chinese soldiers “set fire and plundered everywhere.” Such acts should
not be surprising as these were Chinese military standard operating procedures.8
Ong makes very clear that he denounces Japanese colonial policy, going as far as
noting Japan’s “war of aggression in China,” so as to show that he is not a Japanese shill.
While Ong takes the standard anti-Japanese historical viewpoint, he nonetheless points out
historical reality.
Upon arrival in Taipei, the Japanese found it to be a virtual open sewer, where “pigsand people cohabitate”. As most of the Taiwanese were laborers or “laborer-turned
6

Outside pressure has been applied to Japan to increase foreign immigration to solve its economic “crisis”
due to its changing demographics: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/26/japan-underpressure-to-accept-more-immigrants-as-workforce-shrinks. However, raising foreign immigration is not theeconomic panacea that its advocates believe it is: http://www.npg.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/2016NegativeEconomicImpactForumPaper.pdf
7

A national hero on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, Koxinga conducted a brutal war against the Dutch,
mutilating and beheading Dutch prisoners, including women and children. Some Dutch women were sold toChinese commanders and their troops (Nieuhof, J. (1703) Voyages & Travels into Brazil and the East-Indies.
Reprinted 2003, New Delhi, India: Asian Educational Services; Wells, S.W. (1849) The Chinese Empire and Its
Inhabitants. London: Henry Washbourne).
8E.g. Bradley, J. (2015) China Mirage. NY, NY: Little, Brown, and Co.; Seki, H. (2007) A History of Massacres.
Tokyo: Bijinesusha.

4businessmen,” the level of knowledge was “very poor” and education was “extremely
retarded.” Efforts of the Dutch 200 years earlier were forgotten as about “99%” of the men
were “illiterate.” Many Taiwanese “lived illiterate years without education until the periodof Japanese rule…”
After 50 years of Japanese colonial rule, Taiwan emerged as a “nearly perfectcapitalist colony.” During this period, Ong points out that the population and the amount ofarable land doubled. Rice production increased five-fold and sugar production doubled.
Infrastructure to enhance transportation, such as railways and roads, and waterways toimprove sanitation were built. Numerous hospitals, colleges and schools were also
constructed. In a manner similar to French colonialism, the Japanese encouraged
assimilation by promoting the Japanese language. Ong does not state so, but this was not
only to promote national unity: western know-how was written in Japanese rather than
Taiwanese or Chinese. A “new generation of Taiwanese” emerged “enlightened under themodern Japanese education system,” acquiring a “global vision and scientific mind.” A
number of Taiwanese chose to further their education in Japan, which, facilitated discussion
among Taiwanese of attaining political equality with the Japanese. Cultural and social
assimilation with the Japanese “broke [the Taiwanese] out of a feudal society into a modern
society.”
While Korea, also a Japanese colony, underwent a similar economic and socialtransformation, the “Koreans always condemn Japan’s imperialism [as] the world’s mostferocious sort.” Ong makes a “rational comparison of Korea and Taiwan.” Per area, Taiwanthat had more Japanese soldiers than Korea. There were fewer Taiwanese officials within
the colonial government, whereas Koreans were appointed “to high posts of civil service—
the Japan-Korea Treaty of Annexation made it a point to fill such positions with Koreans.”9
Ong also states that more repressive measures were enacted in Taiwan than in Korea, in aneffort to stamp out a brutal anti-Japanese resistance that persisted from 1895 until 1902 andagain from 1907 until 1915. While one Taiwanese language newspaper was allowed to be
published, “several national and local newspapers were allowed to circulate” in Korea. The
Taiwanese, while finding foreign occupation distasteful, sought greater autonomy andparity with their colonial masters. The Koreans, however, “wished for nothing short ofindependence.” Thus, Ong suggests that “Japanese imperialism” did not weigh as much on
Korea as it did on Taiwan. Indeed, Ong further suggests that the relevant comparison
should be between Kuomintang and Japanese rule—Ong does not hesitate to state that ruleby the Japanese was much “more agreeable”.
“Dogs gone; pigs come”: The Kuomintang dictatorship in the wake of Japan’s defeat.10
9

That Koreans were in positions of political authority have been noted elsewhere (e.g.) Ireland, A. (1926)
The New Korea. NY, NY: EP Dutton and Co.
10“[The Taiwanese] scornfully called the Japanese “dogs”; the dogs barked at them but guarded them. The
Chinese are pigs; the pigs devour food and do nothing else.”

5The Japanese handed Taiwan over to Generalissimo Chiang in October 1945 as stipulated
in the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. In generating these declarations, the Taiwanesepeople were never consulted concerning their destiny—the US and Great Britain merely
assumed that Taiwan belonged to China.11 In fact, Taiwan was not even a part of the“Republic of China” at the time of its founding in 1912—it was a Japanese colony. Rather
than independence, the wish of many Taiwanese, the Taiwanese were burdened with“corrupt and greedy” “pigs”.
While there are those that paint a rosy picture of the Kuomintang era, mainly for the
benefit of foreign consumption, Ong presents the harsh reality. Chiang imposed Mandarin
Chinese as the official language and began looting Taiwan. The governor of Taiwan had“far more legislative, executive, judicial and military powers than had any GovernorGeneral during the Japanese era.” Kuomintang troops that arrived were “helplessly
undisciplined.” In fact, a number of malcontent mainlanders, “poverty-stricken” and“many” with “mental disorders,” arrived with the Kuomintang and continued to flood
Taiwan into the 1960s. One described the decline under Kuomintang rule in this manner:
Taipei fell “to ruins right before your eyes.”
Repression was highlighted by the “Great February 28 Rebellion,” sparked bygovernment officials beating, then shooting, unarmed civilians. In response, Taiwanese beat“every Chinese in sight” (presumably the newly arrived Han) and “burned Chinese-owned
stores.” The Kuomintang appeared to cave into Taiwanese demands for political autonomy,
but this was merely a feign. Kuomintang troops from the mainland arrived and beganshooting “indiscriminately at every Taiwanese in sight.” Chiang ordered the “cleansing” of
the “poisonous Japanese way of thinking” and “poisonous Japanese spirit” from Taiwan,
which included the arrest, torture and murder of numerous Taiwanese “intellectuals” and“eminent figures” who lived during the Japanese era.12 Ong estimates the death toll fromthe “White Terror” to be in the “ten thousands [sic] to scores of thousands.” Adding further
insult to injury, the Taiwanese were to be saddled with restitution for property damage andany lives lost.
Kuomintang repression in Taiwan intensified with their arrival en masse in 1949.
Martial law was imposed and remained in effect until 1987. Adding to Taiwan’s agony,
about two million mainlanders arrived with the Kuomintang, boosting the island’s
population in one stroke by 20%. Most of them were members of Chiang’s inner circle and11

By contrast, the Cairo Declaration stated that Korea “shall be free and independent.” The Atlantic Charter
respected “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live,” butapparently this did not apply to the Taiwanese.
12

One should remember Chiang’s ghastly guilt-by-association purge of Taiwanese in light of his silky wordsof conciliation with the Japanese at the end of World War II: “…we must not… impose insults on theinnocent civilians…” (Dreyer, J.T. (2016) Middle Kingdom and Empire of the Rising Sun. NY, NY: Oxford
University Press).

6

Kuomintang apparatchiks (“Chinese parasites” as Ong describes them). The Kuomintang
announced a disastrous land reform scheme, which forced farmers into poverty. No further
investments were made in education. While there was the veneer of democracy, theKuomintang selected the winners for local level assemblies and harassed, even terrorized,
non-Kuomintang candidates. Just the same, as Ong points out, local assemblies held little
political power.
Despite Kuomintang repression, Chiang continued receiving American aid, to thetune of about “$100 million per annum.” Chiang further lobbied the US to back him in his“fantasy of liberating China.” Surely, this is the mark of a megalomaniac leader, one who
dreams impossible dreams and expects his people to carry them out. Such was US policy
during the Cold War.
Unsettled status of Taiwan following Japan’s compliance with the Potsdam Declaration.
Ong points out that Taiwanese sovereignty was not solved with the end of World War II,
despite strident PRC insistences otherwise. The Cairo and Potsdam Declarations weremerely unilateral demands of a few countries, disconnected from any legal basis, akin to
defrauding an unsuspecting victim by a gangster. Taiwan was to be “booty,” to be handed
over to the Kuomintang to keep them on the side of the Allies.13 The will of the Taiwanesepeople was entirely irrelevant to the Allies; the Taiwanese were never consulted if it theywould accept a wave of aliens with an entirely contrasting political, social and historical
heritage.
Ong points out that President Truman stated in 1950 that the status of Formosa
would be determined following “the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace
settlement in Japan or consideration by the United Nations.” The CCP rebuked the US, inthat “Taiwan belongs to China… this is a historical fact.” This proclamation contrasts witha broadcast issued by the CCP shortly after the February 28 Rebellion, stating its support
for Taiwanese “autonomy”: “Your struggle is our struggle… we will make every effort toencourage and support you.” Obviously, such words at the time were merely self-serving.
In 1951, Japan signed the Treaty of Peace and renounced its claims to Taiwan but“without designating a recipient.” Nonetheless, the Kuomintang retained its iron grip overTaiwan. American thinking changed after seeing the true nature of the Kuomintang:“Formosa’s …new role in non-Communist Asia… cannot be stage-managed by American
policy makers… Nor can it be arbitrarily imposed on the Formosan majority by the
Nationalists refugees…”

13

On p. 27 of the current book, a photo shows Chiang, President Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill and Madame
13
Chiang sitting together, apparently united in purpose, in Cairo, 1943. In fact, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill scoffed at the notion that China was a world power and questioned their value as an ally (Bradley,2015, China Mirage).President Roosevelt, thoroughly believing that Chiang could defeat the Japanese, sent
hundreds of millions of the US taxpayers’ money to the Kuomintang.

7

Today’s ambiguous status quo is desired only by the US, PRC and the Kuomintang,which recently lost the presidency. It is the Taiwanese who reject the PRC’s “One China”
as well as the Kuomintang attempts to integrate Taiwan with the mainland.
Finally, unlike modern, fashionable narratives that describe aboriginals in romantic
terms, Ong unflinchingly describe the aboriginals within a historical context. “Misfortune”
has befallen indigenes elsewhere (e.g. Native Americans) but Ong spells out how the
Taiwanese indigenes were “doomed” from the start: through their own actions rather thanby acts of foreigners, including “a decadent sex life… unsanitary lifestyle…
unpreparedness against hunger and contagious disease.”
From the book, one gathers a sense of significantly different levels of sophistication
between indigenes, the Han immigrants, Europeans, and Japanese. The indigenes were a“rock bottom primitive society” and “by nature brave and fond of fighting.” (Indeed,numerous indigenes volunteered for service in the Imperial Japanese Army.14) Taking
advantage of their lack of ability to read Chinese characters and naivety, the Chinese
immigrants very often cheated the aboriginals.
“Farm work was done by hand, mostly by women. The men by contrast, would be“idle by nature…” “lazy” and “temperamental.” “Neither horses, cows nor ploughs” wereused until the Dutch brought over draft animals. “With no currency yet circulating,” theindigenes’ circumstance “was a downright poor self-sufficient economy.” There was ahuge demand for Taiwan deerskin, yet the indigenes could “hardly [be] countable for [a]steady supply of buckskin…” At the same time, over-hunting inevitably lead to near
extinction of deer in Taiwan.” The cultural behavior of the Taiwanese indigenes isreminiscent of the Polynesians—keeping to the simplest level of sustenance, a warlike andbrave people.
A minor flaw in the current edition is that there could have considerable English
language editing to enhance readability. For example, a wide range of meanings is attached
to “immigrants,” conflating “early” Han settlers with later Han settlers and the Kuomintang,
who could be compared somewhat to today’s Middle Eastern refugees. While many postwar Han refugees to Taiwan were unfortunate victims of circumstances, Ong points out thatquite a few were mentally unstable and found ample opportunities to express murderous
behavior.
The translator chose not to see assistance in this regard for the sake of “saving” theauthor’s every “sigh and outcry,” which was actually lost on a number of occasions to thecurrent reviewer.

14

One of Ong’s commitments after World War II was to help Taiwanese veterans of the Imperial Japanesemilitary collect their pension.

8Perhaps a future edition of Ong’s work would seriously consider this and reach evenmore of the English speaking world. Ong states that the Taiwanese were “voiceless”—Dr.
Ong’s book is their resonating voice.

9