The White Terror in Taiwan was a 43-year period during which the Kuomintang (KMT) regime, with significant support from the United States during the Cold War era, persecuted its political opponents, imprisoning tens of thousands of people and executing some 1200. In the wake of democratisation since the 1980s, Taiwan has instituted a scheme of transitional justice to acknowledge and atone for the past political oppression and to promote national reconciliation. As this initiative was undertaken by the same regime that perpetrated the White Terror, questions of objectivity and transparency arise. Accordingly, this thesis aims to assess the progress of transitional justice in Taiwan by examining the official discourse on the subject and also analysing the non-official discourses amongst survivors of the White Terror in present-day Taiwan. Tensions between the different discourses are identified. This thesis focuses on the construction of the past in the present, which refers to contestation of the past in the context of present-day society in Taiwan. Drawing on discursive analysis of Taiwan’s transitional justice initiatives since the late 1990s, as well as in-depth interviews with 24 former political prisoners, it discerns how the official transitional justice discourse is circumscribed and limits our knowledge of the White Terror. Since the implied fall of communism, the aim of reconciliation has not embraced the former socialists and communists at the global level, enabling the KMT government to elude accountability in its transitional justice efforts by rationalising the White Terror in the name of anti-communism. As a result, Taiwan’s socialist dissidents remain stigmatised in the official discourse, which offers redress only to those individuals who disassociate themselves with subversion and identify as ‘political victims’. This restriction in the official discourse suggests that the government wishes to reconcile only with those who were ‘innocent’ of treason. By the same token, the identity of White Terror victims is de-politicised, distorting the content of their trauma and shame and their survivorhood in present-day Taiwan. Informants’ non-official discourses, which point up the contradictions in the government discourse, reveal that survivors tend to feel profound shame owing to the failure of their political projects, viewing themselves as inept revolutionaries. Much of their interest in transitional justice lies in seeking opportunities to advocate for the causes to which they still adhere. Thus, their identity as survivors is focused less on persecution than on sustaining their political activism in the era of reconciliation. Thus, the tension between the official and non-official transitional justice discourses in Taiwan is not only a contestation of the past but, more profoundly, a contestation of the vision for the nation’s future.

一個國家發生大規模國家暴力之後，檢討相關人員的責任，向來是重要的轉型正義議題，可是這個議題在台灣因為多種原因，長期被忽略。長達三十八年的戒嚴期間，上萬人因叛亂、匪諜嫌疑被捕、遭判重刑，至少八百人失去生命。在這種官僚式壓迫的體系中，檢討相關人員責任前，須先了解當初他們在暴力行動的參與中如何做出決定。本文藉由判決書檔案，探索並評析軍事法官如何針對政治案件進行判案，並且將人民判處死刑。從中發現幾項事實，可供未來檢討這些法官刑事與道德責任之基礎。法官的判決與論述中，除了曾經出現違法的情形外，亦不乏相同犯罪事實，判決標準不一致，以及違反人權精神等例證。另一方面，確實也曾經出現較為人道的判決。這些事實顯示當時法官擁有裁量權，選擇空間是存在無疑的。從而，部分選擇剝奪人民生命的法官，可能面臨道德上更大的非難。 / As massive state violence subsides, the issue of holding those who carried out such violence into account has always been an important concern. Yet due to numerous reasons, such issue has been long ignored in Taiwan. During the 38-year-long martial law period, tens of thousands of citizens were arrested and severely condemned on charges of subversion or espionage. In such bureaucratic oppressive regime, the decision-making process should be studied prior to the discussion of responsibility. By studying the verdicts, this thesis focuses on exploring and analyzing how death sentences were made by military judges. The results show that not only illegal verdicts have ever occurred, but also the inconsistencies between verdicts with similar criminal facts, as well as examples in violation of human rights spirit. On the other hand, there were indeed some cases where the judges ruled more humanely. In all, these facts demonstrate that the judges did have powers of dicretion, and room for choice undoubtedly existed. Hence, the acts of certain judges, who under the same circumstances chose nevertheless to deprive lives of certain citizens, may seem to be more morally reproachable.

本篇論文探討的是，台灣「五○年代白色恐怖」政治案件的「集體記憶」（collective memory）保存、復甦和建構的社會過程。 自1949至1987年，我國在戒嚴體制的控制下，「五○年代白色恐怖」的集體記憶曾經長期受到抹黑及消音，當時受難者及其團體在此一記憶的保存上，扮演了關鍵的角色，透過他們私下的集結與聯絡，在團體的脈絡中鞏固了此一記憶。 解嚴前後，過去被壓抑的許多記憶浮上檯面，透過紀念儀式、平反活動、修改法令、保存歷史地標等活動，各方主體重新召喚、組織、競爭詮釋集體記憶，端賴資源不同，決定了競爭結果。但是由於五○年代白色恐怖蘊含的意識型態和國族認同，不完全符合當時社會的需要，因此並未馬上進入國家論述。 隨著舊政權逐漸退出執政集團，新的國民黨政權有「建構新國家」認同的需要，同時遭受地方反對黨政府的強烈挑戰；配合社會控制鬆綁，文化媒介的傳播，民間記憶更加浮現。最後在「朝野大和解」等現實環境的配合之下，受難者團體採取迴避意識型態的論述策略，發揮了臨門一腳的功效，終於讓此一集體記憶進入正式論述，新的「人權論述」的建構和認同也在這個過程中悄悄的重構、凝塑。 但是目前呈現的集體記憶仍是經過篩選、組合後的結果，紀念碑的概念如「人權」、「民主」等，已獲得這一波國族建構的認可；但是相對的，由於兩岸的僵局未解，左翼思潮和運動仍然被排除在外；少數族群、弱勢性別的詮釋權也相對被忽略。目前各種不同主體，仍在互動中持續移動建構，或許下一次大規模的記憶召喚，隨時可能在適當的時機，再度出現在公共論域。