TAIWAN
Columbia University, New York 1970, 124 pp.
Reviewed by Wang Chien-nung
This slim and interesting volume is subtitled "Studies in Chinese Local History" and comes from the East Asian Institute of Columbia University. The editor, who is responsible for the Introduction and one of the articles, is associate professor of Chinese history at Purdue University.
Professor Gordon calls attention to increasing American academic interest in Taiwan because (1) it is the only Chinese province currently open to scholars from the United States, (2) Taiwan takes on added interest and importance as a result of the Communist usurpation of the mainland, (3) new documentary materials have been made available in abundance by Chinese historians working on Taiwan and (4) considering that it is relatively confined in time and space, Taiwan makes a neat package for study.
"Taiwan," he writes, "possesses some special features which make it different from most other provinces of China. First, it can be said that Taiwan, until at least the 1880s, had been a 'frontier' region. It was comparatively undeveloped an island detached from the core of China and occupied by a non-Chinese native population in the island's mountainous regions and the descendants of with Chinese emigrants residing along the western plain...
"A second aspect of Taiwan's distinctive character is that little political attention was given to the island while it maintained fu status in the province of Fukien. It was not until foreign pressures culminated in a French bombardment and the blockade of Taiwan in the winter of 1884-1885 that the Chinese government felt compelled to take a more serious interest in the island, elevate it to the provincial level, appoint a capable governor (Liu Ming-ch'uan) and initiate an effective modernization program. Despite early Chinese aloofness, Ch'ing awareness of and feeling for the island were evident, belated though they were.
"The papers that constitute this symposium are closely related in that they concern the history of Taiwan during the latter half of the nineteenth century, and they consider, among other questions, the degree to which Ch'ing institutions and traditions made an imprint on Taiwan society during the crucial and terminal years of Chinese jurisdiction there in imperial times. Moreover, they touch respectively upon social, political, economic and international phases of Taiwan's nineteenth-century history."
Johanna Menzel Meskill, associate professor of history of the Herbert H. Lehman College of the City University of New York, writes on "The Lins of Wufeng: the Rise of a Taiwanese Gentry Family." Taiwan was still a "raw frontier area" in the mid-19th century, she writes, and "there arose unusual opportunities for men with a flair for direct action and an eye to their own advantage."
Wufeng was a village about five miles south of present-day Taichung which did not then exist. The Lins' ancestors had settled here about a century before and by 1840 the family had acquired modest wealth and local influence. In 1848, the eldest Lin was slain in a brawl with a strongman from a neighboring village. Three years later his eldest son, Wen-ch'a, avenged his father's death and subsequently became an important military leader.
In 1859, Wen-ch'a was asked to take his local forces to Fukien to oppose local rebels and the Taiping. He was militarily successful, became commander of Fukien land forces and elevated his family to the ranks of gentry. In 1863, he put down a rebellion in his home district of Changhua. He got into difficulties by adding to his own wealth from the holdings of defeated rivals, but his troubles with the authorities ended when he died a hero's death in a Fukien battle in 1864. The Lins had become one of the island's leading families by the close of the century. 'The Lin story," writes the author: "illustrates the old theme in Chinese social history, the recruitment of a respectable elite from dubious antecedents that testifies to the civilizing powers of the Confucian ethos until the very end of the nineteenth century."
Harry J. Lamley, associate professor of history at the University of Hawaii, writes on "The 1895 War of Resistance: Local Chinese Efforts Against a Foreign Power." This was a conflict separate from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. The Japanese landed on May 29, 1895, and quickly took Taipei and most of the rest of the north within 10 days. But five months were required to end organized resistance in central and southern Taiwan.
Japan was compelled to send 50,000 troops, 26,000 laborers and sizable navy units. Taiwan forces numbered more than 100,000. Casualties were heavy on both sides. Japan may have lost as many as 7,000, largely through disease.
"Viewed in retrospect," Lamley writes, "the Taiwan war of resistance marks an important juncture in the island's history. Just as Taiwan had acquired provincial status and was becoming a more integral part of imperial China, it was ceded to Japan as new territory for the Japanese empire. The cession turned out not to be a peaceful transfer of China's island province, as the Ch'ing and Meiji governments had desired. Instead, sustained warfare ensued in Taiwan before the island passed completely into Japanese hands and the local patterns of Chinese authority ceased to function there."
Professor Lamley gives details of the conflict and a map includes the dates of military actions. This is an interesting account of a too little known period of Taiwan history.
Edgar B. Wickberg, professor of history at the University of British Columbia, writes on "Late Nineteenth Century Land Tenure in North Taiwan." Briefly, he concludes that "In comparison with Mainland China at the same time, Taiwan's land tenure conditions appear rather like those in many parts of the rice-growing South. Holdings in Taiwan were somewhat larger. The rate of tenancy, however, was as high or higher in Taiwan, and rental rates in both places were about at "the 50% level."
Finally, Gordon deals with "Taiwan and the Powers, 1840-1895." Taiwan's importance is attested by the fact that the foreigners involved during this period included British, Americans, French and Japanese. That's a fair assortment of powers in only half a century.
Not much is commonly known about the U.S. interest in Taiwan well over a century ago. Gordon writes: "American attention was first drawn to Taiwan in the mid-nineteenth century search for coaling stations and unconfirmed information that missing American ships may have foundered on the island's coast. This led to a series of search expeditions that resulted, first, in little positive information about the missing mariners and, second, knowledge of coal resources readily accessible on the northern coast but of dubious quality.
"The earliest occasion upon which an American registered an interest in territorial concession on Taiwan was made by Dr. Peter Parker, medical missionary and sometimes diplomat, when in 1851 he initiated a search there for survivors rumored to be enslaved by aboriginal tribes, Before the became more grossly involved with Taiwan the subordinates of Commodore Matthew C. Perry made an investigation for coal resources and shipwrecked mariners during the interlude in his mission to Japan in the winter of 1853-1854. Although Perry's officers found little more than what had already been known about these matters, he quickly became entranced with the island's potential and virtually advocated an American protectorate over it. He believed that 'the United States alone should assume the initiative' in fostering improved political and civil conditions in Asia. The advantages of an American-controlled Taiwan were numerous: an entrepot for American trade, enhancement of the American naval and military position in East Asia and abundant source of coal for the steamers that carried the rapidly expanding American trade in East Asia. In his persuasive efforts, Perry was strongly supported by Townsend Harris, then at 'Macao.
"The issue of coal resources and maritime survivors again came to Dr. Peter Parker's attention in 1857; and on this occasion, he firmly recommended that American commitment be made to establish its presence on Taiwan. Stirred by reports of possible mistreatment to American survivors on the island by native aborigines, he categorically declared that American action was essential 'in the interests of humanity and commerce.' Encouraged by willing compatriots who recommended colonization, he wrote to Washington that the United States should 'not shrink from the action which the interests of humanity, civilization, navigation and commerce impose upon it.' Parker's enthusiasm for Taiwan mounted rapidly, and he justified temporary seizure of the island as a reprisal until preparations could be made for the injuries sustained by Americans.... Parker attempted to interest the commander of the United States East India Squadron, Commodore James Armstrong, in his reprisal scheme and found him very sympathetic.
"Parker's cause for anxiety was a growing concern about a rumor emanating from Hong Kong that the British were also interested in Taiwan and might be scheming to seize it before the Americans ... While the American Secretary of State never answered Parker's proposals for the acquisition of Taiwan, he clearly forbade any aggressive measures against Chinese territory. When the new Minister to China, William B. Reed, assumed office later in the same year, he quickly brought an end to Parker's expansionism and wrote candidly to his Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, that 'Eastern colonization is not yet part of our policy, and it is as well not to be suspected of it.''
American interest was revived in the 1860s. In 1867, the American consul at Amoy, Charles W. LeGendre, whose jurisdiction included Taiwan, carried out an expedition against aborigines of southern Taiwan with the help of the American naval squadron in the South China Sea. He obtained an agreement with the aborigines that earlier "outrages" against shipwrecked American sailors would not be repeated.
Later, LeGendre was an adviser to the Japanese government on Taiwan affairs. He advised the Japanese to take Taiwan and submitted a detailed plan of conquest. In March of 1874, Saigo Tsugumichi, a samurai from Kagoshima, led a military expedition to southern Taiwan which was essentially a colonization scheme. China and Japan came close to war. British Minister to Peking John Wade was the principal- instrumentality of prevention.
The Japanese were to return another day two decades later.
CONTEMPORARY CHINESE LAW
Cambridge 1970, 380 pp., US$10
Reviewed by Chen Ying-chieh
This volume is concerned with Chinese Communist law and, as the subtitle "Research Problems and Perspectives" suggests, about the ascertaining of information rather than a presentation of data.
The editor, who is a Harvard professor of law, has written the Introduction and two of the chapters, one of which is the witty and informative story of a year spent interviewing refugees in Hongkong.
Professor Cohen says little was to known of Chinese Communist law before 1960 but that this "bleak picture" has changed materially since.
"How does one learn about law in Communist China?" he asks. "Is the language a great obstacle? Is the Chinese (Communist) system very different from ours? How does it compare with the Soviet system? This volume seeks to answer the first three questions and to indicate some of the problems involved in the continuing effort to answer the others.
In the first chapter, Hsia Tao-ti, chief of the Far Eastern Law Division of the Library of Congress, surveys the annual output of Chinese Communist legal monographs, describes some little-known but important law books, analyzes the available periodical literature, examines newspapers as a source, discusses legal education and research institutions and lists Republic of China writings on Chinese Communist law.
He notes, interestingly, that "Due to fear of committing ideological errors and to the severe political climate in which he works, a legal scholar in Communist China is often reluctant to have his work published under his name as sole author. Therefore, very few books of substance are listed under single authorship. Substantial legal works are usually prepared by a group of people and published under the name of their office."
One work on the marriage law, published in 1958, lists more than 400 collaborators. A former legal political cadre told Hsia in Hongkong that 80 to 90 per cent of materials used in mainland law schools are not formally printed. However, such mimeographed materials are not available to researchers. Legal publication reached its high tide m 1956 and 1957 and then fell off drastically.
Of works originating in the Republic of China. Hsia notes that they reflect the National Government's point of view but "contain many valid and astute observations, and reflect expert knowledge of Chinese Communism frequently acquired by Nationalist Chinese analysts through personal experience. In addition, even studies of lesser research value may lead the researcher to an original source which he will find informative.
"In conclusion, a reference work on Communist China compiled in Taiwan is worth the attention of students of Communist Chinese law
- I-chiu-liu-ch'i fei-ch'ing nien-pao (1957 Yearbook on Chinese Communism), 1967, 1437 pages. This is most comprehensive general reference work on Communist China published by the Nationalists Chapter 5, 'Political Affairs of Chinese Communist Regime,' there is a section on Communist Chinese political-legal work (pp. 444-475). Five sub-sections deal people's courts; people's procedes; system of the Ministry of Public Security; reform through or; and suppression and liquidation of counterrevolutionaries."
Hsia suggests that the mainland approached "total lawlessness" during the Red Guard period of the great proletarian cultural revolution'' He writes: "The key slogan used in the Cultural Revolution - Chairman Mao's dictim, 'tsao-fan yu-li' (to rebel is justified) is antithetical the principle of legality to which adherence is declared in the Constitution.....Such a hostile attitude toward the rule of law does not suggest any change in the regime's lack of interest in developing a sound judicial system in the near future." His chapter has appendices on legal articles published in the Kuangming Daily and a listing of some of the materials on Chinese Communist law available in Taiwan.
In writing of interviews conducted in Hongkong in 1963 and 1964. Cohen concludes:
-It is better not to use an interpreter, even if one's Mandarin is little slow.
-Bias is inevitable but allowances can be made.
-Interviewing is time-consuming and the relationships may not be easy to terminate.
-Many of the interviewed hope for some special gain other than money-as help in getting to the United States.
-With the mainland closed to scholars, interviews provide the only means of determining how the law operates as opposed to what the text says.
Victor Hao Li also writes on the uses of interviewing. His findings are not so different from those of Cohen. He developed a questionnaire to speed up the process and provide a basis for comparison of results. As example of the worth of interviewing, he points out that published materials had little to say about the reception office of the court. But reviewers agreed that the reception office played a major role in the administration of judicial affairs. He also found that refugees belittled the work of mediation committees, although published materials depicted se as of great importance. Interviews revealed that many disputes were suppressed because people wanted to keep their affairs out of the hands of the authorities.
Hungdah Chiu's chapter deals with the development of Chinese international law terms and their translation into English. Such problems began in the 19th century and have come down to the present difficulties of translating concepts of space law. The Communists have left the terminology of international law virtually unchanged from that developed under the Republic of China, Chiu says. He lists some differences and goes into the influence of Japanese.
Dan Fenno Henderson takes up he Japanese impact in greater detail. He concludes: "The priority of Japanese experience with Western legal abstractions in the systematic world of modern code law made it efficient for the Chinese to use Japanese advisers and Japanese terminology in codifying their law in the first decades of the twentieth century. The Chinese, in fact, did absorb Japanese legal science (and language) massively through study in Japan, through hired teachers and legal advisers like Okada, and through translation and publication of and 'Subsequent reliance upon Japanese legal dictionaries and encyclopedias texts and commentaries. These initial influences created a Japanese-based Chinese legal science and terminology which has retained considerable strength, even in Communist law since 1949, although the terminology is now employed with connotations derived from the changed ideology as well as from the normal changes in meaning that are a consequence of official and social behavior over time."
In his discussion of Chinese Communist criminal law, David Finkelstein says it is no wonder that the world has been baffled by the "cultural revolution." If the language of Chinese Communist law is "so vague that to understand it really requires a well-developed sense of guessing,' then how can rules be made understandable and how, if we accept Professor Lon Fuller's thesis, can the Chinese Communist legal system be 'properly called a legal system at all.' If, on the other hand, we discover that the problem is one of translation, the prognosis for (Communist) China's legal future may be less gloomy, but our own troubles become no less complex." This chapter contains many examples of the incomprehensibility of much of the Chinese Communist criminal law.
Chapters follow by Marinus J. Meijer on "Problems of Translating the Marriage Law" and by Stanley Lubman on "Methodological Problems in Studying Chinese Communist 'Civil Law.''' Lubman says the Chinese Communists regard law "as the tool of a ruling class placed in the service of politics" and reject "sharp differentiation between judicial, legal and administrative processes."
Opening his chapter on "Crime and Punishment: (Communist) China and the United States, Richard M. Pfeffer writes: "There is broad agreement among Western scholars that under the Communists the criminal process in (Communist) China is arbitrary, highly politicized and responsive to class and status differences in its treatment of targets. It is frequently pointed out, quite accurately, that (Communist) China has no criminal codes and no public-reporter system of judicial decisions and that important substantive laws are often unpublished or, if published, very vague. Theorists of totalitarianism even doubt the existence of legality within such systems.
"Laws in (Communist) China not infrequently are applied retroactively and analogically or, to put it most crudely, on an ad hoc basis. Application of what we would classify as criminal law, especially of the law of minor crimes, tends to-be by administrative rather than judicial institutions. Even where nominally judicial institutions are employed, as in the case with major crimes, their style is heavily inquisitorial, general ex parte, with little opportunity for the defendant to defend himself either directly or through a lawyer. The proceedings of these institutions are not public. There is no independent judiciary and little separation of powers. The entire criminal process in (Communist) China today tends to be dominated by the police, under strong Party control."
Pfeffer goes on to suggest that considerable mythology has been accepted in the American system of criminal justice and observes that Americans have not tried very hard to understand the Chinese Communist criminal process.
Remaining chapters are by Cohen on "(Communist) Chinese Attitude;; Toward International Law - and Our Own," Yasuhei Taniguchi on "Some Characteristics of Japanese Studies on Contemporary Chinese Law," Harold J. Berman on "Soviet Perspective on (Communist) Chinese Law" and George Ginsburgs on "Soviet Sources on the - Law of the People's Republic of China." The last article has a lengthy bibliography. A useful glossary includes both Chinese characters and Romanization. There is a list of books in Chinese and Japanese.
The casual or professional reader is compelled to agree with Professor Cohen that scholars in the United States have done a sizable amount of research on Chinese Communist law in the last decade. The question of whether this is really a system of law has been raised by several of the writers. Even if the answer is in the negative, the content of what purports to be Chinese Communist law and the ways and means of its implementation continue to be matters affecting the lives of more than 700 million people. This book provides both information and insights for those who seek to know the reality of life under the Peiping regime.