The Formation of the Keien Regime and Colonial Rule in Taiwan

Abstract

This article is an attempt to examine the relationship between prewar Japanese colonial policy and domestic politics through an analysis of the so-called "rokusan question" during formative period of the Katsura-Saionji ("Keien") regime. The rokusan question is the political confrontation that arose over "The Bill Related to Laws and Ordinances to be Enacted in Taiwan" that was passed by the Imperial Diet as its 63rd (hence, rokusan 六三) act of 1896. It was in this bill that provisions were made for the appointment of a governor-general of Taiwan, provisions that were clearly inconsistent with both the Imperial Constitution and the principles of parliamentary government. In particular, it was around the time of the Japan-Russia War, when the "Keien" regime was taking form, that a parliamentary investigation into possible reforms to the "rokusan" law became intertwined with domestic political affairs and the search for proper colonial policy for Japan. During the debate over the "rokusan" question during the sixteenth session of the Diet in 1902, the present Cabinet led by Katsura Taro, an important figure in the bureaucratic clique under Yamagata Aritomo that held considerable power in both the military and the upper house of lords, argued that Taiwan should be ruled under a political system independent of Japanese domestic politics, and therefore a bill related to governance of Taiwan in accordance this principle should be passed. This policy direction was similar to the stance taken by the Third Ito Hirobumi Cabinet and Goto Shinpei, who was appointed to take charge of rule over Taiwan. It was also a very convenient stance for the army, which wanted its power in Taiwan to be free from any invention by the Diet and the parliamentary parties in colonial affairs. Parties such as the Rikken Seiyu-kai, who were aiming at participation in colonial policy making, were of the opinion that Taiwan governance ought to be a Japanese domestic administrative matter decided mainly by the Diet. However, such an idea was far to advanced for the times, and the parliamentary deliberations resulted in a three-year extention of the original rokusan law. When the issue came up again three years later, the Katsura Cabinet decided to draft a new bill emphasizing in its tone Taiwanese political and institutional independence. However, within the formatian process of the Keien regime from the time of the war with Russia, Katsura had approached such figures as the Seiyu-kai's Saionji Kinmochi and Hara Takashi on the question of colonial policy, and decided to abandon a stance emphasizing independence for Taiwan and support the Rikken Seiyu-kai's position. This change is no doubt telling of Katsura's recognition of the expansion of power being achieved by the political parties at the time, but also reveals a conviction that the policy direction supported by the army and the Yamagata clique had definitely reached its limitations. As a result, the first Saionji Cabinet and its Home Affairs Minister Hara Takashi decided to introduce into the 22nd session of the Diet a bill that would gradually realize a change in the rokusan law in accordance with the ideals of the rising political parties. Despite opposition to this new bill from such people as Kodama Gentaro and Goto Shinpei in the Taiwan governor-general's offices, Hara engaged Katsura in negotiations over the rokusan question and gained the latter's consent for a new bill to be introduced. However, due to opposition from the Yamagata-led house of lords, the passage of the Saionji Cabinet's bill and a transition to a colonial policy created under its ideals failed. Within the process of this confrontation, Katsura began to take action independent from the Yamagata clique, which was noticed and employed by the Hara-Seiyu-kai faction in its attempts to block the

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)