What do you think?
Rate this book
A Taste of Freedom; Memoirs of a Formosan Independence Leader
A Taste of Freedom is the moving story of a reluctant hero and his journey from bookish youth to renowned scholar to political dissident.
Peng Ming-min was born into a doctor’s family in central Taiwan in 1923. He moved to Japan to study, at first French, then law and political science. He was badly injured in a U.S. air raid, losing an arm, and during his recuperation he witnessed the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
Peng’s post-war return to Taiwan was bittersweet; the island’s new masters, the Chinese Nationalists (KMT) were “unbelievably corrupt and greedy. For eighteen months they looted our island.... They were carpetbaggers, occupying enemy territory, and we were being treated as a conquered people.” When nationwide protests erupted in 1947 in what is known as the 228 Massacre, Peng – despite his academic interest in politics – kept a safe distance and escaped punishment in the bloody crackdown and purges that followed. Peng pursued his studies in Canada and France, and quickly established himself as an authority in the new field of international air law. Returning to Taiwan, he became a full professor at the age of 34. The young academic star attracted the attention of President Chiang Kai-shek and other KMT leaders, who wanted to cultivate him as a model example of a local Taiwanese in the party elite.
Not only did Peng refuse to become window-dressing as a token Taiwanese, he decided to fight back against the regime. In 1964 Peng printed a manifesto calling for genuine democracy. After Peng was arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison for sedition, his international profile helped secure an early release. In 1970, while under house arrest and the heavy surveillance of the secret police, he made a daring escape to Sweden, where he was granted political asylum. Not long after this he wrote A Taste of Freedom, which was originally published in 1972 and later translated into Mandarin.
After twenty-two years in exile Peng Ming-min was finally able to return to Taiwan, where he was a candidate in Taiwan’s first direct presidential election, in 1996.
Arguably the most readable account of Taiwan’s turbulent mid-twentieth century, A Taste of Freeedom is the perfect introduction for anyone who wants to understand modern Taiwan.
Peng Ming-min was born into a doctor’s family in central Taiwan in 1923. He moved to Japan to study, at first French, then law and political science. He was badly injured in a U.S. air raid, losing an arm, and during his recuperation he witnessed the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
Peng’s post-war return to Taiwan was bittersweet; the island’s new masters, the Chinese Nationalists (KMT) were “unbelievably corrupt and greedy. For eighteen months they looted our island.... They were carpetbaggers, occupying enemy territory, and we were being treated as a conquered people.” When nationwide protests erupted in 1947 in what is known as the 228 Massacre, Peng – despite his academic interest in politics – kept a safe distance and escaped punishment in the bloody crackdown and purges that followed. Peng pursued his studies in Canada and France, and quickly established himself as an authority in the new field of international air law. Returning to Taiwan, he became a full professor at the age of 34. The young academic star attracted the attention of President Chiang Kai-shek and other KMT leaders, who wanted to cultivate him as a model example of a local Taiwanese in the party elite.
Not only did Peng refuse to become window-dressing as a token Taiwanese, he decided to fight back against the regime. In 1964 Peng printed a manifesto calling for genuine democracy. After Peng was arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison for sedition, his international profile helped secure an early release. In 1970, while under house arrest and the heavy surveillance of the secret police, he made a daring escape to Sweden, where he was granted political asylum. Not long after this he wrote A Taste of Freedom, which was originally published in 1972 and later translated into Mandarin.
After twenty-two years in exile Peng Ming-min was finally able to return to Taiwan, where he was a candidate in Taiwan’s first direct presidential election, in 1996.
Arguably the most readable account of Taiwan’s turbulent mid-twentieth century, A Taste of Freeedom is the perfect introduction for anyone who wants to understand modern Taiwan.
- GenresHistoryNonfictionChina
270 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1972
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 16, 2020
Peng Ming-Min is one of Taiwan’s most notable “symbols of Formosan resistance to the Nationalist Chinese occupying authorities and the articular spokesman for the Formosan interest.”
This memoir covers the period of Professor Peng’s life from childhood until 1970, when he made a bold escape from Taiwan to Sweden, to seek political amnesty, and later onto a career at the University of Michigan: his education in Japan, his efforts to restart National Taiwan University (NTU) after the retrocession of Taiwan to the Republic of China, research positions at McGill University and at the University of Paris, his appointment at NTU, early promotions and ultimately chair of the Department of Political Science. Up to this point in his life he has been apolitical; his research focused on a new area of international aviation law, he was one of the early researchers.
With his rise in stature came the situation where he was often the only (token) Formosan in the Chinese dominated government. After serving on a committee at the UN, he felt he needed to speak out, and gradually began to do that. In 1964 he was arrested for co-authoring a “Declaration of Formosan Self-salvation” (later referred to as a Declaration of Formosan independence) with two other individuals. He went through interrogation, was charged with “an attempt to overthrow the government by illegal means,” went to a mock trial, and was convicted, with a sentence of eight years.
Because he was a well-known international figure, international pressure was put on the government, which led to an early release in November 1965. While he could stay at home, the minute he left, he was watched constantly.
He determined that he could not live that way, and with very close friends and colleagues, devise an escape from Taiwan, successfully. Only after he arrived in Sweden did the Republic of China government know about it. The details are missing in this memoir, published in 1972, to protect those who helped him escape, still living in Taiwan, under martial law.
This part of the story is contained in the first 10 chapters. In the final chapter (11) he lays out his case for the self-determination by the Taiwanese people of their future. They had no choice when given up to Japan in 1895; they had no voice when given back to China after the end of World War II.
Chapter 11 is worth reading. When reading it, I kept thinking that these arguments now are 50 years old, likely older. Yet still relevant.
Amazingly Professor Peng is still alive at age 97.
It is an important contribution to understanding the events in Taiwan from 1930 to 1960s, to observing the transformation of an individual of principle to become a symbol of resistance, and for the articulation of the case of self determination for Taiwan today.
This memoir covers the period of Professor Peng’s life from childhood until 1970, when he made a bold escape from Taiwan to Sweden, to seek political amnesty, and later onto a career at the University of Michigan: his education in Japan, his efforts to restart National Taiwan University (NTU) after the retrocession of Taiwan to the Republic of China, research positions at McGill University and at the University of Paris, his appointment at NTU, early promotions and ultimately chair of the Department of Political Science. Up to this point in his life he has been apolitical; his research focused on a new area of international aviation law, he was one of the early researchers.
With his rise in stature came the situation where he was often the only (token) Formosan in the Chinese dominated government. After serving on a committee at the UN, he felt he needed to speak out, and gradually began to do that. In 1964 he was arrested for co-authoring a “Declaration of Formosan Self-salvation” (later referred to as a Declaration of Formosan independence) with two other individuals. He went through interrogation, was charged with “an attempt to overthrow the government by illegal means,” went to a mock trial, and was convicted, with a sentence of eight years.
Because he was a well-known international figure, international pressure was put on the government, which led to an early release in November 1965. While he could stay at home, the minute he left, he was watched constantly.
He determined that he could not live that way, and with very close friends and colleagues, devise an escape from Taiwan, successfully. Only after he arrived in Sweden did the Republic of China government know about it. The details are missing in this memoir, published in 1972, to protect those who helped him escape, still living in Taiwan, under martial law.
This part of the story is contained in the first 10 chapters. In the final chapter (11) he lays out his case for the self-determination by the Taiwanese people of their future. They had no choice when given up to Japan in 1895; they had no voice when given back to China after the end of World War II.
Chapter 11 is worth reading. When reading it, I kept thinking that these arguments now are 50 years old, likely older. Yet still relevant.
Amazingly Professor Peng is still alive at age 97.
It is an important contribution to understanding the events in Taiwan from 1930 to 1960s, to observing the transformation of an individual of principle to become a symbol of resistance, and for the articulation of the case of self determination for Taiwan today.
December 20, 2022
Absolutely amazing
The events of 2022 has put a spotlight on the situation of the Taiwan, and its relationship with the People’s Republic of China. However, very little attention has ever been paid to the native people or Taiwan, or of Formosa, as Dr Peng refers to it in his book. Although times have moved on since the book was written, it remains topical and highlights many of the anomalies that govern the life of what is now a vibrant democracy. Not least of the fact that there is no legal basis for the Chinese claim to the island. Strongly recommended reading for levels of freedom and the right to self-determination.
The events of 2022 has put a spotlight on the situation of the Taiwan, and its relationship with the People’s Republic of China. However, very little attention has ever been paid to the native people or Taiwan, or of Formosa, as Dr Peng refers to it in his book. Although times have moved on since the book was written, it remains topical and highlights many of the anomalies that govern the life of what is now a vibrant democracy. Not least of the fact that there is no legal basis for the Chinese claim to the island. Strongly recommended reading for levels of freedom and the right to self-determination.
June 5, 2022
I had never heard of Peng Ming-min until I learned of his death earlier this year. As a Taiwanese, it would be remiss of me to not learn more about a man who is considered a leader in Taiwan’s struggle for independence.
This is the book I had been wanting to read for so long as I completely identify with his own struggles as a native born Formosan (Taiwanese) in a word dominated by the politics of a regime that is filled with mainlanders that harboured a desire to ‘return’ Taiwan to the mainland.
This is the book I had been wanting to read for so long as I completely identify with his own struggles as a native born Formosan (Taiwanese) in a word dominated by the politics of a regime that is filled with mainlanders that harboured a desire to ‘return’ Taiwan to the mainland.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 5, 2025
A unique perspective on Taiwan, which tells the personal story and the history of the country
August 7, 2009
Inspirational: every person in Taiwan should read this book.
October 10, 2020
He is a legend.
April 11, 2026
Peng Ming Min may have written this more than 50 years ago, and more so with respect to protesting the Nationalist dictatorship in Taiwan during that time rather than the Communist China we know today, but his parting remarks about the Taiwan-China-US situation still resonate, maybe more so now than ever before...
“I emphasized that the real solution to the Formosan problem was in the hands of the Formosans themselves; that is to say, Formosans should be allowed to decide their own destiny. Let them decide their own political future for themselves.
I appreciated that it is difficult for the Chinese to understand that modern nation-states are not formed on the basis of biological origin, culture, religion, or language, but rather on a sense of common destiny and a belief in shared interests. There are subjective feelings that rise out of a common history, and are not necessarily related to these objective criteria of biological origin, culture, religion, and language. In modern history, examples abound in which people of similar biological origins and religious, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds constitute separate nation-states because they lack these feelings, and examples also abound in which people of different origins and backgrounds constitute a single nation-state as a result of these feelings of commonalty. No state has the right to claim sovereignty over a territory based only on some biological, cultural, religious, or linguistic affinities with the inhabitants of the territory in disregard of the will of the people themselves.
I urged the Chinese to accept the principle that any group of people, given certain geographical and historical conditions, are entitled to decide for themselves their own political future, and should even be entitled to constitute an independent political entity if they so desire, regardless of their biological, cultural, religious, or linguistic affinities to other political entities.
I also said the Chinese should discard their archaic, almost feudalistic, obsession to claim as a member of the Chinese family anyone of Chinese ancestry, however removed from China geographically or historically.
I asked the Chinese to distinguish ethnic origin, culture, and language on the one hand, and politics and law on the other, and to abandon the idea that those who are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically Chinese must be politically and legally Chinese as well. I asked them to stop vilifying as traitors those who desire self-determination for themselves. I pointed out that if for his own convenience, an individual Chinese becomes a naturalized citizen of another country such as the United States, and this is not regarded as an act of treason toward China — and I believe it should not be so regarded — if this is the case, then neither should the legitimate aspirations, based on historical and political realities, of a group of people of Chinese ancestry to constitute a political entity and create their own nation be so regarded.
I wanted the Chinese to understand that one can be proud of his Chinese ethnic and cultural heritage and still wish to be politically and legally separate from China, in the same way as General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was proud of his German ancestry, was not considered a traitor because he led the Allied armies against Germany.
I thought that if international organizations, and especially the United Nations, still have any reason for being, any significant role to play in international politics, the case of Formosa is precisely one into which they should move to help work out a fair solution.”
I observed that those who advocate solving the Formosan problem in accordance with the principle of self-determination have often been identified with the Free Formosa Movement. It is quite clear that Formosans resent the totalitarian repressive regime on Formosa today, that they are not prepared to accept the Communist government in China, and that they want to extricate themselves once and for all from the interminable conflict between China’s Nationalist and Communist parties. So, it is also quite clear that, given a free choice, Formosans would probably choose to constitute a political entity separate from both Nationalist and Communist China.”
“I emphasized that the real solution to the Formosan problem was in the hands of the Formosans themselves; that is to say, Formosans should be allowed to decide their own destiny. Let them decide their own political future for themselves.
I appreciated that it is difficult for the Chinese to understand that modern nation-states are not formed on the basis of biological origin, culture, religion, or language, but rather on a sense of common destiny and a belief in shared interests. There are subjective feelings that rise out of a common history, and are not necessarily related to these objective criteria of biological origin, culture, religion, and language. In modern history, examples abound in which people of similar biological origins and religious, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds constitute separate nation-states because they lack these feelings, and examples also abound in which people of different origins and backgrounds constitute a single nation-state as a result of these feelings of commonalty. No state has the right to claim sovereignty over a territory based only on some biological, cultural, religious, or linguistic affinities with the inhabitants of the territory in disregard of the will of the people themselves.
I urged the Chinese to accept the principle that any group of people, given certain geographical and historical conditions, are entitled to decide for themselves their own political future, and should even be entitled to constitute an independent political entity if they so desire, regardless of their biological, cultural, religious, or linguistic affinities to other political entities.
I also said the Chinese should discard their archaic, almost feudalistic, obsession to claim as a member of the Chinese family anyone of Chinese ancestry, however removed from China geographically or historically.
I asked the Chinese to distinguish ethnic origin, culture, and language on the one hand, and politics and law on the other, and to abandon the idea that those who are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically Chinese must be politically and legally Chinese as well. I asked them to stop vilifying as traitors those who desire self-determination for themselves. I pointed out that if for his own convenience, an individual Chinese becomes a naturalized citizen of another country such as the United States, and this is not regarded as an act of treason toward China — and I believe it should not be so regarded — if this is the case, then neither should the legitimate aspirations, based on historical and political realities, of a group of people of Chinese ancestry to constitute a political entity and create their own nation be so regarded.
I wanted the Chinese to understand that one can be proud of his Chinese ethnic and cultural heritage and still wish to be politically and legally separate from China, in the same way as General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was proud of his German ancestry, was not considered a traitor because he led the Allied armies against Germany.
I thought that if international organizations, and especially the United Nations, still have any reason for being, any significant role to play in international politics, the case of Formosa is precisely one into which they should move to help work out a fair solution.”
I observed that those who advocate solving the Formosan problem in accordance with the principle of self-determination have often been identified with the Free Formosa Movement. It is quite clear that Formosans resent the totalitarian repressive regime on Formosa today, that they are not prepared to accept the Communist government in China, and that they want to extricate themselves once and for all from the interminable conflict between China’s Nationalist and Communist parties. So, it is also quite clear that, given a free choice, Formosans would probably choose to constitute a political entity separate from both Nationalist and Communist China.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews