Beipu Incident (Chinese: 北埔事件), or the
Beipu Uprising, in
1907 was the first instance of an armed local uprising against the
Japanese rule of the island of Taiwan. In response to oppression of
the local population by the Japanese authorities, a group of
insurgents from the Hakka and Saisiyat indigenous groups in Hokuho,
Shinchiku Chō (modern-day Beipu, Hsinchu County), attacked Japanese
officials and their families. In retaliation, Japanese military and
police killed more than 100 Hakka people. The local uprising was the
first of its kind in
Taiwan under Japanese rule, and led to others
over the following years.
4 See also
Following the signing of the
Treaty of Shimonoseki
Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 between the
Empire of Japan
Empire of Japan and Qing Empire of China,
Taiwan was ceded to Japan in
perpetuity, along with the
Penghu Islands. The Japanese rule saw
Taiwan take large strides towards modernization, as they oversaw
improvements to the island’s infrastructure, economy, and health and
education systems. Despite this, much of the population still
suffered hardships, and there were regular partisan disturbances
against Japanese installations. These guerrilla raids often
resulted in Japanese reprisals which tended to be more brutal than the
initial attack, such as the 1896 ‘Yun-lin massacre', which resulted
in 6,000 Taiwanese deaths. Although the situation improved under
Goto Shinpei, these disturbances still continued under Sakuma Samata,
who succeeded Goto in 1905.
As part of the push for modernisation under Japanese rule, Beipu
prospered due to its nearby coal mines. The town of
predominantly made up of members of the Hakka indigenous group, while
people of the Saisiyat ethnic group also lived in the area. As
Taiwanese aborigines, rather than Han Chinese, these groups were
viewed as barbarians and were particularly likely to face oppression
from Japanese rule, especially under Sakuma Samata’s term as
In response to what was perceived as Japanese oppression, Tsai
Ching-lin (蔡清琳) organised a group of insurgents in November
1907. The group, consisting mainly of Hakka with the support of the
local Saisiyat aboriginal tribes, seized a collection of weapons in
Beipu Township on 14 November. The following day, the insurgents
killed 57 Japanese officers and their family members. As retribution,
Japanese authorities killed more than 100 Hakka over the following
days, the majority of which were young males from Neitaping
(內大坪), a small village in the area.
Beipu Incident was the first incident of its kind against the
Japanese rule in Taiwan. Although other disturbances had occurred
since the takeover in 1895, this was the first of a series of local
uprisings which flared up quickly, and marked a new phase in armed
Taiwanese resistance. Following Beipu, other similar uprisings
such as the
Tapani incident in 1915 and the
Wushe Incident in 1930
occurred, the latter of which ultimately led to a change in approach
to Japanese dealings with the aboriginal tribes of Taiwan.
Taiwan under Japanese rule
^ Roy, Denny (2003). Taiwan: A Political History. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press. p. 34. ISBN 9780801488054.
^ Lam, Peng-Er (January 2004). "Japan-
Taiwan Relations: Between
Affinity and Reality". Asian Affairs: An American Review. 30 (4): 251.
^ Lamley, Harry J. (2007). "
Taiwan Under Japanese Rule, 1895-1945: The
Vicissitudes of Colonialism". In Rubinstein, Murry A. Taiwan: A New
History (expanded ed.). New York: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 202–211.
^ Lamley 2007, p. 207
^ Lamley 2007, pp. 207–211
^ Dawson, Phil, "Visiting
Taiwan – Experiencing Hakka Culture in
accessed 5 October 2011.
^ The China Post, “
Beipu Offers Glimpse into Hard-fought Hakka way
accessed 4 October 2011.
^ Ching, L. (1 December 2000). "Savage Construction and Civility
Musha Incident and Aboriginal Representations in Colonial
Taiwan". positions: east asia cultures critique. 8 (3): 800.
^ Roy 2003, pp. 39–40
^ Yang Ching-ting (28 Nov 2007). "Time to recall the
Taipei Times. p. 8. Retrieved 9 Aug 2016.
^ Lamley, “
Taiwan Under Japanese Rule, 1895–1945: The Vicissitudes
of Colonialism", p. 211.
^ Ching 2000,