Support the Taiwan Peace Foundation

The Taiwan Peace Foundation (台灣和平基金會), which has run the Taipei 228 Memorial Museum (台北228紀念館) for the past three years, has indicated that it will not renew its management contract and harshly criticized Taipei City's Bureau of Cultural Affairs for back-pedalling.

The museum is municipal property, operated under private management and municipal sponsorship.

The exhibits have helped me to understand the sorrow of the Taiwanese and the pain of the "Mainlanders" (Chinese immigrants who arrived after 1949 and their descendants) and sense the longing for peace and ethnic integration.

On weekends, thousands of people of different races, age and sex have watched folk culture performances in the small plaza in front of the 228 Memorial Park (台北228紀念公園), inclu-ding traditional hand-puppet shows and aboriginal sacrificial ceremonies. Through interaction between the people on stage and off in that small space, I came to understand the uniqueness of a multi-ethnic culture.

When the management contract was first signed, the Taipei government asked the museum not to seek profits by charging high fees, set the admission fee at NT$10 per person and required periodic free admission for Taipei residents and students.

The foundation had to finance the museum's operation with special government grants and private donations. Modeling its operation after museums in other advanced countries, the foundation recruited business talents who were good at fund raising and management specialists to serve as directors. Based on the success of the museum's operations, I cannot help but admire the director's accomplishment in running the museum as an enterprise.

I also admire the two mayors who allowed the private operation of the museum and the introduction of the idea of running a museum as a business enterprise. They helped build a sense of identity among the residents of greater Taipei.

Regretfully, before the management contract expired, the city's Bureau of Cultural Affairs violated both the contract's principles and the government procurement law.

Under the contract, the city government granted the foundation priority in renewing the contract. So why did the city fail to obtain a novation or propose a contract amendment in the six months after the government procurement law was passed?

Claiming that public bidding is required under the new procurement law, the city unilaterally changed the terms of the museum contract from the initial 3-years to 10-months. The move was an obvious breach of contract. It is no wonder that the foundation refused to accept the change and has even threatened to decline management.

On the other hand, if the foundation accepts the new contract, shouldn't the new term come under the procurement law? Doesn't this also make the city's under the table agreement with the foundation also illegal? Therefore, the city's move is contradictory.

The procurement law does not mandate public bidding for all purchasing by government agencies. Selective and restrictive bidding are other alternatives. Why doesn't the city government adopt one of these alternatives? Why does it try to force a contract renewal based on an authoritarian mentality?

It is truly beyond the understanding of legal and administrative logics. Perhaps politics is the real underlying reason?

The truly fascinating thing is that the Bureau of Cultural Affairs' Director-general, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), had time to visit Germany but had no time to handle official work. As a result, her management of the cultural affairs department has run into problems.