Print

Mail

wiki links

How dare Chen lecture historians?

Taiwan's history is rich, and so is its historiography. Since the lifting of martial law there has been an explosion in Taiwan-related research, as well as a welcome overhaul of the former party-state's supervision of scholarship.

Long before the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000, historians and other specialists had begun trawling through leaked and declassified sources to better understand historical trends and incidents after 1945.

Soon after former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) came to power, the Executive Yuan commissioned a study into the 228 Incident, which, for all of the political pressure that apparently came to bear in its production, provided a useful and reasonably thorough summary of that dreadful era.

Specialists in modern Taiwanese history at universities and the Academia Sinica such as Wu Mi-cha (吳密查) and Chen I-shen (陳儀深) also launched new research projects -- including crafting new histories for younger people -- and reveled in the new freedom and professional dignity that allowed them to inquire into subjects that were previously off limits, such as the White Terror, political suppression and executions, and opposition party politics.

All of these changes took place under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, though admittedly under a pro-nativization president. Notwithstanding the continuing influence of academics tied to the old regime, there were substantial changes in discourse, and all of this heralded an era in which genuine, public debate on any number of issues could begin.

So the question has to be asked: What was President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) getting at on Wednesday when he claimed that this nation -- and its historians, presumably -- need a crash course in a "Taiwanese historical perspective"?

That he needed to bring up the hackneyed "controversy" over Retrocession Day, now past for another year and already forgotten, suggests just how disconnected he is from what genuinely concerns the public and what is of rhetorical and practical importance at this moment. It also points to a lingering and unfortunate tendency for leaders in the executive to dwell on trifling matters beyond their brief.

Regardless of party or pedigree, a politician -- even a president -- who deigns to lecture historians on what to think and how to do their craft is overstepping the mark. All this will achieve is hostility from those who do not share Chen's take on history, and irritation from those who do, but do not like being reminded how to do their job.

The next question is more uncomfortable. The DPP has controlled the Presidential Office and the executive for five years, and yet sources at the Academia Historica and elsewhere indicate that there is a large body of documentation relating to oppressive practices in the past -- and their perpetrators -- that has not been released by security agencies. How, then, can Chen lecture historians on what to do when his own agencies are blocking access to crucial source material?

With the best of intentions, by lecturing on the need for a new "historical perspective" that already exists, Chen -- a lawyer, not a historian -- is subtly perpetuating the objectionable practices of his predecessors.

Everybody makes mistakes. That Chen chooses to waste his time doing so instead of spending an extra afternoon supporting DPP candidates struggling to stay competitive for next week's elections is instructive.
This story has been viewed 1725 times.