I recently read in a newspaper here in Hong Kong that the DPP administration has designs on renaming the White Terror Temple as "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall."
Memorial? Much has happened since I left Taiwan a half year ago. Is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) planning to declare martial law -- which, now that I think of it, might be a balm for their political blundering -- or is there still no one in their ranks who understands English?
I read also that the administration rightly wishes to remove Chiang Kai-shek's (
This begs the question of what to put in his place. I've got a few suggestions.
After first melting the dead dictator into commemorative coins, the space the statue currently occupies might make suitable digs to display, say, a new constitution, which would justify the "Democracy" part of the building's new title -- if not the "Memorial" part.
Or, foregoing this, how about a Taiwan Liquor Corp display case with Taiwan Beer and kaoliang (sorghum wine). After all, these beverages have done more to form bonds among diverse ethnic groups than anyone or anything else.
Of course, to be practical, the beer and kaoliang would need to be available for consumption. And given that the nearest convenience store is blocks away, perhaps the space should be converted into the world's most ostentatious 7-Eleven. Given that Taiwan has more of the brightly lit convenience stores than almost anywhere else on the planet, nothing could be more representative ... except for a betel nut stand, of which there are more.
That's it, I think: A big, blue-roofed betel nut stand, neon-lit and staffed by Lin Chi-lin (
Ah, Democracy! I remember it well.
David Momphard
Hong Kong
In Kaohsiung, on the evening of March 13, the Kaohsiung City Government began changing the sign of the Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center; it will be replaced with a sign reading "Kaohsiung Cultural Center."
I hadn't even heard much about this decision until there were television reports of "blue" minded folks out there that night, protesting the removal of "Chiang Kai-shek" from the sign.
What a contrast compared to all the brouhaha over changing the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to the "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" and the proposed demolition of its outer walls.
On March 2, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) announced that the walls of the memorial hall would be demolished.
Soon after, it was leaked that Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) had presided over a closed-door Cabinet meeting (on March 2) to rename the hall.
Though the Cabinet had approved the name change and demolition of the outer walls, the Taipei City Government stepped in, using its authority as the memorial's managing body to invoke articles 12 and 17 of the Cultural Resources Preservation Act (文化資產保存法).
This legislation allows the Taipei Department of Cultural Affairs to declare the hall a temporary historical monument, allowing the debate to drag out for at least another year.
The Cultural Resources Preservation Act states that a building must be at least 50 years old to be declared a historical monument. The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is about 27 years old; it is the newest building on record to be evaluated for its cultural and historical significance.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a mass removal of any and all relics related to the Chiang regime, no holds barred. But if they must remain I'm not necessarily in favor of simply changing the name, or beautifying the building.
If the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is to remain, facts should be posted to enlighten the public on how Chiang Kai-shek governed the island and "safeguarded" the interests of its residents. These facts would include his imposing martial law in 1949, ordering the systematic elimination (murders) of intellectuals in the events associated with the 228 Incident and implementing policies to "reeducate" the people of Taiwan.
A sound understanding of historical events and context seems to be in order here.
To me, the renaming of buildings like the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall seems like an exacerbation of the already pathological view that the Taiwanese have of their national identity.
Felicia Lin
Kaohsiung
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS