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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS