Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Beyond the symbolism of the wall

The Taipei City Government has declared the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, which opened 27 years ago, a temporary heritage site. Granted, we live in a fast-paced world, but to turn the CKS Memorial Hall into a historical relic after a mere 27 years, the Taipei City Government seems to have a glacial view of history.

The city government does not really regard the memorial hall as a historical relic. Rather, the move was simply a means to obstruct the Cabinet's decision to remove the memorial's enclosing walls. In fact, the decision to include the memorial on the list of heritage sites by hook or by crook is a farce.

As required by the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, the Taipei City Government's Department of Cultural Affairs gathered its cultural heritage review committee to form a task force of specialists to assess the memorial hall's value as a cultural site. After discussions, the task force suggested that the park surrounding the CKS Memorial Hall be registered as such and some of its buildings as historical structures.

The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, says the task force, stipulates that any space and its related environment relevant to a "myth, legend, movement, historical event, social community, or specific rituals" can be listed as a cultural heritage site regardless of how long it has existed.

The memorial hall is treated by the vestiges of the Chiang regime as the mausoleum of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). It is built in the imperial style of the Temple of Heaven in Beijing and represents Chiang's dictatorial and imperial mindset. Although it is a cultural site built in a northern Chinese style, it is far from a historical site.

No one will argue that I.M. Pei's (貝聿銘) Pyramid at the Louvre Museum is not a magnificent cultural site, but most people would probably disagree that it is a historical relic.

Moreover, the task force has suggested that some of the other buildings in the park should also be registered as historical structures, marking the first time buildings sharing a site have been given a different cultural heritage classification.

This is clearly a move against the central government's proposal. Indeed, many people may be in favor of a name change, but there are many differing opinions on the proposal of demolishing the memorial's outer walls. For good or bad, the words and deeds of historical figures were the forces that shaped Taiwanese society. Following the end of the authoritarian regime, much historical data has appeared showing that Chiang was not the great leader portrayed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Rather, he was a person with criminal weaknesses who made bad mistakes.

Regardless of whether the wall is torn down or the city government declares it a cultural site, the process lacks the kind of public participation that is central to democracy. Athough the Cabinet is planning to establish a task force of its own, it should go about its work without any preconceptions. It should allow the public to reach its own conclusions on Chiang's impact on the nation and encourage democratic debate to guide the planning process. This is the way to bring about a rational assessment of Chiang's place in history.

The wall isn't the issue, but perhaps an open discussion of the hall's status and local planning will result in a new consensus rising from the ashes of Chiang's dictatorship. This is an important lesson in history and democracy, and a process more befitting a monument to democracy.
This story has been viewed 2180 times.