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 (
No one will argue that I.M. Pei's (
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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS