And did the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) arrive in time to put a stop this? It seemed to be acting in earnest when it listed Lo Sheng as a temporary historical site in 2005 and later commissioned Hsin Lu Engineering Consultancy to draw up a plan to preserve 90 percent of the sanatorium. But its present claim that the sanatorium's designation is a local affair, and that the central government can only encourage but not intervene, is a serious dereliction of duty.
Article 101 of the preservation law says very clearly that "when city and county regulating organizations fail to act according to this law on issues within their jurisdiction, leading to the jeopardization of the preservation of cultural assets, the Cabinet or central government overseeing organizations shall name it as such for a limited period of time. If the local government still fails to act after that time, the central government should handle the issue for them. But in urgent matters, it should handle the situation directly."
Lo Sheng has always been on the brink of harm. First, during Premier Su Tseng-chang's (蘇貞昌) time as county commissioner, no action was taken out of consideration for major construction projects. Second, during commissioner Chou Hsi-wei's (周錫瑋) term, the government told the CCA it couldn't do anything because of development projects.
Faced with the first case of a local government failing to act since the passage of the preservation law and a sanatorium whose fate is still threatened because it lacks status as a cultural asset, the CCA continues to ignore the existence of this article. It is once again passing the buck back to the local government.
For a long time this case has remained clouded in a myth. Namely, it is misunderstood to be a conflict of interest between 100 sanatorium residents and the several million people living in Taipei. But the preservation of cultural sites has always been for everyone, not just a few, which is clearly illustrated in this case.
Even if preserving the sanatorium were to affect the opening of the MRT line, this shouldn't be seen as a zero-sum relationship. When technocrats cease to monopolize information, especially after the plan to preserve 90 percent of the sanatorium comes out, we will see more clearly that modifying the plans for the maintenance depot will not delay opening the line in the least.
Taiwan, which claims to be a progressive country, has instead acted just the opposite on many issues, including comfort women, human rights for foreign laborers and the sanatorium. If it wants to be respected in the international community, it must do more than just pay lip service to these cases. It must put its full weight into promoting progressive values. These problems persist due to a lack of will, not of ability, and Lo Sheng is no exception. Whether or not Taiwan can repair its tarnished name will depend on the Cabinet adopting the 90 percent preservation plan.
Liao Hsien-hao is former director of the Taipei City Bureau of Cultural Affairs and a professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Marc Langer
RSS