Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was officially renamed National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (
Friends of the late dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (
It seems impossible to persuade such people that democratic countries shouldn't have memorial halls dedicated to dictators. That this is a source of embarrassment for a country such as Taiwan is simply too much for the worshipers at Chiang's temple to make sense of.
If you speak to them about how Chiang murdered countless innocent people by sending troops to Taiwan during the 228 Incident, or how he tore apart families during his White Terror rule in the 1950s and 1960s or how a single man's will took the lives of thousands of people, Chiang's defenders choose not to hear. They say that talk of these incidents constitutes slander of the great Chiang and that no such things ever happened. Or they try their best to rationalize the brutality of his actions by saying that "those decisions were thrust upon him by extraordinary times."
Just as religious belief cannot be debated in purely rational terms, Chiang's worshipers choose to turn a deaf ear to reasonable arguments because of their pious faith in their god. For this kind of ignorant loyalty, I have nothing but the harshest condemnation.
The problem is that some pan-blue politicians have realized that there are still many Chiang worshipers among Taiwan's population who are incapable of independent thought. Sensing an opportunity in the renaming proposal, they have taken advantage of it in an attempt to serve their own purposes.
These politicians have clearly already abandoned Chiang's policy of retaking China from the communists, but they still appear to care a lot about whether or not his memorial hall is renamed. Therefore they take the anti-dictatorial sentiment that has emerged in Taiwan, and which is an important part of transitional justice, and try to paint it as something ugly. They have three main avenues of attack in this smear campaign.
First, they say that renaming the hall stirs up ethnic conflict. However, I have some questions about this assertion. Unless it is the case that all Mainlanders defend Chiang's dictatorial rule and want his temple preserved, and that all localized Taiwanese love democracy and want the hall renamed, changing the name of the hall cannot cause ethnic opposition. But are all Mainlanders really willing to have their ethnic group hijacked by pan-blue politicians? Chiang also killed many Mainlander intellectuals in the 1950s, and his White Terror was certainly not dedicated to oppressing any single ethnic group.
Second, pan-blue politicians say that renaming the hall is an electioneering ploy on the part of the pan-green camp. This is a bizarre claim, unless we accept that a majority of voters are in favor of the proposal to rename the hall. If the proposal is so universally popular, then why are pan-blue politicians so blatantly disregarding public opinion?
In democratic countries, the public's will is the basis for the government's actions. I truly hope that the administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) takes elections into consideration. Wouldn't this mean that Taiwanese everywhere have already woken up from their Chiang-imposed stupor and are alert and attentive? But today there are still many people who have been brainwashed by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) old state education system. This is the main reason why the heavily fascist pan-blue parties have a majority and can do as they please in the legislature.
Third, pan-blue politicians say the name change was purely ideological. I freely admit that renaming the hall was about democratic ideology. But is it not also imposing ideology to deify a dictator as "savior of the people, helmsman of the age and hero of the world," and construct a grand palace-like memorial hall for his personal worship for 27 years?
Dictators the world over must eventually be judged by history. That the renaming of a memorial to a dictator has created such a powerful backlash in Taiwan is evidence that our democracy is still young. We have to work harder to promote education about democracy. Because of this ongoing process, the emergence of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall is all the more meaningful.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a history professor at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Marc Langer
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