Exactly why was the late dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) so great? And if he wasn't that great, should there be a memorial hall dedicated to his life?
The Taipei City Government and the central government are busy fighting over the name change of what was the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, using articles and loopholes of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law (
The debate about the name change and purpose of the hall has still not ended. As early as 1990, after the Wild Lily Students Movement, "Chiang Kai-shek Temple" became a common name for the hall. This preposterous development undermined the hall, and it marked the beginning of the debate over the hall's name.
In 2002, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Huang Teh-fu (
Only KMT Legislator John Chiang (
At the time, the KMT didn't want to be seen as dancing along with the pan-green camp, and it rejected Huang proposal. Now, Huang says that he only made such a proposal because he was "too young" to know better. He shifted focus and criticized DPP name-change activities for "creating ethnic conflict by means of desinicization and ideological manipulation."
Former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
The reason this approach was so smart was that it didn't address the question of whether the Chiangs were really "saviors of mankind, great men of the era" or their historical merits at all. Such an approach directly appeals to a reactionary response to "de-Chiang-ization and changing the name."
In fact, it amounts to the same kind of ethnically divisive ideological manipulation that they accuse the pan-green camp of -- intended as it is to make people to identify with China, oppose Taiwanese independence and worry about the intentions of the pan-green camp. And then again the law is used to hold things in check, reinforcing the public impression of politicians as lawless and arbitrary.
Pan-blue and pan-green politicians feel that politics is their profession, and that their political sense is keener than that of the general public. Perhaps the pan-blue camp politicians have judged the actions of the political leaders in the pan-green camp correctly -- that they want to mobilize the people by "removing Chiang" before the elections. But the way the pan-blue camp reacted was also an attempt to mobilize the people for the elections. The law becomes only a tool used for attack and defense.
During this war of attack and defense, an important opportunity for the public is lost -- for the people to know Taiwanese history and how to debate the merits of its historical figures. Perhaps most of the public is not interested in understanding the role of Chiang in post-war Taiwanese history. In the official history that people over 30 have received in school, Chiang's merits remain in his accomplishments in the Northern Expedition, the war against Japan and fighting against the communists. To many people, the Chiang family still cannot be rationally analyzed. The only choice is between acceptance and rejection, kowtowing before it or destroying it. The same thing happens with cultural achievements left over from the Japanese era. It is even happening with the appraisal of former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) accomplishments.
It's a pity Huang's "immature" proposal wasn't carried out, or it would have been an opportunity for the public to objectively compare successive politicians and form their own opinion.
The developments in the last five years in national politics make it unlikely that there will be another opportunity for a proposal like Huang's -- all possibilities would be a symbol of national or ethnic identity, and they will all be hard to discuss rationally. This is an unfortunate development.
When we cannot calmly and fairly face up to historical persons and events, and future people and events, they can be used by political forces to manipulate people again and again, giving rise to conflicts in society. And when their political effect has faded away, things will be calm and peaceful again, but we still won't have a deeper understanding or consensus about our own history.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath