Print

Mail

wiki links

The history lesson in the memorial

`To many people, the Chiang family still cannot be rationally analyzed.'

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 (文化資產保護法). In this battlefield, the central government makes use of the argument that Chiang was the culprit behind the 228 Incident to legitimize the "de-Chiang-ization" of the country; the city government in turn hasn't touched upon the question of Chiang's place in history.

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 (黃德福) proposed a law to change the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall into a memorial hall for all former presidents. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) proposed changing it to "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall," while legislators of the same party, Wang Tuoh (王拓) and Lin Cho-shui (林濁水), advocated changing it into a parliamentary building. At the time, the general response to the topic of name change was not nearly as heated as it is now.

Only KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), son of the late president, devoted to protecting the political legacy of the Chiang family, ardently protested. He disagreed with giving Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall -- already commemorating an old president -- a different function, because "the position the two presidents Chiang held in the history of the Republic of China is different from that of other presidents."

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 (馬英九) and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin's (郝龍斌) criticism against the rectification of names went largely along the same lines, using the Cultural Heritage Protection Law as a weapon to obstruct the pan-green camp's goals.

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
This story has been viewed 1162 times.