Print

Mail

wiki links

Rethinking historical monuments

'Is it really worthwhile for the local and central governments to bicker endlessly over political symbolism?'

On Tuesday, the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall was declared a national historical monument.

Whether the memorial hall should be renamed is an entirely political issue. The government's decision to change the hall's name from Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to the "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" had its supporters and detractors, as is natural in a democratic society.

Compared to the UN bid, the name change would make a far more meaningful referendum topic. It should at least become an issue in the coming elections, so that voters can consider this aspect in casting their legislative and presidential ballots. This would constitute an indirect referendum on desinicization.

But how can cultural conservation be conducted seriously when a structure is declared a historical monument simply in order to wrangle for political power?

In the last 100 years, conservationists in the developed world have been striving to depoliticize culture -- an almost impossible mission. Even if politicians concur, they inadvertently interfere. To consciously deploy culture as an instrument of political contest is far more terrible.

The Chinese Communist Party managed to defeat the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in part due to their manipulation of culture's invisible influence. It was this that produced the culturally oppressive policies perpetrated by the KMT in their early rule over Taiwan.

We have finally managed to depart from seeing culture as an instrument of political conflict and turn it into a tool for producing serious cultural artifacts for the elevation of the nation's standard of spiritual life. I wish that those in power could leave some space for cultural workers.

The story began with the government proposing to demolish the outer wall of the CKS Memorial Hall Park and rename the hall the "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall." But the park and its outer corridors are already spaces for public activity. Furthermore, Taipei residents should have the right to decide on such a significant change to national property.

This type of illogical political pronouncement caused the Taipei City Government to counter with equally illogical resistance by declaring the hall, as well as its buildings, a temporary historical monument.

The city government saw this as a legal and effective means of protection. Yet conservationists find it difficult to acquiesce, as it deploys cultural legislation as a tool of political wrangling.

Hence at meetings of the review committee, though no one wished to alter the status quo, none felt that the hall possessed the correct criteria to become a historical monument. Some people proposed that it be registered a cultural site, which could be acceptable.

The central government is obviously worried. If the Democratic Progressive Party fails to win next year's presidential election, the gambit will have been a waste.

Thus the structure was designated as a historical monument, whence it passed out of the city's authority. The government originally disagreed with its temporary status as declared by the Taipei City Government.

This sudden reversal and eagerness to grant the monument national status is a clever manipulation of legal loopholes rather than a demonstration of the sincere desire to treasure the hall itself. Bizarrely, the Cultural Heritage Protection Law (文化資產保護法), while differentiating between municipally and nationally designated historical monuments, does not delineate the authority and responsibility of the respective levels of government, nor does it define the legal status of the review committee members, leaving them vulnerable to political pressure. Thus it is not difficult for the government to declare any building a historical monument.

My unease stems from the fact that the government has destroyed the independent nature of cultural asset preservation and cannot help but continue to desecrate the spirit of cultural conservation in order to achieve its political ends, unless the precedence of the memorial hall is abolished to ensure that historical monuments and their names cannot be altered to suit politics.

If the government wants to force through its changes, political conflict will ensue. As a recognized democracy, is it really worthwhile for the local and central government to bicker endlessly over political symbolism?

Historical conservation suffers most in this struggle. The conservation field emphasizes maintaining a standard of determining what may be considered a historical monument. The encroachment of politics on these standards is a worrying trend. How can it stand up to further damage?

A historical monument must maintain its appearance, therefore, the greater the desire for modification, the less it is suited to being a historical monument. If the purpose of designation is alteration, how can a cultural heritage protection law even be written?

The procedure for designating historical monuments requires further consideration. The Council of Cultural Affairs recently sponsored an international seminar by local universities to discuss criteria constituting a need for conservation. How can it then be used to achieve political goals? Can political designations be exceptions to the rule?

Han Pao-teh is director of the Museum of World Religions.

Translated by Angela Hong
This story has been viewed 1542 times.