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 (
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
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