Through amendments to the Regulations for Designating and Abolishing Historical Sites (古蹟指定及廢止審查辦法), the Council for Cultural Affairs has transferred authority over National Taiwan Democracy Hall, formerly Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, to the central government and has removed the inscription dazhong zhizheng (
The Ministry of Education's removal of the inscription has incited passionate objections from elderly veterans and deep-blue activists who swear to defend it to the death. There is also a third force, youths who are calling for an end to the vicious pan-blue versus pan-green battle, who on Friday attempted to delay the removal in the interest of maintaining the peace.
In order to avoid breaking the law, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has achieved its political objective through multiple amendments to legislation on various levels. On the surface, the change is legal, but it amounts to the deepest travesty of justice. If politicians can alter laws when they see fit, then the sanctity and objectivity of the legal system becomes entirely vacuous.
Second, and more importantly, the issue of legality is only a subsidiary concern. In essence, this is a historical rather than a legal problem. The legal conflict only highlights the discrepancy in historical interpretations between the two political camps. If we always view history through a fog, rather than trying to restore historical truths and give Chiang Kai-Shek (蔣介石) a reasonable historical status, then our views regarding the memorial to Chiang will always be divergent.
The pan-green camp sees Chiang as an authoritarian tyrant, the perpetrator of the 228 Incident and the White Terror era. They believe that in a democratic age we should not commemorate a past dictator, a belief which accords with transitional justice. This is of course a reasonable argument, but the pan-blue camp has a different view of this historical period.
They believe Chiang contributed greatly to Taiwan. At least, by retreating here, he allowed Taiwan to escape communist rule. Otherwise, today Taiwan would only be a province of communist China, with no question of independence. They also do not agree with the argument that Chiang is the perpetrator of the 228 Incident.
History is open to different interpretation by different people depending on their experiences.
Mainlanders in Taiwan do not understand what it was like in Taiwan under Japanese occupation, whereas Taiwanese do not understand the experience of fighting the Japanese in China. This is because the two separate groups had entirely different life experiences during that part of history. Therefore the two groups have an understandably different interpretation of the period.
Yet, the period of history following World War II is a shared experience. The 228 Incident in the 1940s, the White Terror in the 1950s and the subsequent economic miracle and developments are all within the common memory of the elder residents of the nation. The reason why there are different views on this historical period is because records are incomplete and these topics have long been considered taboo. In a historical fog, of course we cannot see everything. This is the source of all the misunderstandings and animosity.
The Black Bat Squadron is a small interlude in post-war Taiwanese history. During the Cold War, these air cadets risked their lives to collect information on China on behalf of Taiwan for the US. Their sacrifice is touching. When Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) recounted this part of history at National Tsing Hua University and asked the audience to pay their respects to the squadron, many pan-green supporters were also deeply moved.
It shows that if we take a humanitarian starting point, reaching compassion, understanding and consensus on history should not be difficult. If this gesture had not originated from Lung but from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) the significance would have been even greater.
Much of post-war history is a common memory for the older generation in Taiwan. We should face this historical period together. That which has been beneficial to Taiwan ought to be recognized, while that which has been detrimental should be reproved. We can only resolve the problems of the present by confronting history attentively. The interpretation of post-war history cannot be ignored when attempting to resolve Taiwan's current problems.
If Mainlanders were willing to acknowledge Chiang's responsibility for the 228 Incident and the White Terror era, and Taiwanese were willing to credit him when discussing the nation's economic miracle, then the question of how the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall should be dealt with could be discussed and an appropriate solution devised. When we can reach a consensus on post-war history, then we will be one nation. A nation with a communal sharing of history.
The DPP claims to be a party representative of Taiwan. However, many of its actions tear the nation apart. Recognition and consensus is a soft process that cannot be achieved by brute force.
If the DPP were serious about building Taiwanese recognition, then it would need to have compassion and tolerance in facing outside groups to give them peace of mind, rather than cause fear and opposition on a daily basis. Only then can an ideology that is based on a Taiwanese identity grow to its fruition.
This is the road to building statehood.
Lee Ting-tsan is a professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Angela Hong
The saga of Sarah Dzafce, the disgraced former Miss Finland, is far more significant than a mere beauty pageant controversy. It serves as a potent and painful contemporary lesson in global cultural ethics and the absolute necessity of racial respect. Her public career was instantly pulverized not by a lapse in judgement, but by a deliberate act of racial hostility, the flames of which swiftly encircled the globe. The offensive action was simple, yet profoundly provocative: a 15-second video in which Dzafce performed the infamous “slanted eyes” gesture — a crude, historically loaded caricature of East Asian features used in Western
Is a new foreign partner for Taiwan emerging in the Middle East? Last week, Taiwanese media reported that Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) secretly visited Israel, a country with whom Taiwan has long shared unofficial relations but which has approached those relations cautiously. In the wake of China’s implicit but clear support for Hamas and Iran in the wake of the October 2023 assault on Israel, Jerusalem’s calculus may be changing. Both small countries facing literal existential threats, Israel and Taiwan have much to gain from closer ties. In his recent op-ed for the Washington Post, President William
A stabbing attack inside and near two busy Taipei MRT stations on Friday evening shocked the nation and made headlines in many foreign and local news media, as such indiscriminate attacks are rare in Taiwan. Four people died, including the 27-year-old suspect, and 11 people sustained injuries. At Taipei Main Station, the suspect threw smoke grenades near two exits and fatally stabbed one person who tried to stop him. He later made his way to Eslite Spectrum Nanxi department store near Zhongshan MRT Station, where he threw more smoke grenades and fatally stabbed a person on a scooter by the roadside.
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
RSS