The name game
I am writing to commend Lee Ting-tsan (李丁讚) for his article ("History is the key to reconciliation," Dec. 9, page 8). Lee offers a balanced, constructive point of view and suggestions that are sorely missing in the heated issues surrounding the historical roles and actions of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the future status of the Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) Memorial Hall. Although the renaming of the plaza and entrance to the site appears to be a done deal, there still remains the question of how to deal with the hall itself. Even more important however, as Lee pointed out, is how all of this revolves around conflicting interpretations of Taiwan's history in the second half of the 20th century.
As Lee noted, Taiwan needs to settle these historical issues in a more constructive manner, or the animosity and conflict will continually weaken Taiwan. Because of this antagonism, even now the site has two contradictory names, each roughly as public and prominent as the other, resulting in the ludicrous situation that tourists get off at the "CKS Memorial Hall" MRT station, then walk into the "National Taiwan Democracy Hall" square, and soon after that can peruse various artifacts at, you guessed it, the CKS Memorial Hall proper. As Lee points out, such a "discrepancy in historical interpretation" is a powder keg in the process of exploding.
As Taiwanese endeavor to set the historical record straight -- a necessary effort for any modern, confident, credible people and nation -- they must most of all refrain from attempting to erase or ignore whole sections of their historical lives. Any efforts to do this are probably not only doomed to failure, but will also set a foul and dangerous precedent that can and probably will be abused by others of different beliefs when they get the chance.
The facts may be hard to stomach, but Chiang is an integral part of Taiwanese history, and his roles and actions must be included and effectively interpreted in that history. This is the best and only way to come to terms with a difficult past, and put many ghosts to bed, once and for all. As Lee writes, when the Taiwanese people can face with dignity and courage the deleterious detrimental things as well as the perhaps praiseworthy beneficial things Chiang was responsible for, then this nation can fashion a temperate and constructive narrative of its past and become "one nation ... with a communal sharing of history."
One possibility for the hall would be to deconstruct it as a glorifying paean and reconstruct it as a historical library. Yes, it would probably have the name "Chiang Kai-shek Library," and some will howl in defiance at this, but this could serve two useful purposes. First, it could be a useful research institution, aiding in shedding light on those adumbrated facts and adding to those incomplete records of the past referred to by Lee, ultimately helping to construct a truthful historical account. Even more importantly, these efforts could go far in balming many old wounds in Taiwan. Second, maybe, just maybe, "Chiang Kai-shek Library" could be agreed to by the city, and then a unified name and role change could take place at the location. I know this may not possibly please everyone, but I think something along these lines could be considered in light of Lee's suggestions.
David Pendery
Taipei
I am writing in regard to the change in inscription on the main arch of the National Taiwan Democracy Hall, or CKS Memorial Hall. If it weren't the case that the change of inscription is viewed as part of an attempt to remove all vestiges of Chiang's legacy, I would find it extremely ironic that the pan-blues would totally oppose the inscription change to "Liberty/Freedom Square."
Chiang created a political right-wing organization known as the World Anti-Communist League whose annual meetings took place on Jan. 23, which was declared "123 World Freedom Day." I would think that a Freedom Square would be something that Chiang would have wanted in his memorial hall since he supposedly advocated freedom from communism. Today the World Anti-Communist League still exists under the revised name World League for Freedom and Democracy.
Allen T. Chang
Hsinchu
Taiwan should commemorate the changes with an open-air concert where they perform Ode to Joy from Beethoven's ninth symphony, or better yet Ode To Freedom as done on Christmas Day 1989 after the Berlin Wall fell in the same year. They used both East and West German musicians to symbolize to unity of purpose and ideals.
Bode Bliss
Cleveland, Ohio
Citizens of Taiwan should not feel obliged to honor the memory of Chiang any more than Americans need to honor the memory of England's King George III. Some claim that Chiang should be honored for protecting Taiwan from communists and for laying the foundation for current prosperity. The same could be said of the US' English rulers back in colonial times. Similar claims are frequently asserted to justify various forms of imperialism, past and present.
Most English-speaking colonists in the US thought of themselves as Englishmen up until the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Most were grateful to the English kings and their Redcoats for protecting the colonists from the French and from American Indians during the Seven Years War.
But once the Americans saw that the king was denying them the rights they thought they deserved, prior loyalty and gratitude did not stand in the way of self-respect and determination to make a better life for their children.
Was it fear of the armed forces of the KMT that kept the Communists from attacking for so many years? The Communists had routed them on the mainland and could have done so again. No, it was fear of the US that kept the Communists at bay during the long years of the two Chiangs' dictatorship.
Did the cruel and greedy policies of the KMT bring prosperity to Taiwan? Do Americans owe their prosperity to the stamp and tea taxes that George III imposed on his colonists? Of course not! The US' prosperity is a result of its resources, not least of which is its able and disciplined population. The same may be said of Taiwan.
China's late Generalissimo deserves to suffer the same oblivion in Taiwan that George III suffered in the US, and his Loyalists should likewise avail themselves of a one-way trip to the mother country.
Michael Falick
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Taiwan getting schooled
President Chen Shui-bian (
For starters, Taiwan must drop its Republic of China (ROC) name, the root of all Taiwan-China quarrels.
Confusing to the extent of infringing on China's identity, the moniker places Taiwan at a moral disadvantage which Beijing has exploited at will, including parlaying it into an outright claim on Taiwan and the Taiwanese people.
Beijing even conveniently ignored the fact that, since 1895, Taiwan has never been part of China and painted the false yet long-entrenched picture that Taiwan split from China in 1949. Taiwan's continuous use of the ROC shell lent the appearance of credence to this myth.
Equally indispensable would be a consensus on Taiwan's sovereignty. However, in the face of insurmountable difficulties in holding such a referendum, vetting the extent of its alter ego, Taiwanese identity, among Taiwan's political leadership might have to suffice.
There is perhaps no yardstick more objective in knowing the Taiwanese identity of a political figure than the individual's commitment to making Taiwan history the marquee of history teaching in school curriculum. What happened in Taiwan in the last 400 years is the common to all people who live there today and in the future. There is nothing better to solidify Taiwanese than a common experience shared among all Taiwanese people no matter from where each individual's ancestors hail.
Politicians who promote this would have at heart a Taiwanese society that would unite and prosper for eternity.
Conversely, politicians who advocate the dominance of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) version of Chinese history would have scant will to resist the CCP's version in Taiwan's classrooms.
That colonialist mindset forms the crux of why the bulk of the KMT leadership, including Ma Ying-jeou (
Defense readiness is another element any government which wishes to negotiate with the CCP would be prudent to take to heart, given the CCP's propensity for using peace talk as a ruse to launch a war. The KMT-dominated legislature nevertheless has tried to hold back Taiwan's defense capability at every turn.
True cross-strait peace will remain elusive until the day the KMT is either dissolved or marginalized.
Should the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) fail to hang on to power next year, it's virtually assured that a President Ma would use the occasion of the peace conference to lay the groundwork for eventual capitulation. Strenuous preparation wouldn't be necessary aside from implementing a KMT version of the "Anti-Secession" Law to keep Taiwan's sovereignty aspiration well in check, a condition Beijing would more than likely demand before any kind of peace framework could be inked. Regional peace might be a lost cause while iron-fisted constraints are placed on an overwhelmingly popular sentiment of Taiwanese.
For the sake of peace, the KMT's resumption of power should never be on the cards.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Stop policing the world
It is ironic that the US should interfere in the domestic affairs of Taiwan's 23 million people and their decision on the destiny of the country ("I will keep my promises, Chen tells US," Dec. 11, page 1).
In fact, it is very frustrating to note that the US seems to like poking its nose into the domestic affairs of many other countries when it has proven itself in many instances to be unable to solve its own domestic problems.
What is even more frustrating is the very fact that the Americans -- who were once fighting communism -- lack a complete understanding of the history of Taiwan and seem to kowtow to communism (in China) all for the sake of "economic partnership" at the expense of the Taiwanese!
The Americans -- advocates and solicitors of democracy, freedom and human rights -- appear to be completely contradictory in their actions.
Are the Americans not denying the rights of each and every Taiwanese to determine the fate of his or her country? Is its action not a classic example of Western hypocrisy?
While no one can deny the rights of the Americans to "protect their overseas interests," it should not be done at the expense of the citizens of that country while they have vested interests.
What rights do the Americans have to police the world?
Michael Teo
Singapore
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this