The rehearsal studio and warehouse of Taiwan's national treasure -- Cloud Gate Dance Theater (雲門舞集) -- in Bali Township (八里), Taipei County, was devastated by a fire last week. The finest of the troupe's work accumulated over 35 years was destroyed. This conflagration not only exposed the hardships suffered by artists working long-term in near poverty, but also highlighted the cultural oversight typical in many industrial cities and nations in a state of transition.
Taiwan's cultural policy is a typical example of many developing or newly industrialized countries: Culture is a means of propagating ideology or to promote the image that all is well. Since its main purpose is decorative, culture often lags at the tail end of national development projects and its budget is ridiculously small. Even if individuals or groups in the cultural industry receive a pittance of public funding, death is often preferable as they are frequently forced to work under torturous conditions to meet a deadline despite inadequate resources.
But the problems highlighted by the Cloud Gate fire go beyond the issue of cultural subsidies: They draw attention to the value that is structurally assigned to cultural policy.
National policymakers are disdainful of the arts and culture because they perceive them as mere cosmetics, overlooking the fact that they could be a driving force for development of a city or the country. Like a locomotive engine, culture can lead and promote new developments and bring in unlimited economic value. Indeed, it can forge a creative urban environment that gestates culturally rich lifestyles.
As one of the four Asian tigers, Singapore's distinguishing characteristic in its globalization strategy since the 1990s has been to re-evaluate the development potential of culture. After the departure of the colonial power, Singapore harnessed a cultural industry built around a strong ethnic Chinese identity that had resisted foreign powers and managed to gain independence, while at the same time imbibing and promoting the multicultural characteristics of a multi-ethnic society.
After the meteoric rise of China's economy, Singapore took advantage of its geographical and cultural proximity to China to transform and reinvent its identification with Chinese ethnicity, develop industries associated with ethnic Chinese culture, including immigrant history, costumes, architecture and food. Singapore established Chinese-language education centers and contemporary Chinese studies institutes, which are actively exported to the world at large. Over the past 20 years, Singapore has almost become the place where Westerners gain an understanding of contemporary China: In the English-speaking world, Singapore has obtained a unique right to interpret Chinese culture and produced limitless potential for development and tourism for the nation. Singapore's strategy to globalize its culture has also indirectly helped it define its position in the new Asia.
Some may have visited San Francisco, on the other side of the Pacific, and were entranced by its layered, winding and profuse urban sights. But prior to the 1960s, San Francisco was merely a derelict, run-down, mining town, much like Jiufen (
The habitation and cultural, creative activities of artists became the basis from which a flourishing San Francisco cityscape war born. Even more interestingly, the innovative climate of a city that has amassed the essence of counterculture movements and artistic energy has become an inspiration for Silicon Valley's abundant supply of outstanding technical talent.
Culture is not only good business. Aside from being the developmental drive for a new urban economy, it is also an expression of the national spirit and a force that defines its residents' identity. Singapore's globalized strategy has successfully allowed the politics of cultural identity to advance from being an expression of opposition to becoming an industry, whereas San Francisco's creative environment has forged a superb educational and cultural environment which people are more than willing to inhabit.
Groups such as the Cloud Gate Dance Theatre or the Tsai Jui-yueh Dance Research Institute (蔡瑞月舞蹈研究社), which are capable of artistically rendering the history of the human rights movement, as well as the ethnic and national identity of an immigrant society, should be considered national treasures that deserve to be preserved and encouraged. They should be appropriately installed in the urban network as a fount of creativity.
Producers of arts and culture are the genies of the nation's future development. It is through their magic that ugly industrial towns are made beautiful and transformed into a sustainable homeland. Only by thoroughly revising cultural policies can we make sense of the Promethean fire of Cloud Gate in the hope that it will help create Taiwan's next cultural hope.
Sabina Sun is a special lecturer at the National Taiwan University of Arts.
Translated by Angela Hong
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with