There have been reports that president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said that the changing of the name of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂) was illegal and was therefore invalid, and that a consensus on whether it should be changed back should be sought through a public poll. The name change, however, was a political issue rather than a legal issue, and needs to be solved with tact and political wisdom rather than by judicial means. The goal is to dispel social conflict rather than determine a certain procedure. There’s a time for everything, and it would be a pity if Ma doesn’t understand that.
Moreover, the fact that Ma won a landslide victory means that the public has high expectations of him. As Max Weber said, a politician should be equipped with not only the ethic of ultimate ends but also the ethic of responsibility. If the new president hides behind polls, claiming that he is just following public opinion, he would demonstrate a lack of courage. He would be wrong to suppresses the minority opinion with the majority opinion, thus repressing the memories of one group with the memories of another group.
More importantly, if he failed to honor his campaign promises, he would be dishonest. Social fractures need to be mended and a political direction needs to be established. Ma’s call to revert to the old name shows a lack of deliberation.
If mending social cleavages and mapping out a political direction are the top priorities of the next government, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) should not seek revenge for the smallest grievance and throw the country into a vicious circle of infighting. Instead, it must have the wisdom and stature to shoulder the task left by its predecessor.
In pursuit of realistic political interests, one can’t just change things based on political affiliation; and at the level of political symbolism, one can’t just seek shortsighted solutions and pour salt on opponents’ wounds.
The question is whether this election will help Taiwan move away from ethnic conflict, which is what the public wants. This will depend on whether there will be a new political direction conforming to principles of justice. If Ma and his government incorporate this in their mission, they should accept the historical mistakes and thus accept that the inscription of dazhong zhizheng (大中至正) — which only served to glorify one person — was changed to “Liberty Square.”
Not only should Ma accept the name change, he should also promote liberty, equality and fraternity. For example, with the increasing income gap, wouldn’t it be better to change the name of Da-an Forest Park to “Equality Forest Park?” Also, wouldn’t it be better if we change the name of the 228 Peace Park to the “228 Philanthropy Park?”
If we made these changes, liberty, equality and fraternity would shine over Taipei. Since these values are still lacking in Taiwan’s society, I can cherish the memories of the contemporary Chinese revolution as well as the efforts and sacrifice of the tangwai (outside the party) democratic pioneers. Maybe it could also make the public question and evaluate themselves by asking if we really are free, equal and altruistic, thus making ethnic hatred gradually disappear and give way to a greater sense of shared ethics. Who is to say that Liberty Square and the promotion of liberty, equality and fraternity aren’t appropriate?
Of course, if the next government turns out to be just like the outgoing government, engaging in name changes as soon as it takes power, failing to listen to the public or enact progressive policies, then nothing will have changed. People have been listening to Ma since the presidential election. After May 20 they will be watching to see what he does.
Chao Kang is a sociology professor at Tunghai University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing