History is the account of common memories shared by human beings. Cultural relics record the exploits and misdeeds of historical figures, preserving traces of ordinary people’s lives.
Recently a dispute erupted over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) emblems that had been painted on Taipei’s East Gate (景福門) and Tainan’s Koxinga Shrine.
There have been many such debates in the course of Taiwan’s transition to democracy. Arguments about whether to take down statues of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or change the name of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall have yet to be resolved. As political power passes from one party to another, so does the power to interpret history, bringing past controversies to the fore.
Those who advocate keeping the KMT emblems argue that although they were added to the original structures at some point, over the years they have become integral to the relics and part of the public’s common memories. To record history faithfully, the emblem should be preserved, they say. Their opponents argue that the emblems were installed by the former authoritarian KMT regime. They say preserving symbols of the KMT’s oppressive rule causes public resentment and these symbols have no place in today’s free and democratic Taiwan. The structures should be restored to their original appearance, they say.
From a purely historical and cultural standpoint, both arguments are valid and it is hard to decide between them. The crux of the matter, however, is neither history nor culture, but politics. During the long years of one-party rule, the KMT used every opportunity and every means at its disposal to reinforce its grip on power. The ubiquitous bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek and his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), slogans painted on walls and streets named after the leaders were meant to instill obedience in the minds of the public.
KMT bureaucrats toadied to their superiors and bullied their inferiors. Since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office last year, the same kind of deification and flattery is resurfacing. A bridge in Yonghe (永和) City in KMT-controlled Taipei County has been embellished with nine arches decorated with horse figurines — the words for “nine” and “horse” being a play on Ma’s name. The Mandarin Daily News (國語日報), a newspaper aimed at children, has been accused of sycophantic reporting on anything Ma does. The Taiwan Salt Corporation has put on sale special 520cc bottles of mineral water to mark the first anniversary of Ma’s inauguration last year.
If intellectuals don’t demand a halt to this trend, then we can expect to see the KMT emblem appear in public places all over Taiwan. If people don’t tell the KMT that it has gone too far down the road to restoring authoritarian rule, then the KMT will be able to tighten its control in all spheres — in the military, agriculture, industry and commerce, and in society down to the grass roots.
Ma should reject this kind of bureaucratic flattery. Otherwise, if he is elected KMT chairman this month, we may soon see streets named after Ma and statues of Ma erected at government offices and schools, while Ma-worship could become the norm in the media. The question of whether KMT emblems should stay or go is not just a matter of how we view the past, it is a matter of how we live the present and how we plan to live the future.
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