In accordance with the government’s announcement in February, the name plaque at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall will be removed by the end of this month and replaced with the old one bearing the name “Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.”
At the time of the announcement, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the government would gauge public opinion on the controversy, including the fate of the “Liberty Square” inscription and whether the four-character inscription dazhong zhizheng (大中至正) should be reinstated at the hall entrance.
Those who took Ma on his word on the memorial hall have been disappointed yet again.
Shortly after his big win in the presidential election in March last year, Ma said “the renaming of the hall is not a pressing matter” when asked by reporters what he would do about the memorial hall after taking office.
Less than three months into his presidency, however, the Executive Yuan withdrew from the legislature a proposal submitted by the former Democratic Progressive Party administration that proposed abolishing the Organic Statute of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂組織條例).
This was followed by a motion passed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated legislature in January demanding that the Ministry of Education “quickly remove the name plaque of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall and reinstate the name plaque for the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in its original location.”
So much for saying that the memorial hall issue was “not a pressing matter.”
Ma’s unkept promise to gauge public opinion on the renaming of the hall is set to trigger more disillusionment.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Education, three public forums were hosted by Shih Hsin University last month to discuss issues related to the hall.
Each of the three was conducted behind closed doors, during which a total of eight or 10 academics, experts and historians were invited to share their views on what the government should do about the “Liberty Square” inscription and other matters relating to the hall.
While the government was quick to pat itself on the back for “making an effort to seek a consensus,” the fact of the matter is that these so-called “public forums” simply aired the opinions of a select few.
The way these forums were conducted and the failure to facilitate broader public dialogue and engagement show the administration’s lack of commitment to democratic principles and betray an arrogant attitude. It holds the public in contempt.
The Ma government needs to understand that democracy is not just about holding elections, but also involving and respecting the voices of the public on issues of national and social importance.
If a government fails to honor that commitment, then “democracy” becomes a cynical slogan.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS