Did Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) have a child-like and naive temperament?
This question was recently at the center of a very heated debate between a Control Yuan member and writer Ping Lu (平路) regarding the correct Chinese translation of Vladimir Lenin’s description of the Republic of China’s (ROC) founding father.
The dispute stemmed from the Council for Cultural Affairs’ plan to spend NT$20 million (US$627,000) on a documentary about Sun as part of the ROC’s centennial celebration next year.
Ping Lu, who has agreed to take part in the project, raised the ire of Academia Sinica fellow Hu Fo (胡佛) and professor-turned-Control Yuan member Chou Yang-shan (周陽山) when she said Sun was a figure who “even Vladimir Lenin would have ridiculed as naive and innocent.”
Hu and Chou penned an open letter chiding Ping Lu’s “frivolous and insolent” mentality in handling the project.
Chou warned the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation that they would be held accountable and face censure from the Control Yuan if the documentary deviated from historical facts. Hoping to defuse the controversy, Council for Cultural Affairs Minister Emile Sheng (盛治仁) quickly came forward to say Ping Lu was merely an adviser and not the producer of the documentary, adding that the film would be shot in a way that accurately reflects the historical events with a humanistic perspective.
People can decide for themselves whether or not Lenin thought Sun was innocent or naive by flipping through Volume 18, “Democracy and Narodism in China,” in Lenin’s Collected Works (4th English Edition). It is in this volume that the debated phrase can be found.
“And Sun Yat-sen himself, with inimitable, one might say virginal, naivete, smashes his reactionary Narodnik theory by admitting what reality forces him to admit, namely, that ‘China is on the eve of a gigantic industrial [ie, capitalist] development,’” Lenin wrote.
While the strife between Ping Lu and Chou ostensibly was about differences in the Chinese translation and the beliefs it reflects, the crux of the matter is Chou’s attempt to meddle in freedom of expression through his capacity as a Control Yuan member.
Chou said the film, financed by the government, should proceed with caution and carefully depict historical events. While some might think he was simply making a friendly reminder about the potentially sensitive nature of the documentary, his actions could also intimidate the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation and make them think twice about pursuing independent thought during the production of the documentary.
As Chou said, the documentary would be government funded, but the government gets its funds from taxpayers, which is all the more reason why the film should reflect the many different views held by Taiwanese, rather than just one individual’s perspective.
Furthermore, Sun was a human being just like rest of us, and there is no need in today’s democratic Taiwan to deify a protagonist in a documentary.
What recourse do people have to censure a Control Yuan member who censures free speech?
If the council or the ROC Centenary Foundation yield to an argument that is reminiscent of autocracy in its suppression of freedom of expression, it would ultimately result in a huge step back in our hard-fought right to express ourselves freely and openly.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS