Common sense has prevailed. Three Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Taipei City councilors were found not guilty on Oct. 28 of charges they had defaced an historical landmark by painting over the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) emblem on the East (Jingfu) Gate (景福門).
While the gate, built in 1882, is a Class 1 historical site, the KMT “sun” emblem was only added to it in 1966 when the then-KMT government renovated three out of the four surviving gates from Taipei’s old city wall — and carved and painted its emblem into them. The city’s Department of Cultural Affairs launched another renovation project on the gates in the spring of last year as part of its effort to “transform the sites into landmarks.” Apparently some officials did not realize the gates had already been landmarks for 127 years.
City councilors Chuang Ruei-hsiung (莊瑞雄), Huang Hsiang-chun (黃向群) and Liu Yao-ren (劉耀仁) said they were simply doing their duty by monitoring the city’s maintenance work when they spotted the repainted KMT emblem on the East Gate. Given that this happened just three days after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the KMT celebrated his first year in office, it is understandable that the DPP members might have seen this touch-up as a return to the bad old days when the KMT emblem — or Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) likeness — was plastered on just about every building or landmark. The councilors said they decided to rectify the situation by returning the gate to the way it looked during the Qing Dynasty.
While there was much fury from KMT members and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) after the trio did their bit of painting, even the city’s Cultural Assets Review Committee had to admit that the Council of Cultural Affairs had not mentioned the KMT symbol when it designated the East Gate a national monument in 1998, and that therefore the need to preserve the emblem on the gate was open to question.
Even so, Hau vowed to bring the DPP vandals to justice, although his logic was a tad faulty:
“We must all be humble before national monuments. Even as a mayor, I cannot order the department to make the emblem disappear,” he said.
He appeared to have forgotten how it had managed to “appear” in the first place.
In bringing charges against the DPP councilors, prosecutors said the three had defaced a cultural relic, and were therefore guilty of defacing an historical monument.
However, Taipei District Court Judge Lin Meng-huang (林孟皇) ruled that the emblem was a political insignia representative of the way Taiwan used to be a dictatorship. Although the emblem was protected by the Culture Heritage Preservation Act (文化資產保存法), he said the KMT had put it on the gate as part of its efforts to reinforce its legitimacy and therefore the emblem was an expression of ideology. Painting over the emblem could not be considered “defacing” a historical monument, he ruled.
The East Gate and its three siblings have survived destruction of the wall and the West Gate in 1904 by the Japanese colonial administration, allied bombings during World War II and the upheaval of urban renewal over the past six decades, so it’s hard to see how slapping on some paint to cover up a 42-year-old emblem could be considered worth a court case.
While the Taipei City Government said it would wait to see if the prosecutors want to appeal the ruling, Taipei residents can only hope that cooler — or perhaps more budget-conscious — heads will prevail and not waste more taxpayer money by pursuing the case. After all, the city hasn’t bothered to “repair” the emblem since it was “destroyed.”
Taipei’s city gates are worth preserving. Outdated political ideology is not.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath