How Taiwan’s east-coast counties of Hualien and Taitung can be developed while upholding environmental justice and respecting local culture has long been a point of concern.
The Statute for Development of the Hualien and Taitung Regions (花東地區發展條例), which was enacted last year, along with the electrification of railways in Hualien and Taitung, which will be finished next year, will make the lives of people living in the area easier and bring them many economic opportunities.
However, there are many omissions in the legislation that have residents of the two counties waiting in trepidation. The proposed transfer of the public cemetery of Jhihben Village (知本) in Taitung County’s Beinan Township (卑南) is a very good — or actually a very bad — example.
Jhihben’s railway station has been rebuilt to accommodate the rail network electrification project, and the local authorities have started work on beautifying the local environment — giving it a “facelift.”
When Taiwan was under Japanese colonial rule, the Japanese authorities attempted to abolish the Puyuma Aborigines’ custom of house burial, compelling residents of Jhihben to bury the deceased in the present-day public cemetery.
However, in 2010, to accommodate the area’s developing tourism industry, the township office quietly issued an order changing the usage category of the land occupied by the cemetery, telling Jhihben villagers to transfer their ancestors’ remains to a pagoda in Taitung City. This has been met with a series of protests from residents.
The problem is, before the Republic of China took over administration of Taiwan from the Japanese in 1945, the deceased were buried in the cemetery in multiple graves, and Aborigines were not accustomed to marking the graves with gravestones. Consequently, the Jhihben cemetery contains countless unmarked graves. Now the township office wants to clear out all these unmarked graves so that it can put the land out to tender.
A decade ago, I conducted an anthropological field study among Aborigines in Jhihben, so I can appreciate how important the belief in ancestral spirits is to Puyuma people.
Later on, I went to Palau to do research for my doctoral thesis. Palau was also ruled by the Japanese for a period during World War II. Like Taiwan’s Aborigines, the Palauans are part of the Austronesian-speaking family of peoples. Originally, their custom was to bury family members under stone platforms in front of their houses. On these platforms, they did everyday things like cooking and resting.
Unlike Han people, Austronesians do not fear the dead. They regard those who have passed away as still being part of the family and believe that the deceased need to be together with their living relatives so that they will not feel lonely.
Under Japanese rule the Palauans were compelled to transfer the remains of the dead to public cemeteries. However, after Palau gained independence, its rulers were Palauan, so they understood the attachment that Palauans felt toward departed family members. Accordingly, they lifted the ban on house burials, and many Palauans reburied their relatives under the stone platforms in front of their houses. The only difference is that these days they set up gravestones with the names of the dead carved on them.
Seeing the Taitung government authorities’ demands for people in Jhihben to move their ancestors’ graves, I cannot help but feel that it is a repeat of the colonial oppression of the past. Taiwan’s government often says that it respects pluralistic cultures, but do we have to wait until Aboriginal autonomy is instituted to see this slogan put into effect?
Does the Han-dominated government really mean to repeat the colonial oppression of years gone by? The graveyard incident also highlights the claims of ownership that lowland Aborigines have over their traditional territories. Let us hope that the government departments concerned will handle this case patiently and carefully.
If handled properly, the case could become a precedent for future reference.
Chen Yuping is a visiting scholar at Academia Sinica’s Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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