It is difficult to decide which aspect of the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) design competition, announced earlier this week by the National Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) Memorial Hall and the Ministry of Culture, is most infuriating: Minister of Culture Lung Ying-tai’s (龍應台) continued refusal to point to those responsible for the murder of thousands of Taiwanese under the Generalissimo’s watch, or that public funds are being spent on this ridiculous project at a time when society’s most vulnerable are seeing their homes destroyed by the government.
Launched to coincide with the 10th anniversary of former first lady Soong Mayling’s (宋美齡) death and to honor the “deep love” that the dictator and his spouse had for each other, the design competition, which comes with a NT$100,000 (US$3,347) prize for the winner, purportedly seeks to promote marital love, family values and the uniqueness of the nation’s Chinese “heritage.”
No sooner had the contest been announced than its organizers, along with Lung, came under fire from victims of the White Terror and were ridiculed online.
Just across from the CKS Memorial Hall last week, residents of the Huaguang (華光) community looked on as bulldozers sent in by the Ministry of the Interior demolished their homes to make way for a glitzy new leisure area for the rich and powerful. Since the government cold-heartedly refused to listen to the residents’ pleas, let alone provide financial assistance to help those who are not too old to rebuild their lives, the Ministry of Culture is spending untold amounts of money promoting a design competition to honor a very flawed man who brought nothing but terror and desolation to Taiwan.
For many Huaguang residents, some of whom make as little as NT$4,000 a month, NT$100,000 would go a long way. Yet the government does not support them, but is willing to spend money honoring two dead individuals who this nation is better off without.
Feeling the backlash, Lung, whose ministry oversees the CKS Memorial Hall, had little choice but to adopt a critical tone when discussing the competition yesterday, calling it “frivolous.” However, she still could not bring herself to admit that Chiang and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were the perpetrators of the 228 Massacre. Despite all the evidence, the testimonials and apologies by previous KMT administrations, Lung said the incident was “too complex” to attribute responsibility to the perpetrators.
All of this is occurring under an administration that, in defiance of public opinion, continues to promote the Sinicization of Taiwanese society. It also coincides with a move by China to restore the image of Chiang, who for decades was depicted by the communist regime in Beijing as the devil incarnate.
Apparently, it is not enough that in recent months people in Taiwan have had to stare at the face of the 20th century’s greatest mass murderer, Mao Zedong (毛澤東), on television ads and in the windows of financial institutions across the nation; Taiwanese must also endure their own executioner being depicted as a man who stood for virtue, love and family values.
Chiang was not the devil incarnate, but he was a ruthless leader who retarded the nation’s development and caused untold suffering to its people. The Generalissimo lived through extraordinarily difficult times and had to make difficult decisions. That being said, he made far too many bad decisions — decisions that resulted in deaths, disappearances and broken families — to deserve being honored in such a way.
He is undeniably, for better or worse, a part of the history of this nation, and as such he deserves to be studied and understood. However, ultimately he is not a cultural icon to be cherished, but belongs in history books and museums; and the countless statues erected to honor him should remain in the dark, dusty corners where they have been banished.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS