During his trip to Japan last month, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said that Taiwan’s cities are light-years behind Japan’s in terms of urban aesthetics. However, in the same week his administration sparked controversies over an “ugly” lantern and for approving the reconstruction of a building connected with the 228 Incident.
Ko seemed to have a strong appreciation of what makes a city beautiful when he praised the renovation of the 100-year-old Tokyo Station as “having reached a balance between the preservation of a historic building and modernization” and described the station’s shops and restaurants as being “prettier” than Taipei’s.
“That is what is known as urban aesthetics — something wanting in Taipei,” he said.
However, just the day before, Ko called a wooden present given to him by an art center “a toy for those who are extremely bored” and said he did not go to Japan for art, but for an exchange on municipal affairs.
The Taipei mayor is obviously naive, if not silly, regarding what “aesthetics” is.
The mayor uttering the term is all the more ironic considering that in the same week of his visit to Japan, a “monkey-gourd” lantern was unveiled — to be featured in the Taipei Lantern Festival — that many have described as “ugly.”
Ko once referred to people who strive for the preservation of Taipei’s historic sites and buildings as “cultural terrorists,” while failing to live up to his promises — made before the municipal election in 2014 — to preserve the Nangang Bottle Cap Factory and keep Jiahe New Village intact.
He dismissed calls to rebuild Zhongshan Bridge — originally called Meiji Bridge when it was completed in 1930 — which was torn down in 2003 for reconstruction.
Ko also proposed relocating the century-old Mitsui Warehouse — a move strongly opposed by cultural groups and academics.
Ko’s most recent brouhaha concerns a building that saw the onset of the 228 Incident in 1947. Now belonging to Changhwa Bank, the building served as the Monopoly Bureau’s Taipei branch during the Japanese colonial era and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime after it took over the island in 1945.
The building featured in a famous photo, taken by a New York Times reporter, which shows a large crowd gathered outside the building on Feb. 28, 1947, after a bureau inspector beat a woman selling unauthorized cigarettes and killed an onlooker by accident the day before — which later came to be recognized as the trigger of an explosion of deep resentment against a corrupt regime.
The city government recently approved Changhwa Bank’s proposal to “revitalize its asset” and “reconstruct” the three-story building into a 13-story one and only asked the bank to preserve the “facade and the arcade.”
Experts and culture aficionados said the plan is tantamount to the obliteration of a historic landmark.
It has been four years since the building was first designated a historic landmark and not even a plaque has been placed to mark it. What historical significance can people expect to be treasured by the government and the company in the “facade and arcade” after its “reconstruction?”
“Aesthetic” historic sites cannot exist in a vacuum; they need human appreciation and maintenance.
The only “monument” that Ko has said he is against tearing down is the Chang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, a move he has said is in need of further debate.
We hope that he can be more open to public opinion when it comes to other buildings of historical significance as well.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers