If the transition of real power takes place in the Presidential Office, then the change of president of the General Association of Chinese Culture (GACC) is the symbolic transition of power.
In 2000, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relinquished power to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and this year, the KMT handed it back to the DPP and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) when she took office.
While the KMT was civilized in its handover of real power, it was not when it came to the symbolic transition of power. By renaming the National Cultural Association, which had already been renamed once under the Chen administration, to the GACC, and appointing former premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) to be its president, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) deliberately stymied the symbolic transition of power.
Founded in 1967 to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Cultural Revolution, the GACC is a legacy from the days of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). The organization, originally named the Committee for the Revival of Chinese Culture, has been renamed many times.
The GACC, under the Presidential Office, and the KMT Culture and Communications Committee, which before 2000 was the Cultural Affairs Department, jointly supervise the Council for Cultural Affairs, which they both rely on for funding. However, they have recently also received funding from business sponsors recruited by the president.
The GACC was originally called the Committee for the Revival of Chinese Culture to highlight the president as the leader of Chinese culture, as the CCP was destroying traditional Chinese culture during the Cultural Revolution. This one-person show, with the party and government behind it, shackled the nation’s cultural development by making it part of national policy, shaping modern Taiwan’s “culture.”
A cultural revival was intended to compete with the CCP, but what was there to revive? All it did was exploit government and social resources to highlight the advanced cultural vantage point of the president. Chiang and Mao Zedong (毛澤東) both rank high on the list of the world’s dictators, and their competition turned “culture” into a sad and bitter joke.
Under Chen’s administration, several Taiwanese writers were recruited by the GACC to serve as its deputy president and members, but it was not renamed the National Cultural Association until the end of Chen’s presidency. The label of “Chinese culture” imposed on Taiwanese has been a long-lasting, unnecessary burden.
The KMT had no option but to hand over government power to the DPP, but it has made clear that it is unwilling to hand over the GACC, the seat of symbolic power. However, Tsai must not see the distorted “Chinese culture” the GACC promotes as valuable, or think that the revival of Chinese culture is beneficial to Taiwan’s art and culture.
Both South Korea and Japan have preserved more Chinese culture from the Han and Tang dynasties than China, and they also modernized themselves by adopting a significant amount of modern and contemporary Western culture. What Taiwan needs is to revitalize its own culture, not revive Chinese culture. It is time for the Tsai administration to scrap the idea of a “Chinese cultural revival” for Taiwan once and for all.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS