What would happen if a cultural and creative park became a grocery park? During the Legislative Yuan’s review of draft amendments to the Act for the Development of the Cultural and Creative Industries (文化創意產業發展法), Ministry of Culture officials were asked whether a women’s shoes sale at Taipei’s Huashan 1914 Creative Park constituted a cultural and creative event. The answer was “no,” with the ministry saying that the park should be better used.
Similarly, Songshan Cultural and Creative Park operates more like a department store. Why have such cases occurred for so long?
The government hands over its cultural and creative parks to businesses to run as build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects, but these businesses often forget about the art and focus on profit. They compete for profitable business and forget about cultural and creative affairs.
This is a result of the government’s inadequate supervision and direction, which should be based on a clear definition of what can be called cultural and creative.
No wonder legislators demanded that the government distinguish between cultural and creative affairs and other affairs, and that academics have called for it to restrict the scope of what it considers cultural and creative affairs so it can stop shooting in the dark when it comes to BOT deals.
Prior to the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) taking office in May 2016, the ministry was planning to redefine the concept, but nothing has happened since then.
The cultural and creative industries in Taiwan are more complex than in the UK, seen as the birthplace of such industries. The British creative industries include 12 sectors, while Taiwan has 16.
The UK excludes the cultural sector from the creative industries, because according to its definition, creative industries are “those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent, and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property,” so the cultural sector does not belong here.
The cultural sector — the “cultural facility for exhibiting and performing industries” — is included in Taiwan. It consists of seven sectors, including art galleries, museums and concert halls. Due to the wide scope, it seems almost anything can be interpreted as being part of the cultural and creative industries and therefore can be allowed in cultural and creative parks.
These days, even a TV cooking show can be labeled as part of the cultural and creative industries.
The government should lead the efforts to correct this situation.
Cultural and creative parks are indirectly managed by the ministry, which last month hosted the annual Creative Expo Taiwan, which could have offered an opportunity to correct its mistaken image of such parks. Unfortunately, the expo was akin to a grocery fair. The Japanese version of the expo’s Web page proclaimed that the expo was perfect for buyers interested in Taiwanese groceries and product design.
Similar exhibitions in Taiwan are too numerous to count, such as the Taiwan Design Expo, the Taipei World Design Expo — licensed by International Design Alliance — and the 100 Years of Taiwanese Design Exhibition.
The quality of the Creative Expo Taiwan did not surpass those events, not surprising given that its third edition in 2012 was criticized for the uneven quality of its participants.
Perhaps it is time for the government to step back and let the private sector take over.
As participants from Beijing once said, although each designer at the expo was outstanding, the event failed to build strong and powerful brands. The ministry should focus on branding.
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) once said during a legislative question-and-answer session that the creative expo would be canceled if the ministry was unable improve it the following year.
The expo is to be divided into two parts, one the responsibility of the culture ministry and the other of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. However, what is really needed is a centralized authority and cooperation between all agencies.
In the UK, economic affairs in the creative industries are the sole responsibility of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. As it has left manufacturing era behind, the UK has been focusing on creativity as the core of British culture. This has now even become part of its national identity. Today, British creative industries employ more people than other industries.
South Korea is trying to catch up with the UK, and the hallyu, or “Korean Wave,” is quickly gaining strength. South Korean dramas The Great Jang-geum and My Love From the Star have generated earnings of about NT$90 billion (US$3.02 billion) each.
Lu Ching-fu is a professor in Fu-Jen Catholic University’s Department of Applied Arts.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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