The demolition of an 80-year-old mansion in Tainan’s Sinying District (新營) on Oct. 13 is just the latest incident involving abrupt removal of historic sites.
The overnight destruction of the 55-year-old Jiaosi Cathedral (礁溪天主堂) on June 6 was dubbed the “darkest day in Yilan’s cultural heritage,” as the perpetrators took advantage of a lapse in the cathedral’s temporary historic site status to avoid serious punishment, with a maximum fine of only NT$3,000 (US$96.82 at the current exchange rate).
The punishment, according to the latest version of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (文化資產保存法), would have been a prison sentence of six months to five years, and a fine of NT$500,000 to NT$20 million, had the site’s status been renewed.
However, the increased penalty has not been enough to deter these incidents. In February, the 83-year-old Taiyuandi (太原地) historical residence in Hsinchu was razed in a few hours, even though it was listed as a temporary historic site, with the owners risking punishment in order to sell it to a developer. There have been numerous similar incidents throughout the year.
What is worse is since the Tainan mansion was merely on a watchlist for potential heritage sites, there was no specific penalty for its destruction. The government made good on its vow to come down hard on these incidents, immediately enacting new regulations that would apply the punishments to any site on the watchlist.
While one might question why this point was not considered when the act was being amended, at least the government reacted immediately.
However, as in all social ills, punishment is not enough, with the Taiyuandi case being a prime example.
In addition, with stricter punishments, more landowners might be tempted to quickly destroy their structures before they even make it to the watchlist.
After the destruction of Taiyuandi, Hsinchu Cultural Affairs Bureau Director Liao Chih-chien (廖志堅) lamented that the current law does not provide enough incentives for people to preserve historic properties, urging the government to switch from transfer of development rights and tax breaks to more attractive financial rewards.
Preservationist Lee Chien-lang (李乾朗) expressed the same views in July, comparing current incentives to a mere “certificate.”
Furthermore, it seems like a lot of this heritage status is reactionary, as these sites usually receive government attention only after preservationists learn of the landowners’ intentions to redevelop the site. By then, it is usually too late, as the owners are often in need of money to make such a decision.
The most important piece of the puzzle is to pre-emptively work with the owners and convince them of the value and long-term potential of cultural preservation. Directly alerting the government and launching aggressive Internet campaigns, which seems to be the norm, often only anger the landowners and make them even less likely to cooperate.
Landowners should not be painted as greedy and callous, as it is their property after all and nobody likes to be told what to do with their possessions. Their full cooperation is needed for the sites’ long-term preservation plans, and bashing them will not help.
It is great to see the government take swift action — but it needs to quickly follow up to solve the problem comprehensively.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations