Following the introduction of the NT$200 bill, very few people have chosen to use it. One reason for the low adoption rate is that Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) image is on the bill and as a form of silent protest many Taiwanese have avoided using it.
As a result of Chiang’s actions following the 228 Incident in 1947 he is known as a butcher in Taiwan.
Outside the Houses of Parliament in London there stands a statue of Oliver Cromwell. When it was first erected, the statue put the cat amongst the pigeons and it still provokes debate to this day, not least because Cromwell, when he assumed the role of lord protector, killed a great number of people.
We can say for certain that Cromwell’s image would never appear on a British bank note.
Although Scotland and Northern Ireland both have the authority to issue their own bank notes and coinage, those issued by the Bank of England are the most widely used in the UK. They feature images of Britain’s most noted academics and greatest political leaders.
Of the bills in circulation, the ￡5 bill carries an image of World War II leader and recipient of the Nobel Price in Literature, former British prime minister Winston Churchill, while the ￡10 bill has an image of Jane Austen, who wrote Pride and Prejudice. The ￡20 bill features an image of Adam Smith, the “father of economics” and author of The Wealth of Nations.
Taiwan should use similar criteria when selecting an image to replace Chiang on its NT$200 bill.
Democracy advocate Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕) is acknowledged by all Taiwanese as the “father of free speech” in Taiwan. Without his sacrifice of self-immolation in 1989, the nation would not enjoy the freedoms it does today.
If the new NT$200 bill were to feature Deng’s portrait, this would not only provide tangible evidence of transitional justice, it would also resolve the issue of the public’s reluctance to use the bill.
If Taiwanese were reminded daily of Deng’s sacrifice, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and his ilk would not be able to get away with their shameful argument that freedom of assembly should be restricted to prioritize economic growth.
Despite Germany having the strongest economy of any European nation, German citizens frequently take to the streets en masse to protest against the extremist Alternative for Germany. Striking workers are also a common occurrence in Germany, yet none of this has affected the nation’s economy.
I would like to ask New Taipei City Deputy Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) — who is also the KMT’s New Taipei City mayoral candidate in next Saturday’s elections, and whose actions indirectly led to Deng’s death in 1989 — how he would view the substitution of Chiang for Deng on the NT$200 bill.
Hou was never prosecuted for the criminal liability of his vile actions.
Taiwanese society is very forgiving. In other nations where transitional justice has been implemented, someone such as Hou would not have been allowed to get off scot-free, let alone participate in an election.
Martin Oei is a political commentator based in Germany.
Translated by Edward Jones
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS