This week marks the 30th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, suppression of the democracy movement in Beijing. In Taiwan, Chinese Television System planned to premiere its documentary 1989: Restless Ideals (1989躁動的理想) at the art house cinema of Eslite bookstore’s Songyan store in Taipei, but Eslite canceled the booking on the pretext that the cinema only shows films with artistic and cultural themes, not those involving direct marketing, religious preaching or political activities.
Meanwhile, Public Television Service chose Friday last week to broadcast the French-made documentary Operation Yellow Bird, the inside story of a little-known operation after the June 4 crackdown to rescue people wanted in China for their involvement in the democracy movement.
Looking at the fate of the two documentaries, people are surprised at the attitude of Eslite, which used to be called the “pride of Taiwan.”
Could it be that just because Eslite has set up shop in China, it has forgotten Taiwan’s value as the only ethnic Chinese liberal democracy?
If Eslite’s share price and superficial success depend on bowing down to totalitarianism, it had better quit boasting that it has ever been the “pride of Taiwan.”
Eslite, like any other bookshop in Taiwan, can display books and magazines that express all kinds of political ideologies, but it has slapped itself in the face by refusing to show a documentary about China’s 1989 democracy movement.
It makes one wonder what Eslite thinks about Hong Kong’s “Umbrella movement” or Taiwan’s Wild Lily and Sunflower movements. Would Eslite dare to display books about these movements on the shelves of its branches in China?
Eslite says that it is not appropriate to show films about political activities, but what it is doing is practicing self-censorship for fear of offending the Chinese government.
The National Human Rights Museum displays information about crimes against human rights, and some local governments screen films and videos about these and other issues. The point of such activities is to explore whether there is equality of rights and powers between the public and the government, or whether the government is exploiting and controlling the public.
The US documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has a similar objective. It questions whether the true purpose behind the US’ war against Iraq was to uphold the interests of the state and big business, while the public had to pay for the war and ordinary people lost their lives in the conflict.
China’s democracy movement, Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) reforms and opening up, and today’s struggle for domination between China and the US all have to do with choosing a path for national development.
Surely a film that reflects on the democracy movement and the June 4 crackdown is a lesson in history and the issue of human rights, but Eslite insists on labeling it as a political activity. It is very poor judgement on Eslite’s part.
Some media outlets in Taiwan act like the official media of the Chinese Communist Party by always speaking out for the Chinese communist government. It has become so bad that international news organizations have voiced their concerns to Taiwan. Now even Eslite’s Songyan store has imposed political censorship on a film to comply with Beijing’s political standards.
From the “pride of Taiwan” to bowing to China’s whim, what we are seeing is not just the downfall of Eslite, but also a somber cloud hanging over Taiwan.
Chang Hsun-ching is a former librarian.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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