Sat, Jan 19, 2002 page8

• A rewriting of history, Beijing style

  • By Lai Fu-shun 賴福順
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  On Jan. 5, a Taiwanese newspaper reported on the current "Shi Lang (施琅) fever" in China. This was the second piece of news about the Qing (清) Dynasty (1644-1911) admiral to appear in the paper, following a story titled "People's Liberation Army studies Admiral Shi Lang's strategies for invading Taiwan," published last May.

  These two reports reveal Beijing's real intentions, which are best described by the old Chinese saying: "Xiang Zhuang performed the sword dance as a cover for his attempt on Liu Bang's life" (項莊舞劍, 意在沛公). (In 207 B.C., Xiang Zhuang was ordered by Xiang Yu to kill his rival for the leadership of the country, Liu Bang, who survived the assassination attempt and went on to found the Han Dynasty.) The Chinese authorities have repeatedly interfered in historical research on the admiral and have for propaganda purposes established research centers and memorial halls throughout the country to praise Shi for their own political purposes. How should Taiwan react to this "Shi Lang fever?"

  We all know that there are many ways of looking at a single historical event. History is a chronological record of events. When the record is interpreted in different ways, however, endless disputes ensue. How many ways can history be interpreted? History can be viewed from at least four perspectives: the political perspective -- historical records, such as history textbooks, compiled in accordance with the will of the country's rulers; the literary perspective -- historical records that are partly fabricated in order to attract an audience, such as historical novels and plays; private perspectives -- historical records that are gathered according to personal preferences, such as many of the historical references to Taiwan; and the historical perspective -- historical records that are presented according to historical facts. Examples of this perspective are too numerous to list.

  In 1683, Chinese forces, led by Shi, took over Taiwan under orders from Emperor Kangxi (康熙) of the Qing Dynasty. Was this the first or the second time that China had governed Taiwan? The takeover could never be interpreted as "reunification" or "recovery of lost territory" if it was the first time. But it could certainly be interpreted as such if it was the second.

  Let us examine the Manchus' (滿州人) accounts of the matter. After taking control of the island, Emperor Kangxi said, "Taiwan is a foreign land that is not so much related to China ... Taiwan is just an island that is not included on the map of China's Fukien Province."

  His successor, Emperor Yongzheng (雍正), also announced in a written statement when he ascended the throne in 1723 that "Taiwan never belonged to China in ancient times." And what was the opinion of Yongzheng's successor, the Emperor Qianlong (乾隆), who enjoyed the longest reign of all the Qing Dynasty emperors? He actually mentioned in 1786 in a written statement that "Taiwan was not included in the territory of China until the Kangxi period."

  We can hope that China, under the "Shi Lang fever," will view history from a historical perspective, not a political one. But such a hope would seem to be in vain. In fact, historical references to the Qing Dynasty, published in China over the past 20 years, all sing the same tune. China appears destined to continue to fly in the face of historical fact and indulge in loud talk about "reunification" or "recovery of lost territory." Such selective interpretations contradict the historical record and misrepresent the facts about the Qing Dynasty's invasion of Taiwan. Does this mixing of the spurious with the genuine really arm China with the wisdom required to address the Taiwan issue? Can a contrived historical record have any value at all?

  Chinese historians are used to having "selective discussions." While selectively singing Shi's praises for making Taiwan a part of Chinese territory, they have forgotten that the admiral's impact on the island was multi-faceted.

  First, apart from his "achievement" in conquering Taiwan, Shi had a major political impact on the island, ending the Kingdom of Tungning (東寧國, 1662-1683) established by the renowned Koxinga (鄭成功).

  Second, there has been inadequate discussion of Shi's motive for asking Emperor Kangxi to annex Taiwan. Chinese scholars have only scratched the surface of the matter, concentrating on Shi's suggestion that Taiwan be absorbed by China as a southeastern outpost and defensive bulwark, but they are unaware of his other intentions. In fact, it is all too clear that he was motivated by the pursuit of personal wealth and fame. In fact, he accumulated his fortune by forcibly occupying territory and charging illegal fees at local ports, committing the largest-known instance of corruption in Taiwan's history.

  Third, Chinese scholars have only heard the praise heaped on Shi by Chinese people. They have not paid attention to the feelings of the Taiwanese people over the past 400 years. Consider, for example, the fact that the people of Taiwan have built numerous temples nationwide to worship various great historical figures. Among these figures, Koxinga has been worshipped the most. Only one small temple in Penghu, however, exists in tribute to Shi.

  What is the relationship between Taiwan and China? This question has been the island's most sensitive issue ever since the Chinese Communist Party took over China. Although Taiwan has gradually transformed into a pluralistic and culturally and ethnically diverse society over the past 10 years, the question remains controversial. Anyone who publishes articles in accordance with historical facts is vilified.

  Local historians, therefore, are usually "as silent as a winter cicada" (噤若寒蟬), to use the old Chinese saying, because the matter goes to the core of the reunification-independence issue.

  Faced with "Shi Lang fever" across the Taiwan Strait, however, I am willing to take the risk of putting aside political and private perspectives so that we can examine the historical facts. Let's see history for what it really is.

  Lai Fu-shun is a professor of history at Chinese Culture University.

  Translated by Eddy Chang
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Starlux Airlines to apply to join Oneworld alliance

  • 2

    Chinese man captured on a rubber boat

  • 3

    Manila pulls ship from Sabina Shoal

  • 4

    Trump is right about World War III, but wrong about the analysis

  • 5

    Tropical storm to bring rain later this week