I recently read in a newspaper here in Hong Kong that the DPP administration has designs on renaming the White Terror Temple as "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall."
Memorial? Much has happened since I left Taiwan a half year ago. Is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) planning to declare martial law -- which, now that I think of it, might be a balm for their political blundering -- or is there still no one in their ranks who understands English?
I read also that the administration rightly wishes to remove Chiang Kai-shek's (
This begs the question of what to put in his place. I've got a few suggestions.
After first melting the dead dictator into commemorative coins, the space the statue currently occupies might make suitable digs to display, say, a new constitution, which would justify the "Democracy" part of the building's new title -- if not the "Memorial" part.
Or, foregoing this, how about a Taiwan Liquor Corp display case with Taiwan Beer and kaoliang (sorghum wine). After all, these beverages have done more to form bonds among diverse ethnic groups than anyone or anything else.
Of course, to be practical, the beer and kaoliang would need to be available for consumption. And given that the nearest convenience store is blocks away, perhaps the space should be converted into the world's most ostentatious 7-Eleven. Given that Taiwan has more of the brightly lit convenience stores than almost anywhere else on the planet, nothing could be more representative ... except for a betel nut stand, of which there are more.
That's it, I think: A big, blue-roofed betel nut stand, neon-lit and staffed by Lin Chi-lin (
Ah, Democracy! I remember it well.
David Momphard
Hong Kong
In Kaohsiung, on the evening of March 13, the Kaohsiung City Government began changing the sign of the Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center; it will be replaced with a sign reading "Kaohsiung Cultural Center."
I hadn't even heard much about this decision until there were television reports of "blue" minded folks out there that night, protesting the removal of "Chiang Kai-shek" from the sign.
What a contrast compared to all the brouhaha over changing the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to the "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" and the proposed demolition of its outer walls.
On March 2, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) announced that the walls of the memorial hall would be demolished.
Soon after, it was leaked that Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) had presided over a closed-door Cabinet meeting (on March 2) to rename the hall.
Though the Cabinet had approved the name change and demolition of the outer walls, the Taipei City Government stepped in, using its authority as the memorial's managing body to invoke articles 12 and 17 of the Cultural Resources Preservation Act (文化資產保存法).
This legislation allows the Taipei Department of Cultural Affairs to declare the hall a temporary historical monument, allowing the debate to drag out for at least another year.
The Cultural Resources Preservation Act states that a building must be at least 50 years old to be declared a historical monument. The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is about 27 years old; it is the newest building on record to be evaluated for its cultural and historical significance.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a mass removal of any and all relics related to the Chiang regime, no holds barred. But if they must remain I'm not necessarily in favor of simply changing the name, or beautifying the building.
If the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is to remain, facts should be posted to enlighten the public on how Chiang Kai-shek governed the island and "safeguarded" the interests of its residents. These facts would include his imposing martial law in 1949, ordering the systematic elimination (murders) of intellectuals in the events associated with the 228 Incident and implementing policies to "reeducate" the people of Taiwan.
A sound understanding of historical events and context seems to be in order here.
To me, the renaming of buildings like the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall seems like an exacerbation of the already pathological view that the Taiwanese have of their national identity.
Felicia Lin
Kaohsiung
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS