Did Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) have a child-like and naive temperament?
This question was recently at the center of a very heated debate between a Control Yuan member and writer Ping Lu (平路) regarding the correct Chinese translation of Vladimir Lenin’s description of the Republic of China’s (ROC) founding father.
The dispute stemmed from the Council for Cultural Affairs’ plan to spend NT$20 million (US$627,000) on a documentary about Sun as part of the ROC’s centennial celebration next year.
Ping Lu, who has agreed to take part in the project, raised the ire of Academia Sinica fellow Hu Fo (胡佛) and professor-turned-Control Yuan member Chou Yang-shan (周陽山) when she said Sun was a figure who “even Vladimir Lenin would have ridiculed as naive and innocent.”
Hu and Chou penned an open letter chiding Ping Lu’s “frivolous and insolent” mentality in handling the project.
Chou warned the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation that they would be held accountable and face censure from the Control Yuan if the documentary deviated from historical facts. Hoping to defuse the controversy, Council for Cultural Affairs Minister Emile Sheng (盛治仁) quickly came forward to say Ping Lu was merely an adviser and not the producer of the documentary, adding that the film would be shot in a way that accurately reflects the historical events with a humanistic perspective.
People can decide for themselves whether or not Lenin thought Sun was innocent or naive by flipping through Volume 18, “Democracy and Narodism in China,” in Lenin’s Collected Works (4th English Edition). It is in this volume that the debated phrase can be found.
“And Sun Yat-sen himself, with inimitable, one might say virginal, naivete, smashes his reactionary Narodnik theory by admitting what reality forces him to admit, namely, that ‘China is on the eve of a gigantic industrial [ie, capitalist] development,’” Lenin wrote.
While the strife between Ping Lu and Chou ostensibly was about differences in the Chinese translation and the beliefs it reflects, the crux of the matter is Chou’s attempt to meddle in freedom of expression through his capacity as a Control Yuan member.
Chou said the film, financed by the government, should proceed with caution and carefully depict historical events. While some might think he was simply making a friendly reminder about the potentially sensitive nature of the documentary, his actions could also intimidate the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation and make them think twice about pursuing independent thought during the production of the documentary.
As Chou said, the documentary would be government funded, but the government gets its funds from taxpayers, which is all the more reason why the film should reflect the many different views held by Taiwanese, rather than just one individual’s perspective.
Furthermore, Sun was a human being just like rest of us, and there is no need in today’s democratic Taiwan to deify a protagonist in a documentary.
What recourse do people have to censure a Control Yuan member who censures free speech?
If the council or the ROC Centenary Foundation yield to an argument that is reminiscent of autocracy in its suppression of freedom of expression, it would ultimately result in a huge step back in our hard-fought right to express ourselves freely and openly.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS