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.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS