Taipei has undergone massive changes in recent decades, with new areas springing up and old ones being demolished or redeveloped. Very little appears to be permanent, save a few relics like the four remaining city gates. Communities are razed, despite the protests of residents, in the name of modernity. Often the protests come too late, along with the question: “Why was something not done sooner to try and save it?”
The latest addition to the list of endangered environments is Novel Hall in Taipei’s Xinyi District (信義). The 935-seat theater was built by the Koo (辜) family’s Chinatrust Commercial Bank as part of its headquarters’ facility and became Taipei’s first privately operated performing arts center when it opened in 1997.
Named after the original Novel Hall that Koo Hsian-jung (辜顯榮) established in 1915 in Taipei, the theater is the home stage for the Taipei Li-Yuan Peking Opera Theatre and the annual Novel Hall Dance Series. It has hosted a variety of local and international theater, dance and music groups, and has become an integral part of Taipei’s cultural life. It is run by Vivien H.C. Ku (辜懷群), a granddaughter of Koo Hsian-jung.
The theater had just reopened on Sept. 23 last year after undergoing a multimillion-dollar upgrade of its lighting and stage system, so it was a major shock when Chinatrust announced on May 4 that it would be selling its Songshou Road location as part of a planned move to new headquarters in Nangang District (南港), and that the theater would have to go.
A protest Web page was set up, cultural icons such as Cloud Gate Dance Theatre founder Lin Hwai-min (林懷民) and author Kenneth Pai (白先勇) called for the theater’s preservation, Minister of Culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) asked for consultations, questions were raised in the Taipei City Council and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) spoke of promises made before the Xinyi site was developed.
On Friday last week, Hau promised the city government would present written documents within a week to remind the company of its promise — although as of press time last night there had been no further word from him or sight of the documents. Meanwhile, Taipei Deputy Mayor Chang Chin-oh (張金鶚) said the city would not agree to any request from the company to reclassify the land or demolish the theater.
Left unasked was the question of how this situation was allowed to reach a crisis point to begin with.
Chinatrust Financial Holding began construction at its Nangang site in 2009, mentioning in its past few annual reports that the site would be home to a 30-story headquarters building, a 20-story commercial building and a 14-story business hotel, with a moving date set for next year. There was no mention of a theater at the new place, though now company officials say they will try to find a place in Nangang for one.
Company officials note that under the Banking Act (銀行法), the banking industry is not allowed to invest in commercial real estate, so Chinatrust has to sell the Xinyi site.
Given that the relocation has been planned for years and the Banking Act’s requirements are well known, why were questions not raised about Novel Hall’s fate back in 2009? What about last year, when the Ministry of Culture, among other benefactors, gave NT$20 million (US$667,100) to subsidize Novel Hall’s overhaul? Why was Chinatrust not asked about its intentions before the fundraising began and so much money was allocated?
Novel Hall is unique precisely because it is privately run and has been able to avoid the staleness of city-run sites such as Chungshan Hall and Metropolitan Hall. It plays a vital role in Taipei life, one that would be hard to replicate in Nangang. Hopefully, the company, the city, the ministry and others will be able to work out some arrangement to keep the theater where it is. However, it is equally important to determine why no one noticed the threat to the theater before May 4. What other development time bombs are ticking away?
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS