Taiwan finds itself in a period of transitional justice. Taiwanese, determined to make social dialogue a reality, are facing challenges with courage and hope.
An article on Monday last week titled “Taiwan’s hopes for transitional justice” by Academia Sinica research fellow Wu Nai-teh (吳乃德) in the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) made a big impact as it pointed out several ways to create social dialogue.
The best place for implementing these ideas is the museum at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.
During President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) first term in office, the Ministry of Culture ran a memorial hall review and art transformation project, but the project did not generate enough ideas.
The media reported that many programs remained unannounced, stuck in the Executive Yuan, Whether they were not announced following passionate decisions over political name rectification in 2007 and 2008 will never be known.
During the first name rectification campaign in 2007, almost 100 White Terror and 228 Incident victims and family members stepped into the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall for the first time in their lives to express their support for changing the name to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.
It is difficult to imagine what they felt as they did so.
In 2008, then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) undid the name change and proposed an exhibition that would show Chiang’s mistakes as well as his achievements, something he never followed through on during his eight years in office.
Wu’s article brought up the complicated issue of whether the memorial hall should be kept.
Before politicians make a decision, he wrote, it would build mutual understanding to use the memorial hall as a museum in which people could talk about the nation’s contested history, as was intended by the theme for International Museum Day in 2017: “Museums and Contested Histories: Saying the Unspeakable in Museums.”
The theme for this year’s International Museum Day is “Museums for Equality: Diversity and Inclusion.”
Perhaps this could offer Taiwanese society an opportunity to collectively gain a deeper understanding of difficulties encountered and achievements gained in transitional justice experiences in Germany and South Africa, as well as countries in eastern Europe, South America and Asia.
Using the memorial hall space to host comparative exhibitions, films, symposiums and other activities addressing transitional justice in Taiwan and abroad, while also collecting and publishing visitors’ opinions would be a transparent and creative way to gauge public opinion and build mutual trust, while respecting democracy and freedom.
The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, the National Human Rights Museum, the National 228 Memorial Museum and the Transitional Justice Commission should work together with private museums to gain an understanding of what most members of the public are thinking.
Using the museum in this way would have the lowest social cost, while offering the best opportunity for dialogue and making use of soft power.
It is also a precious and unique opportunity gifted to Taiwanese by their forbears’ sacrifice and struggle, which built the freedom that Taiwan enjoys today. It is an opportunity for all of Taiwan to show the world how it implements transitional justice.
Tsao Chin-jung is president of Taiwan Art-in Design.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS