On Wednesday last week, the Transitional Justice Commission announced its plan to transform Taipei’s Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall into a park that would reflect Taiwan’s authoritarian past and its transition to democracy. This is a necessary step for the nation.
Statues are powerful symbols of a glorious past and present; they represent an attempt of the past to reach into the future and allow for reflection on the past.
However, as masters of the present, we must consider how future generations will look back to our days and the past that the generations collectively share.
Taiwanese society is divided over the future of the memorial.
Advocates of the preservation of former president Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) statue at the memorial hall fall into two camps: Those who see him as someone to be revered and respected, and those who see history as something sacred and therefore to be preserved.
Those who defend the “sanctity” of history must remember that statues such as Chiang’s were built with the sole intent of cementing his authority and personality cult.
It is not a memorial dedicated to Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC), neither is it a memorial to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It is a memorial to him and for him.
For that reason, the KMT will continue to argue for its preservation — because it is Chiang’s legacy and omnipresence in the minds of Taiwanese that brings the party legitimacy.
Taiwanese politics has long outgrown the nation’s authoritarian past, and society must continue to evolve and do away with legacies that cast a dark shadow.
However, the transition deserves to be gradual and respectful. Respectful not just to those who honor Chiang, but to history itself.
The thought of tearing down statues conjures up several images. It could be a triumphant moment where the ills of the past have been rectified, but it could also be a passion-fueled action of a mob abdicating all sense of rationality and destroying anything “old” in their sight.
Recall the Mahatma Gandhi statue that was vandalized during a Black Lives Matter protest in London.
Chiang’s legacy is controversial in China and Taiwan. He has been criticized by the communists just as much as he has been by democratic forces in Taiwan, and for good reason. It was Chiang’s KMT that imposed martial law for 38 years; it was under Chiang that 140,000 Taiwanese were imprisoned, 4,000 of whom were executed in the name of “anti-communism.”
Chiang saw Taiwan as a base to launch a counterattack against the communists, but not as a country of which he was the leader.
Taiwan, to him, was a mere province of the ROC. Despite this, he nonetheless defended the nation’s territory and tirelessly upheld its place on the international stage — for that we must recognize Chiang’s role in Taiwan’s history.
If the statue were to be removed, it must be done with dignity. The ceremony could be capitalized as a moment to bring Taiwanese together, not divide the nation.
Memorials are powerful symbols that materialize the spirit of history — but they also serve as reminders of the pain and suffering of many.
Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley’s sonnet Ozymandias comes to mind.
The poem describes a ruined statue of Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II amid a sprawling desert that once was his great kingdom. The pedestal proclaims: “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” However, there is nothing but the boundless and bare desert stretching far away.
While many bow before Chiang’s bronze statue, neither desert nor ruin surrounds the memorial; instead, a city, vibrant and free, bustling in the day and sparkling in the night surrounds him. All this was not his work, but that of Taiwanese.
Taiwan is in the process of forming an identity of its own; its society and politics will only continue to drift farther from China and mature as a democracy.
The memorial, as a symbol of the ROC and Taiwan’s darkest days, will only continue to stifle the nation’s search for its own identity.
Nigel Li is a student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.
Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well. A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?” If you were a Uighur, what would you say? What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.” Such a harsh response would
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day address has attracted a great deal of analysis and many different interpretations. One core question is why Tsai chose this occasion to discuss Taiwan’s national status. What was her main motive and what effect did she intend to have? These are issues that clearly need further clarification. The section of Tsai’s speech that attracted the most attention internationally was, not surprisingly, the part where she laid out “four commitments” that she said should serve as common ground for all Taiwanese, regardless of political affiliation. The commitments were to liberal democracy and constitutional government; that the
Double Ten Day, Oct. 10 every year, is an important day for Taiwan, as it marks the Republic of China’s (ROC) National Day. Major holidays are usually a time for celebration and commemorative activities, but among all the clamor and excitement, Double Ten reflects one essential fact: that Taiwan is still not a normalized society. As usual, there was a large parade in front of the Presidential Office Building, displaying to the world Taiwan’s social diversity and its soft and hard power, and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) gave an address, relaying her message to the nation and to the world, while the
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by