The Taiwan Peace Foundation (
The museum is municipal property, operated under private management and municipal sponsorship.
The exhibits have helped me to understand the sorrow of the Taiwanese and the pain of the "Mainlanders" (Chinese immigrants who arrived after 1949 and their descendants) and sense the longing for peace and ethnic integration.
On weekends, thousands of people of different races, age and sex have watched folk culture performances in the small plaza in front of the 228 Memorial Park (
When the management contract was first signed, the Taipei government asked the museum not to seek profits by charging high fees, set the admission fee at NT$10 per person and required periodic free admission for Taipei residents and students.
The foundation had to finance the museum's operation with special government grants and private donations. Modeling its operation after museums in other advanced countries, the foundation recruited business talents who were good at fund raising and management specialists to serve as directors. Based on the success of the museum's operations, I cannot help but admire the director's accomplishment in running the museum as an enterprise.
I also admire the two mayors who allowed the private operation of the museum and the introduction of the idea of running a museum as a business enterprise. They helped build a sense of identity among the residents of greater Taipei.
Regretfully, before the management contract expired, the city's Bureau of Cultural Affairs violated both the contract's principles and the government procurement law.
Under the contract, the city government granted the foundation priority in renewing the contract. So why did the city fail to obtain a novation or propose a contract amendment in the six months after the government procurement law was passed?
Claiming that public bidding is required under the new procurement law, the city unilaterally changed the terms of the museum contract from the initial 3-years to 10-months. The move was an obvious breach of contract. It is no wonder that the foundation refused to accept the change and has even threatened to decline management.
On the other hand, if the foundation accepts the new contract, shouldn't the new term come under the procurement law? Doesn't this also make the city's under the table agreement with the foundation also illegal? Therefore, the city's move is contradictory.
The procurement law does not mandate public bidding for all purchasing by government agencies. Selective and restrictive bidding are other alternatives. Why doesn't the city government adopt one of these alternatives? Why does it try to force a contract renewal based on an authoritarian mentality?
It is truly beyond the understanding of legal and administrative logics. Perhaps politics is the real underlying reason?
The truly fascinating thing is that the Bureau of Cultural Affairs' Director-general, Lung Ying-tai (
Chen Pi-yuan is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS