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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS