When political ideologies are at the center of a debate on the preservation of a monument, a structure less than three decades old can carry the misleading status of a heritage site worthy of protection.
Such absurdity was in full display on Tuesday when the Taipei City Government's Department of Cultural Affairs announced that it would start the process of deciding whether or not the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall should have the protection afforded an historical site.
The abrupt announcement came soon after the Cabinet's decision that the hall would be renamed "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" and the white and blue walls surrounding it demolished.
The urgency of the statement shows the degree of political will the Taipei City Government can demonstrate when trying to protect a structure that was built in 1980.
Since the Cabinet announced its plan last Friday, the city government has left no law in its jurisdiction unturned to save the memorial and its environs. In order to guarantee that the hatchet man of the 228 Incident remains majestically enshrined, the Department of Cultural Affairs first cited the Construction Law (
If this law can be applied to a structure that is younger than Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, then why did the Taipei City Government insist upon tearing down the Jiancheng Circle (
And some sites on the city government's demolition list are older than that. The government has approved tearing down walls surrounding Talungtung's (
And it is chillingly ironic that the very day the city government made an announcement declaring the CKS Memorial Hall a temporary heritage site, the Department of Rapid Transit Systems issued a notice to the Lo Sheng Sanatorium (
Glancing at the list of enduring landmarks chosen to be destroyed by the city government, it's hard not to notice the stench of cultural prejudice in the air.
Cherry-picking history so that Chiang Kai-shek (
Meanwhile, the birth of democracy in this country remains substantially unmemorialized.
Lee Yong-ping (
If her argument is valid, would it then be acceptable for the Taipei City Government to preserve the walls while letting Chiang's symbolic credibility expire? Probably not.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS