I recently read in a newspaper here in Hong Kong that the DPP administration has designs on renaming the White Terror Temple as "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall."
Memorial? Much has happened since I left Taiwan a half year ago. Is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) planning to declare martial law -- which, now that I think of it, might be a balm for their political blundering -- or is there still no one in their ranks who understands English?
I read also that the administration rightly wishes to remove Chiang Kai-shek's (
This begs the question of what to put in his place. I've got a few suggestions.
After first melting the dead dictator into commemorative coins, the space the statue currently occupies might make suitable digs to display, say, a new constitution, which would justify the "Democracy" part of the building's new title -- if not the "Memorial" part.
Or, foregoing this, how about a Taiwan Liquor Corp display case with Taiwan Beer and kaoliang (sorghum wine). After all, these beverages have done more to form bonds among diverse ethnic groups than anyone or anything else.
Of course, to be practical, the beer and kaoliang would need to be available for consumption. And given that the nearest convenience store is blocks away, perhaps the space should be converted into the world's most ostentatious 7-Eleven. Given that Taiwan has more of the brightly lit convenience stores than almost anywhere else on the planet, nothing could be more representative ... except for a betel nut stand, of which there are more.
That's it, I think: A big, blue-roofed betel nut stand, neon-lit and staffed by Lin Chi-lin (
Ah, Democracy! I remember it well.
David Momphard
Hong Kong
In Kaohsiung, on the evening of March 13, the Kaohsiung City Government began changing the sign of the Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center; it will be replaced with a sign reading "Kaohsiung Cultural Center."
I hadn't even heard much about this decision until there were television reports of "blue" minded folks out there that night, protesting the removal of "Chiang Kai-shek" from the sign.
What a contrast compared to all the brouhaha over changing the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to the "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" and the proposed demolition of its outer walls.
On March 2, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) announced that the walls of the memorial hall would be demolished.
Soon after, it was leaked that Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) had presided over a closed-door Cabinet meeting (on March 2) to rename the hall.
Though the Cabinet had approved the name change and demolition of the outer walls, the Taipei City Government stepped in, using its authority as the memorial's managing body to invoke articles 12 and 17 of the Cultural Resources Preservation Act (文化資產保存法).
This legislation allows the Taipei Department of Cultural Affairs to declare the hall a temporary historical monument, allowing the debate to drag out for at least another year.
The Cultural Resources Preservation Act states that a building must be at least 50 years old to be declared a historical monument. The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is about 27 years old; it is the newest building on record to be evaluated for its cultural and historical significance.
If it were up to me, I'd prefer a mass removal of any and all relics related to the Chiang regime, no holds barred. But if they must remain I'm not necessarily in favor of simply changing the name, or beautifying the building.
If the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is to remain, facts should be posted to enlighten the public on how Chiang Kai-shek governed the island and "safeguarded" the interests of its residents. These facts would include his imposing martial law in 1949, ordering the systematic elimination (murders) of intellectuals in the events associated with the 228 Incident and implementing policies to "reeducate" the people of Taiwan.
A sound understanding of historical events and context seems to be in order here.
To me, the renaming of buildings like the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall seems like an exacerbation of the already pathological view that the Taiwanese have of their national identity.
Felicia Lin
Kaohsiung
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS