Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was officially renamed National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (
Friends of the late dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (
It seems impossible to persuade such people that democratic countries shouldn't have memorial halls dedicated to dictators. That this is a source of embarrassment for a country such as Taiwan is simply too much for the worshipers at Chiang's temple to make sense of.
If you speak to them about how Chiang murdered countless innocent people by sending troops to Taiwan during the 228 Incident, or how he tore apart families during his White Terror rule in the 1950s and 1960s or how a single man's will took the lives of thousands of people, Chiang's defenders choose not to hear. They say that talk of these incidents constitutes slander of the great Chiang and that no such things ever happened. Or they try their best to rationalize the brutality of his actions by saying that "those decisions were thrust upon him by extraordinary times."
Just as religious belief cannot be debated in purely rational terms, Chiang's worshipers choose to turn a deaf ear to reasonable arguments because of their pious faith in their god. For this kind of ignorant loyalty, I have nothing but the harshest condemnation.
The problem is that some pan-blue politicians have realized that there are still many Chiang worshipers among Taiwan's population who are incapable of independent thought. Sensing an opportunity in the renaming proposal, they have taken advantage of it in an attempt to serve their own purposes.
These politicians have clearly already abandoned Chiang's policy of retaking China from the communists, but they still appear to care a lot about whether or not his memorial hall is renamed. Therefore they take the anti-dictatorial sentiment that has emerged in Taiwan, and which is an important part of transitional justice, and try to paint it as something ugly. They have three main avenues of attack in this smear campaign.
First, they say that renaming the hall stirs up ethnic conflict. However, I have some questions about this assertion. Unless it is the case that all Mainlanders defend Chiang's dictatorial rule and want his temple preserved, and that all localized Taiwanese love democracy and want the hall renamed, changing the name of the hall cannot cause ethnic opposition. But are all Mainlanders really willing to have their ethnic group hijacked by pan-blue politicians? Chiang also killed many Mainlander intellectuals in the 1950s, and his White Terror was certainly not dedicated to oppressing any single ethnic group.
Second, pan-blue politicians say that renaming the hall is an electioneering ploy on the part of the pan-green camp. This is a bizarre claim, unless we accept that a majority of voters are in favor of the proposal to rename the hall. If the proposal is so universally popular, then why are pan-blue politicians so blatantly disregarding public opinion?
In democratic countries, the public's will is the basis for the government's actions. I truly hope that the administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) takes elections into consideration. Wouldn't this mean that Taiwanese everywhere have already woken up from their Chiang-imposed stupor and are alert and attentive? But today there are still many people who have been brainwashed by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) old state education system. This is the main reason why the heavily fascist pan-blue parties have a majority and can do as they please in the legislature.
Third, pan-blue politicians say the name change was purely ideological. I freely admit that renaming the hall was about democratic ideology. But is it not also imposing ideology to deify a dictator as "savior of the people, helmsman of the age and hero of the world," and construct a grand palace-like memorial hall for his personal worship for 27 years?
Dictators the world over must eventually be judged by history. That the renaming of a memorial to a dictator has created such a powerful backlash in Taiwan is evidence that our democracy is still young. We have to work harder to promote education about democracy. Because of this ongoing process, the emergence of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall is all the more meaningful.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a history professor at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Marc Langer
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
RSS