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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS