Through amendments to the Regulations for Designating and Abolishing Historical Sites (古蹟指定及廢止審查辦法), the Council for Cultural Affairs has transferred authority over National Taiwan Democracy Hall, formerly Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, to the central government and has removed the inscription dazhong zhizheng (
The Ministry of Education's removal of the inscription has incited passionate objections from elderly veterans and deep-blue activists who swear to defend it to the death. There is also a third force, youths who are calling for an end to the vicious pan-blue versus pan-green battle, who on Friday attempted to delay the removal in the interest of maintaining the peace.
In order to avoid breaking the law, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has achieved its political objective through multiple amendments to legislation on various levels. On the surface, the change is legal, but it amounts to the deepest travesty of justice. If politicians can alter laws when they see fit, then the sanctity and objectivity of the legal system becomes entirely vacuous.
Second, and more importantly, the issue of legality is only a subsidiary concern. In essence, this is a historical rather than a legal problem. The legal conflict only highlights the discrepancy in historical interpretations between the two political camps. If we always view history through a fog, rather than trying to restore historical truths and give Chiang Kai-Shek (蔣介石) a reasonable historical status, then our views regarding the memorial to Chiang will always be divergent.
The pan-green camp sees Chiang as an authoritarian tyrant, the perpetrator of the 228 Incident and the White Terror era. They believe that in a democratic age we should not commemorate a past dictator, a belief which accords with transitional justice. This is of course a reasonable argument, but the pan-blue camp has a different view of this historical period.
They believe Chiang contributed greatly to Taiwan. At least, by retreating here, he allowed Taiwan to escape communist rule. Otherwise, today Taiwan would only be a province of communist China, with no question of independence. They also do not agree with the argument that Chiang is the perpetrator of the 228 Incident.
History is open to different interpretation by different people depending on their experiences.
Mainlanders in Taiwan do not understand what it was like in Taiwan under Japanese occupation, whereas Taiwanese do not understand the experience of fighting the Japanese in China. This is because the two separate groups had entirely different life experiences during that part of history. Therefore the two groups have an understandably different interpretation of the period.
Yet, the period of history following World War II is a shared experience. The 228 Incident in the 1940s, the White Terror in the 1950s and the subsequent economic miracle and developments are all within the common memory of the elder residents of the nation. The reason why there are different views on this historical period is because records are incomplete and these topics have long been considered taboo. In a historical fog, of course we cannot see everything. This is the source of all the misunderstandings and animosity.
The Black Bat Squadron is a small interlude in post-war Taiwanese history. During the Cold War, these air cadets risked their lives to collect information on China on behalf of Taiwan for the US. Their sacrifice is touching. When Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) recounted this part of history at National Tsing Hua University and asked the audience to pay their respects to the squadron, many pan-green supporters were also deeply moved.
It shows that if we take a humanitarian starting point, reaching compassion, understanding and consensus on history should not be difficult. If this gesture had not originated from Lung but from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) the significance would have been even greater.
Much of post-war history is a common memory for the older generation in Taiwan. We should face this historical period together. That which has been beneficial to Taiwan ought to be recognized, while that which has been detrimental should be reproved. We can only resolve the problems of the present by confronting history attentively. The interpretation of post-war history cannot be ignored when attempting to resolve Taiwan's current problems.
If Mainlanders were willing to acknowledge Chiang's responsibility for the 228 Incident and the White Terror era, and Taiwanese were willing to credit him when discussing the nation's economic miracle, then the question of how the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall should be dealt with could be discussed and an appropriate solution devised. When we can reach a consensus on post-war history, then we will be one nation. A nation with a communal sharing of history.
The DPP claims to be a party representative of Taiwan. However, many of its actions tear the nation apart. Recognition and consensus is a soft process that cannot be achieved by brute force.
If the DPP were serious about building Taiwanese recognition, then it would need to have compassion and tolerance in facing outside groups to give them peace of mind, rather than cause fear and opposition on a daily basis. Only then can an ideology that is based on a Taiwanese identity grow to its fruition.
This is the road to building statehood.
Lee Ting-tsan is a professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Angela Hong
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS