Recently, the fire at the Cloud Gate Dance Theatre (
While criticizing the meagerness of the government's cultural budget, the argument also emerged that funding is not the only issue involved. With the presidential election moving into the debate phase, we feel that whether the candidates hold the typical politician's narrow and mistaken attitudes toward cultural policy is an issue of concern to the public.
Cultural policy cannot be sustained by only ideologies of efficiency and utilitarianism. In recent years, the government has repeatedly put forth slogan-style cultural and education policies, such as: "50 billion in five years," "The culture and creative industry development act" and "The digital content industry development act," which easily turn culture into a target to be achieved in a few short years, or use "culture and creativity" as a selling point for rapidly increasing the GDP and increasing employment opportunities.
Obviously, cultural policy has been dominated by the logic of utilitarianism and efficiency. Judging by the platforms put forward by the two presidential candidates, they have yet to abandon the idea that culture is something to be used to achieve political results.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
Unfortunately, culture is still relegated to being a means to an end, without putting forth the depth of vision that a strong cultural policy requires.
Cultural policy should be severed from the sterile mathematics of economic language. Hsieh's "happiness economy" and Ma's suggestion of elevating the Council of Cultural Affairs (
The nurturing of arts groups relies on the establishment of long-term policy rather than dishing out money and awards and dealing with cases on an individual basis when the opportunity arises. In addition to the plan to reuse vacant space for long-term rental by arts groups that has gained popularity following the Cloud Gate incident, the government should also consider more proactively instating a subsidy system, so that artists who find it difficult to obtain social resources can still maintain their creative livelihoods.
In addition, artistic and cultural creativity require a media platform for circulating, preserving and displaying information. Currently, Taiwan's commercial media only cater to viewer ratings and the advertising market, and there is a serious media shortage of space for non-mainstream and avant-garde culture for smaller audiences. The importance of public media resources devoted to promoting culture is self-evident.
On one hand, such a policy could work to ensure that cultural promotion is not curbed by political or economic forces and introduce the public to domestic and international cultural news and activities.
On the other hand, public media can provide a greater variety of cultural groups with a media platform to show their creations to audiences. Sufficient resources for a good public media system are fundamental for a cultural policy.
We call on the two presidential candidates to abandon their vague, shortsighted campaign promises and rethink the core values necessary for a real cultural policy. Returning to a visionary view of culture would promote a more dynamic political democracy and advance culture's economic value.
In addition to encouraging the valuable creation of art and culture and increasing the "output value" of culture, a cultural policy should be linked with the education system, the media structure and cultural history.
One can tell if a government has cultural vision by observing the extent to which it leads society -- unbiased, strategically and systematically -- toward cultural values that are more democratic, diversified and capable of acknowledging differences. In the current environment of political slogans, the public should pay close attention to the presidential candidates' thoughts on cultural policy.
Jian Miao-ju is an assistant professor at the Department of Communication at National Chung Cheng University. Tang Shih-che is an associate professor at the same department. Both are members of the Campaign for Media Reform.
Translated by Angela Hong and Anna Stiggelbout
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS