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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS