On Jan. 16, the Presidential Office held a roundtable forum on the cultural and creative industry, and on Feb. 21 it held an important meeting on the economic situation. One of the strategies decided upon at that second meeting was to promote six key emerging industries, including culture and creativity.
Unfortunately, during the same period, buildings of cultural value were demolished including ancient kilns in Miaoli, the Chou Family Mansion and Garden in Sijhih (汐止), the Scholar’s House in Lujhou (蘆洲) and granaries in Sansia (三峽) and Yingge (鶯歌). Media reports also showed the dilapidated remains of a Shinto shrine in Hsinchu.
Sad to say, while the central government may be sincere in its pledges to protect cultural assets, local authorities feel free to demolish them. In the case of Miaoli’s kilns, the county government said it was exercising “local autonomy” in knocking them down. When it comes to promoting other kinds of cultural activities, however, these local officials never hesitate to ask the central government for money.
In Europe, the US and many other parts of the world, it is considered a great honor for a town or village to have something classified as a cultural asset. In Taiwan, however, when any such classification is proposed the response is likely to be overnight demolition. As a result, our cultural assets continue to disappear.
Divorced from material culture, creativity becomes an alienated and empty affair. Culture is inseparable from life, and this is especially true of tangible assets such as buildings and relics. It is natural that they should provide the inspiration and backdrop for cultural and creative activities. Regrettably, such cultural bases, including settlements built to house military dependents, are disappearing at an alarming rate.
What lies behind this destruction? The root cause is an outmoded attitude of putting development above everything else, of “out with the old, in with the new.” This is reflected in many laws that are not conservation friendly and lack the concept of “cultural justice.” Moves are now afoot to amend the 2005 Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (文化資產保存法). For this process to be effective, it is essential to build alliances between government ministries, departments and non-governmental organizations, and to think in terms of historic buildings and relics.
Some strategies that would more effectively protect cultural heritage are: Listing potential cultural assets in each area and taking them into consideration in regional and urban planning; including cultural heritage evaluation in all title deeds, which would require owners to keep them in proper condition but would not affect the right to buy and sell the property; employing cultural philanthropy trusts to foster “civic conglomerates” to help preserve cultural assets; adding a clause providing for citizens’ litigation to rein in government departments that fail to show proper concern for cultural assets; changing the law to give central authorities greater power to intervene at the local level to preserve cultural assets.
Of all the cities in the world, why have so many great artists and writers chosen to live in Paris, the city of which Ernest Hemingway wrote: “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.”
Cultural feasts are to be had everywhere in Paris, and consequently the city has long been a hotbed of creativity.
If Taiwan’s creative industry is to prosper, we need to start by respecting our cultural heritage. By thinking globally and acting locally, we may yet see a day when Taiwan, like Paris, will be thought of as a “moveable feast.”
Juju Wang is a professor at the Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS