In accordance with the government’s announcement in February, the name plaque at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall will be removed by the end of this month and replaced with the old one bearing the name “Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.”
At the time of the announcement, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the government would gauge public opinion on the controversy, including the fate of the “Liberty Square” inscription and whether the four-character inscription dazhong zhizheng (大中至正) should be reinstated at the hall entrance.
Those who took Ma on his word on the memorial hall have been disappointed yet again.
Shortly after his big win in the presidential election in March last year, Ma said “the renaming of the hall is not a pressing matter” when asked by reporters what he would do about the memorial hall after taking office.
Less than three months into his presidency, however, the Executive Yuan withdrew from the legislature a proposal submitted by the former Democratic Progressive Party administration that proposed abolishing the Organic Statute of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂組織條例).
This was followed by a motion passed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated legislature in January demanding that the Ministry of Education “quickly remove the name plaque of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall and reinstate the name plaque for the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in its original location.”
So much for saying that the memorial hall issue was “not a pressing matter.”
Ma’s unkept promise to gauge public opinion on the renaming of the hall is set to trigger more disillusionment.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Education, three public forums were hosted by Shih Hsin University last month to discuss issues related to the hall.
Each of the three was conducted behind closed doors, during which a total of eight or 10 academics, experts and historians were invited to share their views on what the government should do about the “Liberty Square” inscription and other matters relating to the hall.
While the government was quick to pat itself on the back for “making an effort to seek a consensus,” the fact of the matter is that these so-called “public forums” simply aired the opinions of a select few.
The way these forums were conducted and the failure to facilitate broader public dialogue and engagement show the administration’s lack of commitment to democratic principles and betray an arrogant attitude. It holds the public in contempt.
The Ma government needs to understand that democracy is not just about holding elections, but also involving and respecting the voices of the public on issues of national and social importance.
If a government fails to honor that commitment, then “democracy” becomes a cynical slogan.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS