If Taiwan is a culturally diverse country, then how is that reflected in our museums? The National Palace Museum in Taipei remains the main portal for those who want to learn about Chinese culture in Taiwan. The only Taiwanese museum dedicated specifically to Aboriginal culture is the Cultural Park Bureau of the Cabinet’s Council of Indigenous Peoples. Its status is uncertain, it lacks research experts and its permanent exhibitions are not being updated. In other words, it falls far short of the standard we have a right to expect from a national museum of Aborigines.
Aside from the National Palace Museum, the highest-ranking national museums in Taiwan are the National Museum of History in Taipei, the National Museum of Natural Science in Taichung, the National Science and Technology Museum in Kaohsiung, the National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium in Pingtung and the National Museum of Prehistory in Taitung. The Museum of Prehistory is the highest-ranking museum in Taiwan dedicated to prehistoric research, Aborigines and the connection between prehistory, Aborigines and Austronesia. Although it is charged with promoting balanced cultural development in eastern Taiwan and in the nation’s remote regions, the Museum of Prehistory has the smallest staff, even though Aborigines make up a majority of residents in those areas.
Of these museums, all of which are categorized as level-three museums, the Museum of Prehistory is the only one at risk of being demoted to level four. That would place it on the same level as national museums under the Council of Cultural Affairs, former provincial museums and national living art museums that began life as social education centers.
Following the elevation of provincial museums and social education centers to national level institutions, the division of national, provincial, county, city and township institutions is increasingly muddled. Demoting the Museum of Prehistory to a lower level would make it less attractive to curators and research experts, resulting in fewer resources and expert staff. It would also diminish Aboriginal cultural rights and limit the educational rights of people living in remote areas. Taiwan would not have much of a national museum for indigenous peoples to show the world.
In 1989, the US Congress passed legislation establishing a National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) under the Smithsonian Institution. The bill also required that the Smithsonian inventory all indigenous cultural artifacts and human remains in all its museum collections, and determine when those remains could be returned, together with a plan for doing so. The law has been described as the result of a successful strategy by the Red Power Movement. Fifteen years later, in 2004, the NMAI, located at the National Mall in Washington, became a symbol of indigenous identity.
In 1992, New Zealand’s legislature passed the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act, the bill that established New Zealand’s national museum — te papa tongarewa is Maori for “container of treasures.” The museum was established in the nation’s capital, Wellington, to highlight the cultural diversity of New Zealand and symbolize partnership between the Maori and the country’s European descendants. In 1995, the museum adopted a dual leadership system with a chief executive officer and a kaihautu — Maori leader — jointly leading the museum. In 2003, the museum initiated a plan for the return of Maori cultural objects currently overseas, to be implemented through official channels and between national museums. The plan included the pursuit of Maori cultural relics at the British Museum.
Given that Taiwan’s indigenous peoples are the perfect representatives of Taiwanese identity and unique local color in the international arena, it is perhaps surprising that there is no consensus on the need to maintain a national museum dedicated to them.
The fact that museums are currently researching, compiling and reconstructing the vast traditional cultural assets of Taiwan’s Aborigines means that they have become important institutions through which Aborigines can fight for their cultural rights.
These collections make up the core of the museums and they are also the roots that hold the culture of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples in place.
However, Taiwan’s Aborigines lack the experience of mainstream society in dealing with museums. In this respect, they are more like first generation immigrants as they get involved in what to them is the strange new world of museum management. We still need to train Aboriginal museum staff, even if we have yet to work out how to use museums as a cultural tool and their relationship to cultural rights. In this context it is concerning that just as indigenous peoples are developing the skills and abilities needed to run Aboriginal museums, they are being increasingly marginalized by mainstream society.
Lu Meifen is assistant curator in the exhibition and education division at the National Museum of Prehistory.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS