Late last month, Minister of Culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), went to Washington and gave a talk at George Washington University on the topic of “soft power.”
Given that she is a noted writer and literary critic there were some expectations that she would present a cogent picture of the dynamic world that constitutes Taiwan’s world of arts and culture.
However, she failed to live up to expectations and chose instead to focus on Confucian values, elaborate on the anachronistic Analects and highlight the “Chinese character” of Taiwanese society.
As several students pointed out during the question-and-answer period, Taiwan’s culture is a rich mixture of many cultures — aboriginal, Japanese and even some European influences dating back to the Dutch and Spanish periods. Yet, Lung chose to neglect this vibrant mix.
Several members of the audience also reminded those at the event that Confucianism had been a Martial Law era tool of repression and asked if President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration’s renewed emphasis on such values was in fact an attempt to move the clock backwards.
A student from Hong Kong also questioned Lung’s assertion that the renewed interest by China in Confucianism was really an expression of “soft power.”
The student felt that China was not really interested in “soft power,” but was re-colonizing Hong Kong and was in fact trying to brainwash the inhabitants of the former British colony.
Several other students questioned Lung on her words and actions in relation to the Taipei 228 Memorial Museum, where she had sought to downplay Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) role in the brutal 1947 suppression during which 28,000 Taiwanese were killed by Chiang’s troops. One angry student compared it to the denial of the Holocaust.
However, one of the most interesting aspects of the speech was not discussed during the session at George Washington University.
As aforementioned, Lung highlighted Confucian values and specifically mentioned the four principles of morality and the five virtues as outlined in the Analects, which in her view guide life in Taiwan: Being “kind, upright, courteous, temperate and magnanimous.”
How do these five Confucian virtues jibe with reality in Taiwan under the Ma administration?
If anything, Ma and his government have been vindictive and divisive, especially where it concerns former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). If Ma was magnanimous, he would have granted medical parole to Chen a long time ago.
The way the Ma administration has abused the judicial system to pursue the former president and his family certainly smacks of political retribution — very little of the Confucian kindness, uprightness or magnanimity to be seen there.
Actually Lung, in her speech at George Washington, was very eloquent in describing what Taiwanese really care about: The freedom to write, paint or sing what we want; tolerance of those we do not agree with; protection of those who are unjustly persecuted; rejection of leaders we distrust; creating what comes from our heart.
The main issues now is that Ma and his government need to learn to practice what they preach.
In their present form, the practices are too reminiscent of the “Confucianism” seen in China where advocates of reform and change, such as Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) and Ai Wei-wei (艾未未), are silenced and unjustly prosecuted.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington.
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