National Palace Museum director Wu Mi-cha (吳密察) late last month, while being questioned by a legislator, said that three ceramic items from the collecition had been damaged over the previous 18 months.
Social commentator Lucifer Chu (朱學恒) lambasted the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), writing on Facebook that the three treasures had escaped the clutches of the Chinese Communist Party, having been transfered to Taiwan unscathed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but had now been destroyed under Wu’s oversight.
It is an overwhelming embarrassment and shame for the nation that pieces of a heritage that has been passed down for four centuries have been shattered.
The Chinese Global Times newspaper published an article saying that the incident was not an “accident,” but a result of the DPP’s push for “desinicization,” and that the party’s agenda was the main reason for the damage.
However, the Global Times refrained from calling the incident a “national embarrassment” for fear of implying that Taiwan is indeed an independent nation.
In response to the scandal, DPP Legislator Lin Yi-chin (林宜瑾), who is on the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee, said that during former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the museum had also come under fire for an incident in which a priceless print titled Yellow River and Lanzhou Floating Bridge (黃河蘭州浮橋圖) was damaged.
During preparation for an exhibition, the museum had ordered parts of the original frame to be cut off so that the print could be displayed in a specific casing. It was only when the misconduct was later exposed that the collections section reported the incident in confidence to then-museum director Feng Ming-chu (馮明珠).
However, Feng was neither referred to the review board nor the Government Employee Ethics Unit, and the scandal was swept under the carpet.
Even though Feng claimed that accidental damage was a first in its history, the museum has made a series of blunders in the past, and has twice been censured by the Control Yuan.
Li Dao-yong is director of the City South Culture and History Studio.
Translated by Rita Wang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS