Renaming Chiang Kai Shek Memorial Hall

[skylee]

Not sure what to feel about all these -

Taiwan's president renames Chiang Kai-shek monument amid opposition protests

Taipei City Government renames plaza in front of Presidential Office

Views?

[gato]

No problem with the fact of the name changes, except that these Taiwan politicians need to act more like adults. I thought they were supposed to be the more Confucian part of China. What did Confucius say about proper decorum?

[bhchao]

The Pan-Blues can easily switch the names back once they win the 2008 presidency.

Ma and the KMT vowed to restore the name '中華民國' to stamps after the current administration removed the name and replaced it with the Chinese characters for 'Taiwan stamp'.

No problem with the fact of the name changes, except that these Taiwan politicians need to act more like adults

Name and symbolic changes are the only areas that the current administration excels in. Kids can never excel in pragmatic, technocratic administration, something that Chiang Kai-shek and his son at least implemented during their rule of the island.

I do not really oppose removing Chiang's name. As long as they keep their paws off Sun Yatsen's Memorial Hall.

When I watch the hoopla in the legislature, I think that perhaps the PRC practice of media blackouts on embarrassing events is not a bad idea after all.

[koreth]

What I want to know is, if the Taiwanese leaders are so eager to obliterate any hint that their history is somehow connected to that of the mainland, when can we expect them to ship all the imperial treasures on display in the Palace Museum back to Beijing? After all, those are pieces of China's history, right?

Actually I think a lot of that stuff belongs in the Forbidden City anyway, where it can be displayed in a more authentic context -- and I know for a fact that some non-mainland-loving Taiwanese agree with that opinion. (Of course a lot of it would probably have been destroyed if it had stayed in China, but IMO that danger is now past.) But I suspect they will somehow find it in their hearts to stay connected to that particular bit of tourist-friendly Chinese history.

[studentyoung]

I do not really oppose removing Chiang's name. As long as they keep their paws off Sun Yatsen's Memorial Hall.

Agree!

What I want to know is, if the Taiwanese leaders are so eager to obliterate any hint that their history is somehow connected to that of the mainland, when can we expect them to ship all the imperial treasures on display in the Palace Museum back to Beijing? After all, those are pieces of China's history, right?

Hehe. Needless to mention the imperial treasures in Taiwan, Taiwanese leaders can’t obliterate any hint that their history is connected to that of the mainland, as long as they still take Dr. Sun Yatsen as 国父.

Thanks!

[wushijiao]

For some interesting background info on how the naming of Taibei early on in the Jiang regime came to be, you might want to listen to one of the on-line lectures provided by BYU. The lecture is entitled "Re-mapping Taipei: How Poets and Filmakers Rethink Postwar Nationalist Cultural Policy"

The lecture discusses how the streets were named in Taipei after the Nationalists went over to the island. Most interestingly, it talks about how many of the execution grounds of the "White Terror" were renamed by the regime into more happy and fuzzy things, in order to cover up that era of brutality. For example, one execution ground was developed into "Youth Park".

http://kennedy.byu.edu/events/archive.php

(It's number 68 on the list)

[adrianlondon]

a lot of it would probably have been destroyed if it had stayed in China, but IMO that danger is now past

True. I've been to the museum in Taipei and it is fantastic. I'm not sure where it would all go if it was moved to Beijing, especially if it was displayed somewhere inside the Forbidden City.

However, we (I'm british) had the same argument about Greek's Elgin Marbles. This became a minor diplomatic incident a few years ago with us saying if we hadn't have taken them away (diplomatic speak for stolen) and put them in the British Museum they would have been destroyed by now. Greece was saying, obviously, that they would take good care of them now.

Not sure what the outcome was. Not much by the looks of it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6578661.stm

Seems this is a common problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3927833.stm

[gato]

However, we (I'm british) had the same argument about Greek's Elgin Marbles.

Not quite the same, as Taipei is still "Chinese" and Chinese capitals have changed many times over the years. Beijing is only the most recent location for the capital. Its earliest use as the capital was under the non-Han Liao dynasty in the 10th century, though at the same the Song government that the Liao drove out set up a separate government in southern China.

It's not unusual in Chinese history for there to be multiple parties claiming to be the legitimate government. Nor is it unusual for palace treasures to move from one city to another.

[bhchao]

What I want to know is, if the Taiwanese leaders are so eager to obliterate any hint that their history is somehow connected to that of the mainland, when can we expect them to ship all the imperial treasures on display in the Palace Museum back to Beijing? After all, those are pieces of China's history, right?

Actually I think a lot of that stuff belongs in the Forbidden City anyway, where it can be displayed in a more authentic context -- and I know for a fact that some non-mainland-loving Taiwanese agree with that opinion. (Of course a lot of it would probably have been destroyed if it had stayed in China, but IMO that danger is now past.) But I suspect they will somehow find it in their hearts to stay connected to that particular bit of tourist-friendly Chinese history.

koreth, I disagree with your view in shipping all the imperial treasures back to Beijing. While it is true that those are pieces of China's history, who preserved and protected these relics to the fullest at a time when cultural artifacts on the mainland were vandalized and destroyed, with the explicit approval of government officials?

The ROC deserves to be the guardian of the imperial treasures because it protected China's cultural heritage to the fullest. The current government on the mainland does not deserve to be the possessor of the treasures, given its record in 1966-1976 and its record today in preserving China's ancient past and environmental protection.

In my view, the person who did a great job in protecting his or her cultural legacy deserves to be the owner and guardian of this legacy. The person who destroys it (no matter how much he or she regrets it later) does not deserve to be guardian.

Also the presence of the treasures on Taiwan is a political asset that shows the cultural linkage between Taiwan and the mainland. TI supporters who advocate a distinct Taiwanese identity would be more than happy to see the treasures shipped back.

Another issue is some of the treasures in the National Palace Museum in Taipei are so fragile that they are never lent to museums elsewhere. Shipping them back will damage the most fragile items. It took an art curator or art fanatic like George Yeh to skillfully manage the logistics in transporting the items across rugged terrain in China during the war with Japan and civil war, without damaging a single item, always being one step ahead of the Japanese and communists. And all these items were shown intact on exhibition in Taiwan 60 years later. Sure, some people may call it luck. But you only get lucky on the same thing once.

Lastly, perhaps insignificantly, the imperial treasures in Taiwan is one more good reason for mainland tourists to visit the island and see its Chinese heritage in the NPM. This would be a boon to cross strait tourism.

[wushijiao]

The saga continues:

Taiwanese government and opposition forces are staging a name-change show highlighting the absurdity of the island's ideological feuds.

Just days after President Chen Shui-bian pushed through a plan to change the official title of a major memorial hall named after late Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, the Taipei city government, headed by a mainland-conciliatory KMT mayor, hit back in kind yesterday.

Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin officially designated Kaitakelan Boulevard, in front of the Presidential Office, Anti-Corruption and Democracy Square - a name adopted to mock Mr Chen, who along with members of his family, was implicated in a string of corruption scandals that rocked the island last year.

http://china.scmp.com/chitoday/ZZZPK06RV1F.html

(SCMP, requires subsription)

Anyway, as mentioned in that listening I mentioned above, Kaitakelan is a Taiwanese indigenous tribe.

This street used to be "Long Live Jiang" street, apparently.

(As a side note, from a spectator's point of view, it seems like Taiwanese politics is a thousand times more fun and interesting than Mainland politics. Fights. Counter attacks. Media spin and de-spin. Actual persuasive speech. I watched the Mainland news today during dinner, and they spent a good five minutes slowly reading out the very long name list of the new delegates to the Shanghai government, with no analysis or meaningful commentary besides the platitudes.

On the one level, this naming debate is absurd theater. But on another level, symbols do matter. Jung Chang, the author of the recent Mao biography, pointed out that democracy won't happen in the Mainland until Mao's portrait is pulled down from Tiananmen Square. I agree. When certain symbols are revered without question, or when certain people are seen as national heros without question, it seems that massive introspection of the past becomes, at the very least, more difficult. And, by extension, the means to which the dictator consolidated power (ie. shooting people political opponents, setting up concentration camps and detention centers, purging and "guiding" the press) are seen as slightly more legitimate methods of maintaining "stability" if the symbols are not questioned on a society-wide level.

There is a reason, afterall, why Chinese protests against a Japanese Prime Minister visiting Yasakuni have merit. Or, there is a reason why flying the Confederate flag over a state capitol building should be seen as a legitimate issue. Of course, that is not to say that politicians won't pander and divide in order to gain political appeal from extremists, of one sort or another. Nonetheless, it's probably a good idea to debate these things openly.

Later in the SCMP article, it states:

"DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh Chang-ting criticised the name-change issue, saying it was meaningless for either side to engage in such activities and doing so would "not be helpful in achieving reconciliation between the two camps". "

Assuming for the moment that Frank Hsieh Chang-ting is only saying that based on pure political calculation, wouldn't that suggest that the middle ground of Taiwanese politics is where the power is, and where the election will be won or lost? Doesn't that also suggest that most voters might have mixed feelings about the Jiang regime, being able to see both its positive and negative aspects. Wouldn't that also suggest that voters may not be as hyper-sensitive to highly-symbolic stuff as they once were? I don't know. I'd love to hear from someone who lives in Taipei who follows this closely.)

[bhchao]

except that these Taiwan politicians need to act more like adults

By the way, this just occurred: http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=454294〈=eng_news&cate_img=logo_taiwan&cate_rss=TAIWAN_en

The Tainan City Council was adjourned indefinitely as of yesterday after a ruling Democratic Progressive Party member tossed feces at a colleague, allegedly over personal grudges.

Liu Yi-chang, DPP council whip, walked toward his colleague Liu Chieh-lung with a cup of stool and tossed it at his KMT colleague Hsieh Lung-chieh after listening to a report by Tainan Mayor Hsu Tain-tsair (許添財) on the first day of session.

Council Speaker Huang Yu-wen (黃郁文) had no choice but to ask Liu to leave the floor because two of Hiseh's colleagues, seated next to Liu, were also affected by Liu's irrational behavior.

DPP Councilwoman Chiu Li-li, who served concurrently as chairperson of the DPP headquarters in Tainan City, apologized to the KMT and all citizens for what Liu did, saying that the DPP party suspended Liu from duty until Liu offered an explanation of his behavior.

Chiang Kai-shek did some good things in Taiwan (especially economically), and some bad things (crackdowns on dissent). But one thing is for sure, no one threw stool when he and Jiang Jingguo ruled.

[gato]

You don't see politicians throwing shit in Korea, though. What's with Taiwan?

[bhchao]

You don't see politicians throwing shit in Korea, though. What's with Taiwan?

As they say, Taiwan is the Wild West of the East. If it cannot happen anywhere else in the world, then it can happen in Taiwan.

This has to be premeditated assault. Obviously he took the time to prepare this 殺手鐧 of his.

[Lu]

And I was still hoping I had misread that one when I read it in Chinese. After fistfights, fencing with chicken legs, throwing lunchboxes and tear gas, this is truly a new low. I can only hope this idea doesn't find its way to the parliament.

As to the whole renaming issue, it's really developing into a joke. It does make some sense that a democracy shouldn't be honoring a former dictator, but this whole changing back and forth doesn't do anyone any good. Some people want to change the name, but they should have the wisdom to wait until it can be done properly, not with the city gov't turning back the changes and half the country getting pissed off.

Even more useless is the changing of the name of the Kaitegelan Blvd. It serves no use whatsoever, it's just petty politics at the expense of the taxpayer, and moreover I feel sorry for the people living on that part of the street, who now will be having trouble receiving their mail and whatnot.

I'm trying to think what the outcome of it all will be. If the DPP wins the next elections, they might succeed in changing the name definitively, but if the KMT wins it'll probably stay the CKS Memorial Hall for some time longer. (BTW, 'Democracy Memorial Hall' implies that democracy is dead, anyone else find this rather stupid?)

[adrianlondon]

I love Taiwan's politics. I'm going to use "da bian in your face!" as an insult every time I lose an argument now ;)

[studentyoung]

In my view, the person who did a great job in protecting his or her cultural legacy deserves to be the owner and guardian of this legacy. The person who destroys it (no matter how much he or she regrets it later) does not deserve to be guardian.

Your words sound reasonable, though I think things might be more complicated. (I don’t want to offence you, but I just write down something I have thought seriously.)

First: In Qing Dynasty, Qianlong（乾隆）emperor did a great job in protecting the Chinese legacy, while he destroyed the Chinese legacy at the same time. For example, on one hand, he did protect a lot of rare ancient books, while he orders his officials to compile 《四库全书》. On the other hand, he destroyed a lot of rare ancient books to consolidate his rule. Did he deserve to be guardian and owner or not? Other emperors or kings in various dynasties in China’s history had similar problems, so did they deserve to be guardians and owners or not? Can these emperors and kings’ merits and demerits on Chinese culture legacy be simply concluded by judging whether they deserved to be owners or guardians?

Second: I would like to slightly expend your logic.

1) So many American people had agreed to send troops to Iraq, before the Iraq war started. They were sure that they could protect America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security by sending troop to Iraq. Can you tell me whether they protected or destroyed America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security, and whether they deserved to be owners or guardians of America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security?

2) Nowadays, so many American people have changed their mind and disagreed to send troops to Iraq. As for those who changed their mind, can you tell me whether they deserve to be owners or guardians of America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security?

Third: I see some Taiwan’s parliament members practice “台拳道”（not 跆拳道）in parliament when they disagree with each other during discussion. I am confused. I don’t know whether they protect or destroy Taiwan’s democracy, and whether they deserve to be the owner and guardians of Taiwan’s democracy or not?

Thanks!

[koreth]

In my view, the person who did a great job in protecting his or her cultural legacy deserves to be the owner and guardian of this legacy. The person who destroys it (no matter how much he or she regrets it later) does not deserve to be guardian.

In other words, a cultural legacy is a prize to be awarded to the group with the best behavior?

I kind of thought the statues and monuments to Chiang Kai Shek were part of Taiwan's cultural legacy. (That a part of history is unpleasant doesn't mean it's not a part of history.) So following your logic, having smashed the statues and renamed the monuments under cover of darkness, Taiwan's government has lost the right to be the guardian of Taiwan's cultural legacy?

In my view, cultural legacies should be protected by whoever can currently do the best job of protecting them. Whether those people previously did a good job or a bad job is of significance only in that it can serve as one of many pieces of evidence about whether they are likely to do a good job in the present day.

Five hundred years from now, people will only see that the ancient history has been preserved (or not). Few of them will care whether the people who preserved it were considered "worthy" of the privilege.

[bhchao]

Your words sound reasonable, though I think things might be more complicated. (I don’t want to offence you, but I just write down something I have thought seriously.)

First: In Qing Dynasty, Qianlong（乾隆）emperor did a great job in protecting the Chinese legacy, while he destroyed the Chinese legacy at the same time. For example, on one hand, he did protect a lot of rare ancient books, while he orders his officials to compile 《四库全书》. On the other hand, he destroyed a lot of rare ancient books to consolidate his rule. Did he deserve to be guardian and owner or not? Other emperors or kings in various dynasties in China’s history had similar problems, so did they deserve to be guardians and owners or not? Can these emperors and kings’ merits and demerits on Chinese culture legacy be simply concluded by judging whether they deserved to be owners or guardians?

The situation with the NPM treasures is indeed more complex than that, and is a unique case by itself. Factors like political legitimacies, track records in preserving the cultural heritage of one's country, capabilities in preserving the treasures then and now, and current day politics all need to be taken into account.

If the case of the NPM treasures involved a foreign government taking away China's treasures, as was the case in the 19th century with foreign powers spiriting away China's relics, then that warrants returning the items to China. The case of the NPM treasures involved two Chinese entities, both of which claim to be the legitimate government of China. The ROC is a legitimate Chinese entity founded by Dr. Sun Yatsen (of course how one looks at it depends on one's political affiliation). As a legitimate Chinese government that governed China at a time of foreign invasion and civil strife, it had the right to ensure that China's cultural heritage was fully protected and make decisions accordingly to safeguard that heritage.

Seeing China's treasures fall into Japanese hands is something the ROC government never wanted to see happen. As a result, ROC officials protected the treasures with their life, making sure that each artifact was carefully packed and transported westwards to ensure their safety from the approaching Japanese invaders.

The Japanese surrender shifted the attention to protecting the treasures from the communists. The communists at the time were just peasant guerillas who had no international or technocratic administration skills whatsoever needed to run a country (let alone preserving a nation's cultural treasures in a quality manner). In contrast, many officials or people who worked for the ROC government were technocrats educated overseas (people like Wellington Koo or George Yeh), who had extensive international exposure with the "know how" and skillsets to do things the right way, at least when compared with the communists in the same period. I do not wish to go off tangent, but as an example, the land reform program the KMT implemented in Taiwan during the 1950's versus the CCP's counterpart program on the mainland during that decade is a striking comparison that reflects the technocratic divulge between the two governments at the time.

And this showed in the records of both governments when it came to preserving China's cultural heritage.

Now to reply to this response:

Second: I would like to slightly expend your logic.

1) So many American people had agreed to send troops to Iraq, before the Iraq war started. They were sure that they could protect America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security by sending troop to Iraq. Can you tell me whether they protected or destroyed America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security, and whether they deserved to be owners or guardians of America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security?

2) Nowadays, so many American people have changed their mind and disagreed to send troops to Iraq. As for those who changed their mind, can you tell me whether they deserve to be owners or guardians of America’s freedom, democracy and homeland security?

Sending troops to Iraq was a controversial decision made by the Bush administration which many Americans opposed at the time. So the burden of proof regarding the wisdom of that decision rested on the administration. And it turned out to be an unwise decision that caused instability, civil chaos, and huge loss of life in Iraq that would not have occurred had Hussein remained in power. A similar analogy can be made regarding the NPM treasures. Moving the treasures to Taiwan was a controversial decision. So the burden of proof as to the wisdom of that decision rested on the ROC. History and capability has been on the ROC's side regarding the decision to move the treasures.

In other words, a cultural legacy is a prize to be awarded to the group with the best behavior?

The answer to that question is very obvious in my opinion. Two brothers are assigned the task by their parent to protect their younger sister. One day, one of the brothers assigned the responsibility of protecting her neglects his duty or intentionally caused harm to her by ignoring her after getting into an argument. As a result, a traumatic accident happens to her that day. The other brother consistently protected her from harm prior to the accident. Which one of the brothers would the parent from now on delegate responsibility in protecting her?

In my view, cultural legacies should be protected by whoever can currently do the best job of protecting them. Whether those people previously did a good job or a bad job is of significance only in that it can serve as one of many pieces of evidence about whether they are likely to do a good job in the present day.

I partially agree with you. Cultural legacies should be protected by whoever did the best job in protecting them in the past, and who consistently protected them up to the present time. And your logic regarding shipping the NPM treasures back operates on the assumption that the NPM in Taipei is doing a poor job in preserving the treasures and that Beijing can do a far better job. However that's not the case regarding the NPM in Taipei. Each artifact is carefully stored in a network of underground vaults that are carefully regulated. These vaults are dug deep into the mountains. To protect the physical integrity of the relics, the air cannot reach a certain temperature. Just recently there was an exhibition where collection pieces that never went on exhibition were shown for the first time. The way the NPM exhibits the collection to the public is unique such that visits to the museum's exhibitions may be once in a lifetime events where you see one item, and may not see that same item until many several years later. Uniqueness of presentation is as equally important as preservation.

[wushijiao]

Bhchao is on the money as far as the relics issue, in my opinion.

[xichg]

Track records are relevant, but the current capability and willingness to preserve the treasures are even more relevant! Only talking about what happened 50 years ago while avoiding what's going on today is foolish. Stubbornly and rigidly refusing to accept ever-changing realities may be why KMT lost their rule on the Mainland and then Taiwan.

With Taiwan government's determination to de-sinicize and their hot-temper and irrationality(throwing fists in parliament), it is not entirely inconceivable that some pro-TI lunatic hillbilly from the south comes to the mesuem and smashes one thing or two. At the same time the awareness to preserve heritages and the technoligies to do that in China have come a long way. In today's new situation the treasures will be safter in Beijing. I say return the treasures to Mainland China, but thank you for taking a good care of them.