voice for democracy

Reviving National Democracy Hall – 台北時報

Taiwan will always face new challenges within and without as its democracy develops. Yet while new issues appear and must be resolved, one of the most pressing problems from its past remains, namely: What to do with the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, or as it is sarcastically called “The Tomb of the Dead Dictator.”
A start on this problem had been made during the presidency of Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). In 2007, the hall was renamed National Taiwan Democracy Hall and the surrounding area named Liberty Square.
Controversy naturally followed, especially from Taiwan’s resident diaspora, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). KMT members had fled to Taiwan after they lost the civil war in China in 1949, and they still had not wanted to face up to that fact. For convenience, they therefore ignore how they imposed more than 40 years of martial law, White Terror and one-party rule on Taiwanese, and focus on the present issue of the hall.
In 2009, with a democratic change of the presidency, the KMT stalwart Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) changed the name back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. Liberty Square ironically did keep its name.
In 2017, after Ma’s presidency, a commission was again formed to reconsider a name change more in line with the purpose of the hall, but after four years, no clear results have emerged. It is therefore time for more concrete suggestions and action.
The first step should be to once again rename the hall National Taiwan Democracy Hall. The statue of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) must also be permanently removed. Once that is done, all future actions can flow. What to do with the statue is no problem. It can easily be placed in the Cihu Memorial Sculpture Park, where it can reside with all the other statues and relics from that past totalitarian era.
However, once that is done, the more challenging issue arises: What should replace the statue in a renamed Democracy Hall?
I suggest a statue or monumental piece that symbolizes Taiwan’s democracy. This specific sculpture or work can be developed by a commission and voted on by the people as to what symbolically and aesthetically best represents the nation’s democracy.
While such an aesthetic work should dominate the hall, space along the walls should also be made for statues of each of Taiwan’s four democratically elected presidents, as well as future ones.
The statue of each can be placed with a brief history of the major accomplishments and developments (good and bad) from each one’s tenure in office. This is not meant to foster any cult of personality, but rather to point out to the people that “you get what you elect,” so you best be careful in your selections. In this way, voters can easily learn how their choices do have consequences, and that elected officials do have weaknesses as well as strengths.
Taiwan has been fortunate in that its four elected presidents already provide a clear and ready history of the many changes that have come about since 1996, when Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) became the first president to be elected by the people.
The developments in the hall do not stop there. In the rooms in the lower reaches of the hall, one room could be dedicated to exhibiting a brief history of Taiwan from its Aborigines who made a significant contribution to the vast Austronesian empire that once spread across the oceans. Included also would be Taiwan’s different colonial eras along with the flags that have flown over the island. They would be the Dutch, the Spanish, the fleeing Ming loyalists, the pursuing Manchu Qing, the brief French military foray and the Japanese colonial era. Taiwanese need to be conscious of the fullness of the island’s past history.
Another room could indicate how democracy came about from the KMT occupation with its martial law and White Terror. What citizens need to grasp is how its democracy came at a price.
A third room could feature the various political parties that have risen and fallen. It is important to realize how, in a democracy, political entities such as the New Party can not only rise, but understand why they fell. Such lessons would provide a better understanding of democracy. No one party should be relied upon and not all parties contribute equally.
Information could also be provided about other museums and historical sites. A reference to the Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, Green Island Prison, the 228 Peace Memorial Park and Museum, the Martyrs’ Shrine, the Jing-Mei Prison and others can be highlighted. All these are part and parcel of Taiwan’s formative past.
Coordination with such museums and sites can easily be done. A brochure could indicate where each of these is located in the city or nation. In this way, citizens who want to expand their knowledge would know where to go and learn how each demonstrates the development of Taiwan’s democracy.
A special room or exhibit should also be made for the citizen movements that contributed to democracy. These movements served an important purpose. Included here would be the roles of the Wild Lily Movement, the Wild Strawberry Movement and the most recent Sunflower movement. Each has made its own contribution at a crucial stage in the development of Taiwan’s democracy.
A different and more controversial issue that must be confronted is the role of the National Palace Museum. Entrusted in that museum are treasures from that country on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. They do not belong to Taiwan, but even this fact can become a good teaching tool.
The treasures of the museum were brought by the KMT as it fled its homeland. In truth, these treasures of the past ultimately belong to China and not to Taiwan, but China has not yet demonstrated that it can show them proper respect. Many would have been destroyed in the Cultural Revolution.
While a long-range plan could be made for returning the artifacts, a special irony also exists. China would need to renounce its bellicose, hegemonic desire to control and destroy Taiwan and its democracy. One can easily guess that it would rather sacrifice those treasures than admit to its hegemony and the reality that it has no legal claim to Taiwan.
This same matter would even pose a problem for many in the KMT; they would need to make the telling choice as to whether they really support Taiwan’s democracy, or like quislings prefer to return to a China, where they would still hope to have rank and privilege even though they lost the civil war.
That issue is beyond the scope of this article and dredges up the many reasons why a recipient was never named in the 1952 Treaty of San Francisco, when Japan surrendered its sovereignty over Taiwan.
Taiwan’s treasured democracy is one that has been born in controversy from the end of World War II up to the present. Our focus here is on restoring National Taiwan Democracy Hall, and the first immediate step in that effort is the removal of the Chiang statue within it.
It is time for Taiwan to be Taiwan and to have a National Hall dedicated to its democracy.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The National Immigration Agency on Monday confirmed that the majority of foreign residents in Taiwan would once again be excluded from the government’s stimulus voucher program. The NT$5,000 Quintuple Stimulus Voucher would be available to 140,000 foreign spouses of Taiwanese and 16,000 Alien Permanent Resident Certificate holders, but about 870,000 Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) holders would be excluded from the program, regardless of whether they pay taxes. The government has not offered any explanation, but some have speculated that the intention is to prevent migrant workers from receiving the vouchers. Many migrant workers are from Southeast Asian countries and work as
Within the span of a generation, a new super-rich class emerges from a society in which millions of rural migrants toiled away in factories for a pittance. Bribery becomes the most common mode of influence in politics. Opportunists speculate recklessly in land and real estate. Financial risks simmer as local governments borrow to finance railways and other large infrastructure projects. All of this is happening in the world’s most promising emerging market and rising global power. No, this is not a description of contemporary China, but rather of the US during the Gilded Age, from about 1870 to 1900. This
I first met Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in 1999, when I was Acting Director of AIT, as Darryl Johnson had just left and Ray Burghardt had not yet arrived. She was a young aide for then-President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). President Lee just had enunciated a new theory, which came to be known as the “state-to-state” principle, in an interview with a German newspaper. Beijing had predictably gone berserk and was trying to get Washington to come down heavily on President Lee. In the midst of all this, Tsai and I met to discuss the situation. I took a liking to this
It might have been an inelegantly, even ineptly, executed pivot, gratuitously alienating key allies, but by leaving Afghanistan and forming a security pact with Australia and the UK in the Indo-Pacific, US President Joe Biden has at least cleared the decks to focus on his great foreign policy challenge — the systemic rivalry with China. Yet the concern now is how quickly this rivalry could escalate, especially regarding Taiwan. The linchpin of the US alliance system in south-east Asia, Taiwan is the biggest island in the first island chain, the group of islands that keeps China blocked in. It is China’s