A recent article in The Economist on the renaming of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in downtown Taipei entitled "Cultural Revolution" has sparked the ire of the DPP:
An article describing Taiwan's government's move to remove dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) influence from the island in the latest edition of The Economist magazine gave rise to comment from some Democratic Progressive Party members yesterday because of it controversial headline "Cultural Revolution."Removing the near-god image of Chiang Kai-Shek from society is part of Taiwan's effort to pursue democracy and the protection of human rights, said Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) when she commented on the magazine article. "No one should be deified anymore when Taiwan has moved forward as a democracy," Lu said.
The headline revealed Europeans' lack of understanding of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, commented DPP legislative whip Wang Tuoh (王拓). The DPP government promotes the moves including removing Chiang's statutes from military camps in an aim to dispel a common idolatry resulting from the former KMT's authoritarian rule, Wang defended. The magazine "has gone to far" by likening the DPP act to the infamous Chinese Cultural Revolution, he argued.
What did the article say?
CHIANG KAI-SHEK may once have been revered as a near-god on Taiwan, where he led his Chinese Nationalist regime after being defeated by Mao Zedong's Communists on the mainland in 1949. But almost a third of a century after his death, the memory of the old dictator is being effaced, with the removal of the generalissimo's statues and the renaming of many streets and even Taipei's international airport.
......
Chiang's legacy has never been properly examined in Taiwan. Arguments about the past are also fights over what the island should be in the future: a part of China (the view of Chiang Kai-shek and his political heirs), or an independent nation with a distinct, non-Chinese Taiwanese identity.
The airport was originally planned to be named Taipei-Taoyuan International Airport. That name has now been restored. It's good that the article correctly identifies one of the underlying conflicts, and much of the article is OK, but in the last paragraph it regrettably becomes unabashedly pro-China and pro-KMT:
DPP leaders may be politicking ahead of parliamentary elections in December, and presidential polls next March. But there is more at stake. By casting the 228 Incident as a clash between Taiwanese and KMT “outsiders”, the DPP has not only opened old wounds in Taiwan but also created anxiety in Beijing. China's Communists may have been at odds with the generalissimo. But they fear that Taiwan, by breaking with Chiang's legacy, may also be breaking away from the Chinese mainland.The DPP did not "cast" 2-28 massacres as clashes between Taiwanese and KMT outsiders -- that's what they were. The KMT defined them that way, publicly and literally, when it moved onto the island, looted it extensively, removed Taiwanese from positions of authority, told the Taiwanese they were a people tainted by association with the Japanese, and then excluded them from public life. George Kerr's account of the event, Formosa Betrayed, is online, easily Googled.
The DPP did not "open old wounds" in Taiwan, but is trying to heal them by the application of democracy and history. In other post-authoritarian and post-colonial contexts, it is normal for the democracy side to rename monuments, to recover lost history, and to punish the perpetrators. Thanks to the longtime lobbying by the KMT, only when it comes to Taiwan does the international media question what has been an utterly normal process in dozens of nations from Spain to Italy to Eastern Europe to India.
The fact is that the there is no massive memorial to Hitler in Berlin, no massive memorial to Franco in Madrid, and no massive memorial to Mussolini in Rome. All over the world, in the post-colonial era, money, streets, parks, and other relics of the colonial era were renamed and remade. This is normal and to be expected -- except, for some reason, here in Taiwan, where the exercise of democracy is regularly negatively framed by media from democratic countries. Sad fact: in no report on the name rectification in the international media has the international media made any attempt to place it in an international context. Naturally, readers miss the significance of the moves.
What's really ironic is that the Economist that very same issue published an article on the repossession and reconstruction of history and identity in educational systems around the world -- but didn't mention Taiwan!
The article then makes that Beijing-centric turn that every one of us who watches the international media now recognizes as the norm:
...........but also created anxiety in Beijing. China's Communists may have been at odds with the generalissimo. But they fear that Taiwan, by breaking with Chiang's legacy, may also be breaking away from the Chinese mainland.
"Created anxiety in Beijing?" A very poor choice of words. Beijing is not "anxious" but "avaricious." Beijing gets upset whenever Taiwan exercises its democracy -- not only does that threaten China's drive to annex Taiwan, but it also sets a double example for Chinese culture: that democracy is possible, necessary, and right; and that authoritarian rulers may be held accountable, and will be remembered for the evil that they are. "Anxiety" does not drive the placement of missiles and the threats of military force and name-calling and accusations. That is plain unencumbered greed.
The last sentence "......may also be breaking away from the Chinese mainland" implies that Taiwan is part of China. It would be nice if reporters adopted a neutral position on the matter -- as Dan Bloom once put it, China is nobody's mainland but a few small islands off its coast. Taiwan isn't "breaking away" -- it isn't now and never was part of China. Time to stop the adoption of Beijing's point of view, folks. There were many ways that article could have ended, and given that China is always peeved at the DPP, little reason to dwell on China's reaction -- and certainly none to end with a historically erroneous and emotionally negative thought. Sad.
[Taiwan] [China] [Economist] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [KMT] [media] [name rectification]
Sorry Michael, the root is a shitty translation of the Economist article by UDN (聯合報): http://news.sina.com/oth/udn/000-000-101-103/2007-03-16/16471867417.html
ReplyDeleteThat said the Economist article was not bad, but it's not really critical of the DPP and if anything, sound bites like "Chiang's legacy has never been properly examined in Taiwan" aren't exactly critical of the DPP at all. It wasn't news until someone purposely mistranslated the article.
Mickael,
ReplyDeleteThe economist has a healthy debate about its article going on in its "letters to the editor".
May i suggest you expose (shortly, i'm afraid) your point of view, and let western readers get a more balanced view of the situation?
with due respect, i cast some doubt on your 'The last sentence "......may also be breaking away from the Chinese mainland" implies that Taiwan is part of China. '
ReplyDeletethis article refrains from using china/taiwan. instead, using taipei/beijing. is there a neutral way to convey beijing's (and other int'l viewers, just for the sake of balance, to include their views) fear of taiwan's drifting away. just for the purpose of journalistic self-examining. Don't make me wrong, i'm not an apologist for china.
Laurent, that is the whole point. Beijing doesn't 'fear' Taiwan drifting away because Taiwan isn't and was never part of China. What Beijing fears is that it won't be successful in annexing the place. Can you see what I'm saying?
ReplyDeleteMichael
Michael, I've gotta chime in here because I keep hearing from others that the United Daily Brainwash has somehow "twisted" the Economist article, when the fact is they're working as if hand-in-hand, like the BBC and CTiTV and so many other cases. Neither is the "root" of the other, the way the first commenter suggests, and a deeper understanding of Taiwan's political landscape is sorely missing from the vantage points of many of those reading this article.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether they called CKS a dictator, the unnamed writer (as you correctly point out, Michael) negates that doubly in the last paragraph by dumping the blame for Beijing's "anxiety" and for "opening old wounds" entirely in the DPP's lap. (Whose "wounds" are we talking about, anyway? Oh, the humanity!)
For more faux "balance," click the Get article background at the top of the article to see how the magazine refers to the DPP as "nationalists" (not part of their name) while not even calling the KMT "Chinese" (much less "Chinese Nationalists" -- which is 2/3 of their name).
Finally, I didn't see anything related to this article in the Letters to the Editor. Could I have been looking in the wrong place? Ed, do you have any links? Michael, did you write? If not, you should.
Tim Maddog
Tim --
ReplyDeleteThe backgrounder is poorly worded but it is correct to identify the DPP as the standard-bearer of Taiwanese nationalism, which I think is what he means. There are no other errors I could find there.
I've written on both the Economist's articles recently, but it hasn't been placed on the website or the print edition. However, someone used my critique to write a letter to Economist which was printed, as I recall. More power to them!
Michael
Michael,
ReplyDeleteRead through your thoughts on the name rectification. Pointing to other post-colonial comparisons is certainly a thoughtful perspective although this is somewhat different from what we think (by "we", I hope to speak on behalf of most of the normal, salary-earning middle class Taiwanese who live in metropolitans areas of Taiwan).
We are generally a very practical people. When looking at a political move by a politician who has a reputation for being devious, we look at the practical effects, substance and motivations of the move instead of its symbolic and historical meanings, which really does not concern the average Taiwanese (although we do read about them in the papers).
We go to the memorial hall from time to time. While most of us do not really care much about CKS as a historical figure, it is a good park to hang out and is maintained well. The soldiers posted at the hall are funny so we sometimes bring children to gawk at them, but not to see at the gigantic CKS statue. The same applies to the CKS airport, which is the place we go when we board a flight, nothing more. We do our savings deposit at the China Post Office, and buys our gasoline from Chinese Petroleum, as we have done for the past decades.
When Mr. Chen introduces the name rectification which rallies his core green supporters and pisses off the deep blue supporters (who reacts strongly which in turn further consolidates the deep green), our reaction is generally a tired "here it goes again.." When the same trick has been played over and over again, it looses its appeal to anyone but the most fanatic supporters.
We generally look upon the name rectification without much approval, for the following reasons:
1. When something is over the hill, using it as a political target for attack is tiresome and boring. We all knew CKS is a dictator and has done a lot of BAD things, even 3-year olds know that. There is absolutely no need to tell us again about it. There are a lot of roads, streets, schools in Taiwan as well as the memorial hall and airport that are name after CKS. We have gotten used to it and although the naming is not perfect, it works for daily life. We prefer a political leader who does practical things to improve our lives.
2. We view this a desperate measure for a politician to consolidate his VERY thin support among the populace. Instead of busy changing names, we hope Chen can do more for the economy and restrain his family and cronies from graft and corruption. Being unable deliver the "dish" that we want, the only response we got from Chen is "Guys, you know what, instead of all those other practical things which is supposedly my responsibility, why don't we change the name of the park down the street". You can imagine our reaction.
we look at the practical effects, substance and motivations of the move instead of its symbolic and historical meanings, which really does not concern the average Taiwanese (although we do read about them in the papers).
ReplyDeleteIf it doesn't concern the average Taiwanese, then why are you writing about it? It seems that it does indeed concern "the average Taiwanese."
We have gotten used to it and although the naming is not perfect, it works for daily life. We prefer a political leader who does practical things to improve our lives.
If imperfect names are OK, then you should welcome the name change. It costs nothing, and solves a number of practical problems, such as confusion over the use of the word "China."
2. We view this a desperate measure for a politician to consolidate his VERY thin support among the populace.
Nothing suggests Chen's support is thin -- the DPP did fine in the most recent elections. Do you have a credible survey with a solid methodology to support this claim?
Instead of busy changing names, we hope Chen can do more for the economy
What powers does the President have over the economy?
and restrain his family and cronies from graft and corruption.
You might note, in passing, that the Chen government is the cleanest the island has ever had. By far.
Being unable deliver the "dish" that we want, the only response we got from Chen is "Guys, you know what, instead of all those other practical things which is supposedly my responsibility, why don't we change the name of the park down the street". You can imagine our reaction.
Yes, I can imagine your reaction -- it is the one fed to you by the Blue media, which you have swallowed.
Changing the names is a practical necessity, one observed in all other post authoritarian and post colonial contexts. Chen is acting normal. It's his opponents, so passionately opposed, who are the weird ones.
Michael