My initial reaction to the way it was handled was to label it a Trainwreck, though I’m actually of several minds on the subject. Part of me is still disappointed that the Chen administration didn’t take bolder action. But another sympathizes, and even approves, of the road taken. I previously wrote that Chen should have based his actions on whether he thought they would pass legal muster; elsewhere, Michael Turton pointed out that this is something that may have been unknowable:
In addition to the ongoing struggle between the two competing nationalisms, one Taiwanese, the other Chinese, the issue also shines a light on another problem: the ambiguous lines of authority in the government here. [emphasis added] There is a general complaint that democracy has made everything messier, and it is quite true: democracy has forced the government to figure out what the rules are, and in most cases they are vastly unclear, with multiple and conflicting lines of authority. Foreigners constantly complain that different government agencies tell them different stories about what is needed to accomplish this or that, but actually that is the experience of everyone on the island, at almost every level. In the past, Taiwan was governed by men, not laws, and so to get something done, you had to find out who was in charge of that thing. But now, no matter what the issue is, lines of authority are extremely unclear.
Given uncertainty over the legality, the right approach may have been the cautious approach. Imagine first if President Chen HAD decided to make people like me happy, and ordered the "Chiang Kai-Shek" engraving jackhammered off the memorial’s facade. Then, imagine his choices if a court subsequently decided AGAINST him.
Far as I can see, he’d only have two options: backtrack by ordering the "Chiang Kai-Shek" inscription re-engraved (MAJOR loss of face!), or defy the court (thereby becoming the lawless dictator Chinese nationalists always claimed he was).
Suddenly the virtue of the banners and scaffolding, which I previously derided as half-measures, becomes clear. Chen knows the chance he may be forced to retreat on this isn’t negligible, so he’s committing as little as possible. A probing action, if you will. If he loses, he doesn’t lose much – just some temporary scaffolding and a few banners. Much preferable to the TV news endlessly repeating clips of cold, hard stone being re-engraved and lovingly polished by Chiang loyalists.
One other thought – one that isn’t original, but worth repeating just the same. If Chen’s goal here was to rename CKS Memorial Hall, then so far, he has failed. (He may yet still win, but for now, the dedication to Chiang is still etched in stone, for all to see.) If however, his goal was to bait Chinese nationalists into defending (even embracing!) Taiwan’s former dictator, then he succeeded quite spectacularly. To wit, I offer this encomium, delivered as a response by Taiwan’s China Post:
History attests that Chiang, the man and his career, stood for Freedom, Democracy and Science…*
Plenty of freedom and democracy during 4 DECADES of martial law under Chiang and son. One of the maxims of La Rochefoucauld comes to mind: "Courtiers who flatter princes with virtues they do not have, insult them with impunity…"
As a second illustration, I point to the behavior of Chiang supporters during a recent religious ceremony on site for victims of the 228 Massacre:
The ritual was performed mainly in peace, despite a few instances where opponents to the hall’s name change shouted verbal insults at the families. [emphasis added]
NIIICE. Dunno if there’s any footage of that, but it just might be useful. Come election time, I mean.
(Cartoon from the Apr 1/07 edition of the Taipei Times.)
* Digressing from the subject of this post, I thought I’d mention this curious sentence from the the China Post‘s May 21st editorial:
…Taiwan’s independence-seeking DPP government under [President] Chen, defying cautions by its mentor and protector the U.S., has resorted to pushing anti-China and anti-Chiang campaigns to advance its separatist agenda through undemocratic and illegal means.
To placate China, the U.S. has indeed voiced opposition to name changes of Taiwanese state firms. To my knowledge, however, it has been notably silent on the Taiwanese de-Chiangification campaign.
UPDATE (Jun 2/07): An overview of the issue for general readers can be found here.
i-1
Regarding renaming the CKS memorial – Is this really an important issue for the Taiwanese? C’mon are you guys promoting this name change really so interested in this? If you are so friggen interested, why in the hell did you and every other person in these pro-dpp NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO blogs not say a friggen thing about it until an election year popped up? You and every other foreigner should go talk about re-naming the lincoln memorial ok! Lincoln has his own 228 – its called FORT SUMTER, Charleston South Carolina. He ordered federal troops into the city to basically line up the rebels and kill them – JUST LIKE CHIANG! This was BEFORE the civil war, it was unprovoked! Why dont you talk about this? Because your an idiot DPP puppet. My feelings about the CKS Memorial are in my blog.
http://tyronetimes.blogspot.com/
Tyrone
*
*
*
Whether or not a democracy worships dictators IS important. Certainly, not as important as defending that democracy against a nearby predatory communist country – but important, in its own way.
(I note, in passing, that the KMT blocked votes on the special arms bill for two years, while sending party luminaries to kowtow to Beijing. Obviously then, the highest priority for the KMT isn’t de-Chiangification or defending their own country. It’s holding hands with Bolsheviks from across the strait.)
You want to know why I don’t talk about Lincoln ordering Charlestonians massacred before the Civil War? Well, um, maybe it’s because as far as I know, IT NEVER HAPPENED.
See, I’ve been to Fort Sumter, Tyrone. A few times, actually. Read a little ’bout the place, too. Oddly enough, I never ran across the events you described. From HistoryNet:
“The Southern victors did not hold [Union commanders and soldiers from Ft. Sumter] captive for long. At noon the following day, the Northern prisoners were transported out into Charleston Harbor aboard the Southern steamer Isabel. There, Anderson and his men were transferred to Baltic for the voyage north with Fox and his expedition.”
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_civil_war/3032636.html?page=4&c=y
Hard to believe Southerners would’ve just LET THOSE UNION SOLDIERS GO if they had, in fact, been guilty of massacring people in Charleston. Despite what you may have heard about Southern hospitality, it doesn’t extend quite THAT far.
With regards to your complaint that the de-Chiangification issue only comes up during election years, I’d like to point out that I was writing about this issue well over a year ago.
http://foreignerinformosa.typepad.com/the_foreigner_in_formosa/dechiangification_name_rectification/index.html
Many apologies for not blogging on it earlier – but I only got started in October of ’05.
May I ask how long you have lived in Taiwan?
Also where did you first become informed about Taiwan’s political scene, its history etc. ?
By the way you mention Chiang and SON as dictators – Bud you are way, way of the mark! Granted, Chiang was a Dick. An Asshole, murderer, whatever – he was it! But Chiang Ching Kuo was the exact opposite. Were you here in Taiwan during Chiang Ching Kuos rule? The Place was paradise. Everybody including all but a tiny number of racist Taiwanese loved him. Chiang Ching kuo has ZERO blemishes on his rule – When he died, I saw with my own eyes folks from keelung to Kaohsuing crying. Taiwan stood still for 3 days.
I think you should read up on Chiang Ching Kuo before you stick him in the same pigeon hole as his Dad.
*
*
*
I’ve been here a few years. As for my knowledge of Taiwan, I can sum it up as Will Rogers once did: “All I know is what I read in the papers.” (Which is to say, I’ve read all three English newspapers almost every day during the time I’ve been here.)
Nothing to brag about, really. No PhD. in Taiwanese Studies or anything like that.
As for Chiang Ching-kuo, well, yes, I DO have a *somewhat* more positive view of him than his father. Though that opinion is a bit beside the point, seeing how the post was mostly about his father, not him. What I DID say was that Taiwan didn’t have freedom and democracy under Chiang Ching-kuo, and I don’t think that’s arguable. During his rule, he wasn’t popularly elected, the 10,000 year legislature was still seated, Taiwan still had political prisons, and its press was unfree.
Political liberalization DID begin on his watch however, so his record isn’t all black. It’s just not as blemishless as you say.
Regarding CCK…
http://www.cwcmf.org/html/cwcmf_about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Nan