The Writing On The Wall

[Warning:  This is a serious post.  If you’ve already seen the Jan 2 entry, you might want to take a cold shower or something before giving this a read.]

Taiwan’s vice-president feels the need to ask the electorate to forgive her party’s recent missteps.  Which would seem to augur poorly for her party’s chances, given that the legislative elections are only 12 days from now…

Vice-President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) yesterday blasted the Ministry of Education over its "manhandling" of the re-emplacement of the inscription at National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall, saying she was sorry the project had been handled without consideration of public sentiment.

At an election rally in Jhonghe, Lu, the first Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight to criticize Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng’s (杜正勝) decisions regarding the hall, said the minister should be blamed for DPP’s recent waning popularity. 

"From my observations, the ministry’s mishandling of the former CKS Hall issue was a major blow to the party’s support over the past few months. Tu must apologize to the public for not handling the matter in a more genteel and agreeable manner," she said.  [emphasis added]

Time to play pin the tail on the scapegoat.  Yes, Tu engaged in some regrettable and counter-productive name-calling, but there are plenty of other people responsible for the independence party’s fall in fortunes – not the least of whom would be Lu’s boss, President Chen Shui-bian.  (Bit hard for her to blame the big guy in public, though.)

Anyways, let’s not forget the circumstances here.  Recall that the Taiwanese Central Government:

• paid for 240,000 meters of prime real-estate in central Taipei *
• paid for the construction of a monument to Chiang Kai-shek
• paid yearly for the maintenance and upkeep of said monument

Then one day, after making this sizable investment, the national government decided it wanted out of the dictator-glorification business.  So it tried to rename the hall.  At which point, the Taipei City government said, not so fast.  We love CKS, and we WANT him glorified.  But instead of making the national government a fair market-value offer on the property so that the monument could continue to send this message, the city government decided to take the cheap and confiscatory route instead:

We hereby proclaim Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to be a temporary historical site, they said.  The national government may still "own" it in some kind of legalistic sense, but from now on, we in City Hall, WE will control it.  Don’t even think of damaging or desecrating this ancient (27 year-old) artifact – not a SINGLE nail may be used to hang a new sign, nor a single old name-plate be removed.  And just to show you we mean business, we’ll call out the police and set up road blocks to prevent anybody from doing so.

(My, political speech sure is grand.  And cheap too, when it’s on someone else’s nickel!)

At this point the central government said, playtime’s over, and sent the national police to protect the folks sent in to change the name on the door.

In a nutshell, THOSE were the circumstances under which Tu said what he said.  He may not have been "genteel and agreeable," but it’s not always easy being "genteel and agreeable" when you’re in the middle of a good, old-fashioned showdown.

POSTSCRIPT: During the standoff, I often thought that both sides should have asked a court to decide who has jurisdiction over the monument.  (Based on purely libertarian principles, I think the national government had the stronger case.)  Surely that should have been the FIRST step, instead of the face-saving FINAL one, taken by City Hall only after it had already backed down.

(On the other hand, you might argue it was wise the courts weren’t involved.  Because no matter WHAT the judge’s ruling, someone was bound to be disappointed, and the court’s political impartiality would have been subsequently questioned by one side or the other.)

Leaving that aside, I wonder whether this affair hasn’t filled Taiwanese businessmen with a certain sense of unease.  After all, they just witnessed City Hall arbitrarily declare the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall a temporary historical site.  They know Taipei was busy spending big bucks finding a panel of "experts" to testify in favor of that ruling.  And if those businessmen happened to be CKS fans, no doubt they were busy applauding.

But here’s the thing:  if City Hall can do that to a 27 year-old monument belonging to the national government, why can’t it do the same to a 27 year-old FACTORY belonging to YOU as well?

Just think of the shakedown possibilities here:  "Hello Mr. Businessman, we’d like an especially LARGE campaign contribution from you this year.  And if we don’t get it, maybe we’ll announce your shop is a temporary historical site.  (We’ve done it before, you may have noticed.)  Now, don’t let the process worry you – we’ll just spend THE NEXT YEAR assembling a group of "experts" who’ll decide whether or not to make that status permanent.  In the meantime, please don’t forget you’re forbidden by law from making ANY changes to the building’s interior or exterior."

"Terribly sorry if that puts a crimp in your operations, old bean, but this is our precious historical heritage we’re talking about!"

As I see it, the only defense a businessman would ever have in that scenario would be public opinion.  And were I in his shoes, I’d be very uncomfortable having my investments protected by anything so fickle.

* Or stole.  Stole it fair and square, the KMT will have you know!