De-Chiangification & Name Rectification – The Foreigner in Formosa

Lee Teng-hui On Taiwan’s Current Government

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) yesterday accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of incompetency, lashing out at his administration for failing to offer concrete measures to curb public apprehension over events such as the recent melamine contamination and the poor performance of the TAIEX.

Now, I've seen a few possible explanations for the governments' poor performance:

1) President Ma Ying-jeou is attempting to create a precedent for a "Queen of England" presidency for Taiwan. Unfortunately for him, he has no Taiwanese model for him to draw upon.

2) The KMT has been out of power for 8 years, and its governing skills are out of practice.

Without disagreeing with point #1, I'd like to elaborate a little upon point #2. While it's true that the KMT lost control over the executive for the last 8 years, it DID have effective working control over the legislative branch over the same time frame. So how did it spend its time? Did the KMT spend the last 8 years KEEPING ITS GOVERNING SKILLS SHARP by actually passing into law legislative proposals that would benefit Taiwan?

Or did it DULL THAT EDGE by spending those 8 years engaged only in pointless, petty obstructionism? *

I've seen the China Post sneer at former President Chen Shui-bian's record, asking what it was that Chen accomplished over the last 8 years. I can think of a few things**, but let me turn the question around. What did the KMT-dominated LEGISLATURE accomplish in the last 8 years? They had a majority, after all. Their votes were law — Taiwanese presidents have no veto power.

Once more, what legislative successes can KMT lawmakers boast about on THEIR resumes? Hmm? Anyone? Anyone? I'm waiting . . .

A former marathon winner comes out of a long retirement for a big race. He thinks he's got a good chance to win again. But does he?

Not if he's spent the last 8 years scarfing down doughnuts and grousing about how easy kids today have got it. If he hasn't spent enough time in training, maintaining his skills, our runner's fans are in for a major disappointment.

* Speaking of pointless, petty obstructionism, here's a case in point:

The Presidential Office is thankful that the US government sent an official notification on Friday to Congress on the sale of five major packages of weaponry to Taiwan, officials said yesterday, adding that the move signaled a new era of mutual trust between Taiwan and the US.

“The notification of the US government put an end to the turbulence of the past eight years and rebuilds mutual trust between the US and Taiwan,” Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chih (王郁琦) said yesterday.

Uh-uh — you don't get off that easy, Mr. Wang. Your boss, President Ma Ying-jeou, spent TWO YEARS boycotting those arms packages when he was in opposition. As KMT chairman, Ma blocked 'em 60 times in the legislature. Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet . . . Sixty times. You can't pawn THAT off on the former president, buddy.

In the end, Ma relented on the special arms bill. By that time however, America viewed him and the KMT as fundamentally untrustworthy. And the U.S. put the weapons sale on hold.

And so it was that the KMT was reduced to begging — BEGGING! — for that which it had so casually boycotted and dismissed as unnecessary just a few months earlier:

The United States could see its credibility among Taiwanese at stake if it fails to approve a pending Taiwan arms procurement package . . . [Taiwanese] Defense Minister Chen Chao-min said Monday.

Please, please, please, sell us these weapons. 'Cause if you don't, uh . . . you'll, you'll . . . look really bad. Really, REALLY bad . . . The passive-aggressive approach — yeah, that's the ticket!

As for the credibility of the Ma Ying-jeou administration, we'll escape unscathed. Why, we're a lean, mean, governin' machine.

With the 24% approval rating to prove it.

** At the top of my head, Chen's accomplishments as president include the de-politicization of Taiwan's military, increased democritization (via a new referendum law) and his partially-successful attempts to de-normalize Taiwanese worship of former dictators Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo.

Set against that record are troubling charges of corruption and money-laundering. Which if proven true, make his presidency a very mixed bag.

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

Yesterday’s China Post headline: [KMT President-elect] Ma proclaims love for Taiwan

And the story in today’s papers? Ma Ying-jeou asks the Taiwanese Postal Service to delay releasing a set of stamps featuring his portrait alongside the word, "Taiwan."

Hey, give the guy a break, everybody. It should be obvious Ma LOVES Taiwan … He just doesn’t want to be caught dead having his picture on ANY stamp which bears the stinkin’ name!

UPDATE (Apr 4/08): Apparently I wasn’t the only one who had that reaction. From today’s Taipei Times:

A group of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers yesterday criticized president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) after he expressed reservations over the use of the word “Taiwan” on postage stamps, and accused him of discarding the name “Taiwan” like “toilet paper” after using it to win the March 22 election.

[…]

The DPP legislators said Ma had expressed no such reservations when he used the slogan “Taiwan marches forward” in his election campaign.

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!

Taunting The Opposition

OK, I know it’s campaign season here in Taiwan, and politicians want to fire up their supporters. But are statements like this really necessary?

[Ministry of Education Secretary-General Chuang Kuo-jung] has become a household name because of his snappy comebacks and caustic remarks about the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its top leaders, including calling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) "sissies," "gay-like" and "wimps."

You wouldn’t walk up to a semi-reformed ex-convict and question HIS manhood, would you? Well in a way, the KMT is a bit like that ex-con. The party doesn’t behave as badly as it used to, but it’s hardly a model of what a loyal opposition should look like, either. Ultimately, the KMT didn’t use violence* when the sign on the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in Taipei was recently changed over its objections to "Liberty Plaza" – and as a reward, its leaders were called a bunch of effeminate pansies! Good grief, do the pro-independence parties really want to ENCOURAGE the KMT to bust heads during future confrontations of this sort?

Naturally, homosexual organizations and women’s groups were outraged. This kinda took the cake, though:

[Lai Yu-mei, secretary-general of the Taiwan Gender Equity Education Association,] said schoolteachers have complained about Chuang. "We’ve been receiving a lot of protest phone calls every day," she continued, "and most of the teachers were disgusted and didn’t know how they could teach children with Chuang setting such a bad example." [emphasis added]

Ya don’t know how to do your job when politicians in the background start talkin’ trash? Here’s an idea: Why doncha just suck it up and TEACH instead of whining about it…ya pantywaists.

(Oooo. Sure hope all those bad-ass schoolteachers don’t get all medieval on me now. Heavens to Mergatroid, they could keep me after class and make me write a hundred lines on the blackboard yet!)

* I am assuming here that the KMT supporter who drove his truck over 6 people during the name-change stand-off was nothing more than a deranged individual acting on his own.

Myanmar or Burma?

After the transition in Taiwan to democracy, name rectification became a topic of discussion here. But in the case of Burma, the transition ran in the other direction. So the question is, if a junta, rather than a democratic government, engages in name rectification, should foreigners legitimize the new official names by accepting them?

Some thoughts by James Fallows at The Atlantic.

Burma, not Myanmar

It’s Myanmar, a reader objects

Confusion in the media re: Burma / Myanmar

UPDATE (Sep 30/07): Yesterday’s China Post also featured a story on this subject:

"The democratically elected but never convened Parliament of 1990 does not recognize the name change, and the democratic opposition continues to use the name ‘Burma.’ Due to consistent support for the democratically elected leaders, the U.S. government likewise uses ‘Burma,’" the State Department Web site says.

UPDATE #2: Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg had a thought:

Wouldn’t it be smart for everyone [in Burma] to wear monk robes and, I suppose, shave their heads? The images would have enormous impact, the troops wouldn’t know who is and who isn’t a monk, and it would give a thrilling "I am Spartacus!" narrative twist to the uprising.

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

Terrific set of editorials in Taiwan’s China Post on Monday – from a blogger’s point of view, anyways. Both deal with issues of Taiwanese sovereignty. The first, "Did Taiwan give up sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands?" makes the case those islands belong to Taiwan rather than Japan, then takes the government to task for not pressing Taiwan’s claim assertively enough:

Taiwan’s Coast Guard Administration appears reluctant to confront Japanese patrols over the Tiaoyutai [known to the Japanese as the Senkaku Islands – The Foreigner], where Yilan* fishermen now often get caught for "intrusion" into Japanese "territorial waters." Activists have been forbidden to make any protest trips there…

You want an international incident…over THIS???

Japan's Senkaku Islands

(Image from twhistory.org)

The second editorial, "What’s in a name?" ridicules President Chen Shui-bian’s efforts to have the country named "Taiwan" rather than "Taiwan, China":

[President Chen] is obsessed with the idea of getting Taiwan to accede to the United Nations under its rightful name. His government bristles whenever anything from Taiwan shown abroad is said to be from Taiwan, China.

That’s why the Government Information Office lodged a complaint with the organizers of the Venice Film Festival, who, under pressure from Beijing, listed Taiwan-produced films as entries from Taiwan, China. Among them was "Se Jie (Lust Caution)," directed by Ang Lee of "Brokeback Mountain" fame. It was originally described as a production from "USA and China" for it was shot in both countries. It was later changed to Taiwan at the request of its producer. That in turn drew complaints from China. Then the name was settled as "USA/China/Taiwan."

[…]

All this sounds like silly gags in a bad TV sitcom. Can’t we try just to forget whatever name other countries in the world choose to attach to our island nation? [emphasis added]

Ironically enough, the Post‘s conclusion is contradicted by the very example it provides. The Venetians didn’t "choose" to list Taiwan-produced films as originating from "Taiwan, China"; they were PRESSURED by Beijing into doing so – by the China Post‘s own admission.

Be that as it may, we’re still faced with the question: Is this, as the Post claims, just a silly semantic quibble? Isn’t the whole "Taiwan" vs. "Taiwan, China" vs. "Chinese Taipei" debate on par with arguments over tomayto-tomahto or Germany-Deutschland? Shouldn’t Taiwan just get a life and ignore trivialities?

What’s amusing is that a paper that spilt so much ink complaining about the renaming of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall would have the face to turn around on a dime and subsequently ask its readers, "What’s in a name?" Let me guarantee you, the China Post wouldn’t be nearly so philosophical about that question if Tokyo started referring to Taiwan as JAPANESE-Taipei. Nosiree – the China Post would be the first to regard THAT as an attempt to de-legitimize Taiwan.

No Czech newspaper would nonchalantly ask, "What’s in a name?" if Berlin started talking about "Sudetenland, GERMANY" once more. Not if it didn’t want to appear treasonous, it wouldn’t. And papers in the Baltics wouldn’t give little sermons about semantic freedom if Vladimir Putin had pressured other countries into referring to Lithuania as RUSSIAN Vilnius.

No, in both cases, the Czechs and Balts would be swift to recognize their own self-interest. They’d instantly see those names as something sinister, as preludes to future attacks upon their national sovereignty.

Maybe now you can see why I was so impressed that the China Post printed both those editorials on the same page. Because recognizing that the second piece calls upon Taiwan to surrender its sovereignty in one arena, the writers compensated by defending it in another.

Now, I may be one of the world’s worst chess players, but even I know that as a general rule, the key to success in that game is to protect your important pieces, while sacrificing your unimportant ones. Yet, the China Post counsels the exact opposite. The Post would have Taiwan defend the sovereignty of the Senkakus – risking war through "confrontation" with Japanese patrols ** – over a relatively insignificant group of islands 7 square kilometers in size, on which not a single Taiwanese lives, or ever HAS lived. That, while ignoring Chinese threats to the sovereignty of Taiwan Island itself – an island 36,000 square kilometers in size and populated by 23 MILLION people.

There are only two possible conclusions here.*** Either those guys are even worse chess players than I am…or, this is a game they deliberately want Taiwan to lose.

* Yilan is a county on Taiwan’s north-east coast.

** A Taiwanese confrontation with Japan over the Senkakus risks war with not only Japan, but America herself:

The 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security applies to territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands. In November 1996, Assistant Secretary of Defense Campbell stated that the basic position of the US is that the Japan-US security treaty would cover the Senkaku Islands. Secretary of Defense William Perry reconfirmed this fact on 03 December 1996.

A conflict is, perhaps, what the China Post hopes for. Stir up Chinese nationalist sentiment in Taiwan and provoke a war with Japan and its ally, America. Chinese nationalists then have their excuse to renounce America, and openly ally themselves with their communist brethren across the Strait. From twhistory.org:

But the fight for sovereignty of the Diaoyutai [Senkakus], even to the extent of debating Taiwan’s international position and legitimacy, has been continuously examined and contended, with some people [in Taiwan] even advocating a United People’s Republic of China, or so-called Overseas Chinese, fighting together for the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai… [emphasis added]

With the strategic goal of uniting Taiwan with the PRC accomplished at last, the victor in any war for the Senkakus’ would be largely besides the point.

*** Actually there is a third possibility. While as a general rule the good chess player protects valuable pieces and sacrifices weak ones, he sometimes does the opposite in order to BAIT his opponent. Parenthetical point #2 above represents an example of what this might look like.

The opponent in such a case would be none other than the Taiwanese people, who, if misled into taking the bait, would be lured away from a democratic ally and into the arms of authoritarian one.

i-1

Why China Airlines Should Keep Its Name

Been gone for a month, so I’m woefully out of touch with local events. About the only things I heard about are the big typhoon and the airplane that blew up on the runway in Japan. Didn’t see footage in the foreign media of the former, but there sure was plenty of the latter.

Massive fireball on a China Airlines jet on the tarmac of Okinawa, Japan.

(Image from Aug 21st ed of the Taipei Times)

One thing I DID notice was that none of the foreign media bothered to mention that China Airlines is in fact a TAIWANESE airline. And with some new Chinese product or another being recalled every 3 or 4 days, it suddenly dawned upon me that here was ONE reason for not renaming the company that Taiwan’s China Post managed to overlook. Here goes:

China Airlines should not be renamed "Taiwan Airlines" out of a simple desire to maintain Taiwan’s good reputation. After all, when a China Airlines jet blows up on the tarmac, isn’t it better from Taiwan’s perspective that foreigners mistakenly take it to be a Chinese, rather than a Taiwanese, company?

Heh.

i-1

Victims Of Communism Memorial

Thursday’s Taipei Times revealed that the unveiling of the memorial provided a rare opportunity for Taiwan’s representative in Washington, D.C. to meet with the American president. Careful, Mr. Bush, China might accuse you of PROVOKING it:

US President George W. Bush shook hands and chatted with Representative to the US Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) on Tuesday while attending the dedication of a memorial to those killed by communist regimes around the world.

Actually, that’s not why I brought the subject up at all. The real reason is that one line in the story reminded me of something I wanted to write about a month ago:

The VOC Memorial was more than a decade in the making. The US Congress passed an act in 2003 on the establishment of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to raise funds to build the monument in memory of the more than 100 million people killed by communist regimes — from China and Soviet Union to Cambodia and North Korea. [emphasis added]

Recall that a month ago, cost was one of the major complaints raised against renaming the Chiang Kai-shek memorial in Taipei. It seemed to me at the time that one of the best ways to counter that argument would have been to call for the establishment of a private charity to raise funds for the renaming. After all, "It costs too much," can hardly be said once people OTHER THAN YOURSELF voluntarily commit to paying for it. Pass the hat around, and see just how much the Taiwanese value the re-dedication. Those who hate the idea would be free to give nothing. But I’ll bet those who WERE committed would’ve given, and given generously.

Both the World War II Memorial and the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington were funded chiefly by private donations. While I’m sure their respective foundations encountered the problem of free ridership, I note that in the end, the memorials DID manage to get built. What we have here is a nice, small-government approach to the problem, which has the additional virtue of helping build civil society at the same time.

UPDATE (Jun 21/07): That was predictable. The Butchers of Beijing threaten war over Wu’s handshake with George Bush:

[Chinese officials] expressed stern-faced concern and spoke of dire consequences during a press conference as China made clear its fury that Bush had even chosen to acknowledge Wu’s visit.

“We insist to keep the current peaceful relations as we promised Taiwan’s citizens. We have prepared to stop (prohibit) any activities, conduct and any excuses to divide Taiwan away from China in whatever cause, the activities are going to cause serious harm. Chenshuibian’s (President of Taiwan) conspiracy of an independent Taiwan causes serious harm in our peaceful relations. We will resort to military action if they continue these irresponsible actions,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Yang Li. (rough translation). [emphasis added]

Hat tip to The View from Taiwan.

Renaming Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall

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.

Man (labeled DPP) throws a Chiang Kai-shek bust off the edge of a cliff,, which a dog (labeled KMT) follows. The man says, Atta boy! Taipei Times editorial cartoon.

(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

Trainwreck

My initial reactions to the rocky attempt to rename Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall in Taipei. But first, a little background:

Earlier this year, Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian decided to rename the Chiang memorial, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the capital of a democracy to host giant monuments to former dictators. Because the legislature is dominated by Chinese nationalists who revere Chiang, Chen undertook the re-dedication via an administrative procedure.

After denouncing Chen for his ingenuity, Chinese nationalists in the legislature insisted that the change could only be made by an act of THEIR branch of government. Since the opposition possesses a legislative majority, they essentially believed they had a veto over the plan.

Not to be outdone, the Taipei local government (again, a body dominated by Chinese nationalists) got into the act. Invoking an administrative procedure of his own, Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin, son of one of Chiang’s generals, designated the hall as a temporary historical site. In doing so, he put the local government on a collision course with the national executive branch, because such sites cannot be legally altered.*

(Why? Well, it’s kinda hard to rename a structure if you can’t take down the old nameplate. Or screw the new nameplate anywhere onto the walls!)

Faced with this fly-in-the-ointment, the Chen administration decided to square the circle, by covering up the old "Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall" nameplate with scaffolding. Large canvas banners proclaiming "Democracy Memorial Hall" were hung from the outside walls. Finally, a new nameplate was unveiled in the gardens, in such a way that the structure was unmolested.

What a coincidence that Sunday’s Taipei Times featured a picture of an elderly protester who busied himself shouting that the president had no, uh, gonads. Because my reaction was that maybe that old coot had a point there.

I mean, if President Chen didn’t think the name change would pass legal muster, he shouldn’t have bothered with the whole endeavor. The law’s the law, even if you’re president and you don’t happen to like it. On the other hand, if Chen DID think the courts would rule in his favor, he should have insisted the old nameplate be removed. None of these phony-baloney half measures, with banners and scaffolding. To HECK with the local government. Tear down the old stone engraving, and put up the new plaque.

Yes, yes, City Hall said that anyone doing that would be arrested. But if you TRULY believe the courts will vindicate your actions, then you also have to believe that the workmen will ultimately be released. And that somebody in City Hall will in turn have to answer charges of false imprisonment of the workmen. Workmen who were, after all, only doing their job.

As it was, Chen’s wishy-washiness mollified no one. Those banners? City Hall said the NAILS used to hang ’em up damaged the "historical site". The scaffolding? Changed the site’s appearance. Grievous breaches of the law, meriting fines, said the city of Taipei.

(Not content with that, local authorities had the banners and scaffolding torn down a few days later, anyways.)

I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks Chen comes out looking weak here – a bit like a certain duke from an old nursery rhyme:

The Grand Old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He marched them up the hill
And he marched them down again…

* Actually, I’m sure they CAN be altered, but only with permission from the local government. Permission which Taipei City Hall would be loath to grant.