As lawmakers across the political spectrum squabbled over whether the referendum law should include a controversial sovereignty referendum, Presidential Secretary General Chiou I-jen yesterday said, "The referendum law should not exclude the sovereignty issue, but the DPP would take a passive stance toward that issue -- that is the party prefers the use of a defensive referendum to be used when China threatens to attack Taiwan."

Asked how a referendum would impact cross-strait relations, deputy secretary-general of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Yin Wan-ching yesterday said, "The referendum is a tool Taiwan could exploit to break through China's limitations imposed on Taiwan.

"It's been China's strategy to set up certain off-limit areas to warn Taiwan as to what it can do. However, the use of a referendum could be used by Taiwan to break through that forbidden ground," Yin said.

Chang Wu-yueh, professor at the Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University yesterday said that of the three referendums the government is going to hold next year, the referendum on Taiwan's WHO bid is the one that worries China the most, as it involves the sensitive "one China" policy and affects the trilateral relations among US, China and Taiwan.

Chiang was Mr. No Democracy

The pan-blue camp was on the defensive last week after a research fellow of the Academia Sinica, Wu Nai-teh, during a seminar entitiled Taiwan's Democratic Development in the Twentieth Century, made a vigorous attack on the reputation of Taiwan's last dictator, Chiang Ching-kuo.

For far too long it has been an orthodoxy in Taiwan -- the result, like so many orthodoxies here, of the blue camp's need to cover up its fascistic suppression of democratic tendencies and four decades of human-rights abuse -- that Chiang was the instigator of democratic reform.

This is rubbish. Chiang was a former secret policeman with possibly more blood on his hands than more notorious and universally reviled figures such as Ferdinand Marcos. His one aim, after his father was justifiably kicked out of China, was to make sure that Taiwan could survive as a haven for his refugee clique and everything he ever did was calculated to that end, be it the jailing or murdering of Taiwanese democracy activists, the co-opting of those Taiwanese prepared to collaborate with his criminal regime, strengthening Taiwan's economy or lifting martial law.

The latter, usually cited as the proof of Chiang's democratic tendencies was in fact a panicky reaction to the overthrow of Marcos the year before in 1986. Chiang realized that the KMT's rabid anti-communism for which the Chiang dynasty had received so much support from the US -- and which had supplied them with a convenient label for Taiwanese democracy activists that allowed the activists to be imprisoned or liquidated without US complaint -- was no longer enough. In the new age of human-rights awareness, Chiang had at least to pretend to care, especially after having just outraged US opinion by having a personal critic murdered on US soil in 1984 -- Henry Liu.

Due to the 13 years of KMT government after Chiang's's death and the reactionary pro-blue camp nature of Taiwan's media, a proper understanding of Chiang Ching-kuo has not filtered down to the public at large. He is still thought of much as he tried to project himself at the time -- an affable father figure prepared to listen to the little man's complaints. The kind of bright light Wu shone on Chiang's murky past needs to be far better known.

This is important because there is no doubt that the blue camp wants to use this mistaken impression of Chiang among voters as part of their election campaign. They have dissociated themselves completely from Lee Teng-hui and everything -- including democratization -- that he stood for in his 13 years in office. Given that the inept and stupid Lien Chan and the devious and crooked James Soong are poster boys for nothing but failure and political opportunism, where is the alliance to turn for its symbol? Evidently to Chiang, whom apolitical middle-of-the-road voters tend to associate with the economic prosperity of the 1970s and 1980s, rather then the thuggery of the Kaohsiung Incident, the Taiwan garrison command and extra-judicial killings.

The blue camp does not want its icon sullied, so it rose to Wu's criticism with a rabidness that Chiang himself would have sanctioned. Naturally, one of the most vociferous defenders of the reputation of "Mr. Ching-kuo" as the KMT so obsequiously likes to call him, is his bastard son, the legislator John Chang, who claims that the attempt to tell the truth about his father is simply a ploy to mislead young people into voting for the Democratic Progressive Party. We see it more as calling a spade a spade. We also point out that the Chiang family and the blue camp has a huge blood debt to pay to the Taiwanese people. Isn't it time to present the bill?

Culture clash no, convergence yes

By the Liberty Times editorial

`We solemnly advise the MOE to have the courage and take the responsibility to hold forums to debate curricula.'

The appearance of questions in the Hoklo language, more commonly known as Taiwanese, on the national exams for customs officials and police created a controversy, because non-Taiwanese-speaking test-takers could not completely understand those questions. As a result, Council for Hakka Affairs Chairwoman Yeh Chu-lan paid a special visit to Examination Yuan President Yao Chia-wen, demanding a rectification, so as to avoid making waves of "ethnic discrimination" on the sea of Taiwan's complex variety of cultures. At the same time, the Ministry of Education's (MOE) amendment of the guidelines on history curricula for senior-high schools has also stirred up eddies having been accused of attempting to disassociate the Republic of China from Taiwan, because Qing Dynasty history and the history of the ROC on the Chinese "mainland" were reclassified as part of "world history." Some members of the opposition even accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of pushing for Taiwan independence in the name of "nativization."

After the DPP came into power, out of their sense of appreciation for the nativized consciousness and nativized culture, it has given top priority to the "Taiwan first" ideal.

In the past, when the Cultural Revolution broke out in China, driven by Marxist-Leninist ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Red Guards caused irreparable damage to traditional Chinese culture. As a result of such efforts to uproot what it called "old" and "outdated," a major catastrophe to the traditional Chinese culture emerged.

In contrast, Taiwan, where Chinese culture was painstakingly preserved, became a hotbed of Chinese culture. For a time, everything, from drama to cuisines to languages to kite-making to just about anything else Chinese was celebrated by Taiwanese. This is especially true in the cities, where large numbers of newcomers from China congregated.

Under the authoritarian rule of the KMT, the only thing on the mind of the regime of the Chiang Kai-shek family was the "sacred mission" of retaking the "motherland." This in turn bound the people of Taiwan to Chinese culture. Teaching materials on history reflected solely the viewpoints of the KMT, repeatedly emphasizing the message that the history of the KMT is inexorably the same as the history of the Republic of China.

Even the essay questions of all the tests had something to do with the weighty responsibility of saving China and saving the Chinese people. Most of the students concluded their essays with dogmatic sentences like "the battle against communism inevitably will be won ...," and "one day the ROC flag will once again flutter in the wind above Nanking ..."

Moving forward

Frankly speaking, we cannot compare the authoritarian era with today's political environment where democratization is in process and the transfer of power has been realized.

Instead, we should try to think about how, against the backdrop of globalization, we can on the one hand distinguish ourselves from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" which prevails on the other side of the Taiwan Strait and, on the other hand, search for substantive Taiwan-centered culture.

As a result of education by the KMT and deliberate efforts by the KMT to overlook and suppress Taiwanese culture, people in their 30s and 40s are much more familiar with the history and geography of China than those of the soil on which they live.

Under the circumstances, to restore the cultural characteristics of Taiwan and to re-emphasize the historical and linguistic legacies of the land are entirely reasonable and necessary. The developments of culture, history and languages are not only a continuous process but also play off one another.

So, the substance of the culture emerging in this interplay cannot be dissected or divided. In other words, recognizing nativized culture must be all-encompassing, meaning that, to promote Taiwanese culture, there is really no need to deny and turn one's back on the history and culture of the past.

Respecting diversity

A Taiwan-centered culture should not prefer the language or culture of any particular ethnic group. Rather, it should respect diversity, and merge all segments of culture on this soil because the Taiwanese language is not the only language in Taiwan.

We are happy to see curricula include Taiwanese culture. However, we oppose test questions based on a narrow-minded policy. While the move was obviously intended to be an innovation in breaking through a preference for Mandarin, it failed to take into consideration fairness and justice toward all non-Taiwanese-speaking groups.

Tests should not be used as a way to evaluate ideological, cultural and linguistic orientation. As for whether the new guidelines for the history curriculum at senior-high-school level attempt to disassociate Taiwan from the ROC, it is something that should be openly subjected to public debate. Viewpoints about the history of this country must be from a fair and impartial angle. It cannot favor the views of any political faction.

Creating dialogue

Scholars and experts who take part in drafting curriculum guidelines must explain through impartial public forums the goals and policy considerations underlying the revisions made. Search for consensus before formulating guidelines. Do not cast all the blame on the minister of education or think from the zero-sum perspective of different academic or political factions. Doing so will only complicate the issue, making it even more difficult to reach a consensus.

It is equally wrong to try to please everyone by complying with every demand that comes along. This would only end up with excessively weighty curricula and confuse children, throwing them into an identity tailspin.

In a nutshell, we must understand decisions on how we teach the history of this country and decisions which will affect its cultural evolution should not be made in isolation and behind close doors. We should not be self-indulgent. Rather, we ought to embrace our links with the world. We must incorporate our understanding of local history with that of world history. We must also gain insight on Taiwan's past and re-examine its place in the history of the Asia.

Therefore, we solemnly advise the MOE to have the courage and take the responsibility to hold forums to debate curricula in the absence of an obvious consensus on teaching materials well before teachers are trained based on such materials. Search for a Taiwan-centered culture this way. It is better to be slow than to move ahead in haste.

The Examination Yuan should never again practice ethnic and linguistic discrimination. This is the way to avoid needless ideological debates and identity confusion as a result of factional twisting of the fundamental spirit of the educational reforms and nativization campaign.