20100818 Free speech cannot be compromised

Free speech cannot be compromised

Wednesday, Aug 18, 2010, Page 8

Did Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) have a child-like and naive temperament?

This question was recently at the center of a very heated debate between a Control Yuan member and writer Ping Lu (平路) regarding the correct Chinese translation of Vladimir Lenin’s description of the Republic of China’s (ROC) founding father.

The dispute stemmed from the Council for Cultural Affairs’ plan to spend NT$20 million (US$627,000) on a documentary about Sun as part of the ROC’s centennial celebration next year.

Ping Lu, who has agreed to take part in the project, raised the ire of Academia Sinica fellow Hu Fo (胡佛) and professor-turned-Control Yuan member Chou Yang-shan (周陽山) when she said Sun was a figure who “even Vladimir Lenin would have ridiculed as naive and innocent.”

Hu and Chou penned an open letter chiding Ping Lu’s “frivolous and insolent” mentality in handling the project.

Chou warned the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation that they would be held accountable and face censure from the Control Yuan if the documentary deviated from historical facts. Hoping to defuse the controversy, Council for Cultural Affairs Minister Emile Sheng (盛治仁) quickly came forward to say Ping Lu was merely an adviser and not the producer of the documentary, adding that the film would be shot in a way that accurately reflects the historical events with a humanistic perspective.

People can decide for themselves whether or not Lenin thought Sun was innocent or naive by flipping through Volume 18, “Democracy and Narodism in China,” in Lenin’s Collected Works (4th English Edition). It is in this volume that the debated phrase can be found.

“And Sun Yat-sen himself, with inimitable, one might say virginal, naivete, smashes his reactionary Narodnik theory by admitting what reality forces him to admit, namely, that ‘China is on the eve of a gigantic industrial [ie, capitalist] development,’” Lenin wrote.

While the strife between Ping Lu and Chou ostensibly was about differences in the Chinese translation and the beliefs it reflects, the crux of the matter is Chou’s attempt to meddle in freedom of expression through his capacity as a Control Yuan member.

Chou said the film, financed by the government, should proceed with caution and carefully depict historical events. While some might think he was simply making a friendly reminder about the potentially sensitive nature of the documentary, his actions could also intimidate the council and the ROC Centenary Foundation and make them think twice about pursuing independent thought during the production of the documentary.

As Chou said, the documentary would be government funded, but the government gets its funds from taxpayers, which is all the more reason why the film should reflect the many different views held by Taiwanese, rather than just one individual’s perspective.

Furthermore, Sun was a human being just like rest of us, and there is no need in today’s democratic Taiwan to deify a protagonist in a documentary.

What recourse do people have to censure a Control Yuan member who censures free speech?

If the council or the ROC Centenary Foundation yield to an argument that is reminiscent of autocracy in its suppression of freedom of expression, it would ultimately result in a huge step back in our hard-fought right to express ourselves freely and openly.