The concept of national literature stems from the Romantic period in Europe and is tied to the the rise of modern nation states and associated national identities. A definition of national literature is: “the body of canonised texts in which a nation’s collective sense of imagined history is believed to be inscribed in images that evoke historical continuity and social unity. [It] provides […...] the cultural tradition which is ideally shared by all members of the imagined community.” (Denton 2014: 191, citing Hinrich C. Seeba).
Literature museums, and especially national literature museums, are innately political.
Classification and deciding on relevant authors guide the narrative. Added to this is interpreting the author. The French literary critic Roland Barthes takes this to its extreme in his essay, ‘The Death of the Author’, in which he completely detaches the author from his writing (1967). Later in life Barthes backtracked, but his statement is leading a life of its own, so unintentionally providing an example for the statement (Haas 2015). Generally, literature museums do not go down this route. Explaining the author’s intent and bibliographic context are important elements of the exhibits. This is no less subjective than ignoring the author. The museum’s leverage however is limited.
An author, contrary to an exhibited artist, is not dependent on the museum for exposure.
Through bookstores, libraries, and journals he or she gets the message out. Also literature museums do not have the appeal an art museum has to the general public, which affects their influence. The politics of the museum will therefor be most influential in its promotion of national literature through journals, translations and research sponsored.
7.1 National Museum of Taiwan Literature
As with most national museums in Taiwan, the National Museum of Taiwan Literature (NMTL) in Tainan is a recent museum, formally established in 2007 but opened to the public in 2003. Located in the meticulously renovated previous Tainan Prefecture Hall, later Tainan’s City Hall, this impressive 1916 building is an unlikely host to a literature museum. At its entrance, the casual visitor wandering in may be underwhelmed. The exhibit area is relatively small but there are reading rooms with free newspapers, popular with senior citizens, and a children’s section for which children line up before opening time. The larger part of the building is used for other functions. Until recently, the NMTL was the only literature museum in Taiwan. In 2016 it got company with the opening of the Taichung Literature Museum.
In contrast to other national museums visited, the museum’s academic activities receive more attention on the museum’s website than the collection does. The museum publishes the Journal of Taiwan Literary Studies, which also includes English language articles, provides grants for masters and PhD students researching topics related to Taiwan literature, and organises a forum for these students to present results at a seminar organised annually. Focussing on the collection, the display texts are quite comprehensive on where the museum stands in the Taiwan history narrative. The
NMTL has tasked itself to record a Taiwan-specific development through its literature and “convey depth, richness and complexities involved at each stage of Taiwan’s development and growth” and to share this with the world and so “to help Taiwan literature ‘go global’ and take place aside
other great national traditions”. With this Taiwan literature has an ambassador function for Taiwan. Taiwan culture, this introductory text continues, is the result of subsequent colonisation and immigration waves bringing a broad spectrum of experiences and ethnic and national
influences. This continues to the present day with new immigrants, particularly women the display mentions from Southeast Asia arriving and finding a place in Taiwanese society. As for Taiwan’s contribution to Chinese literature, this literature is referred
to as ‘world Chinese literature’, analogous to international contributions to English language literature.
The display texts do not avoid sensitive subjects. Tension between ethnic groups is brought to attention, as is the suffering and hardship brought on by authoritarian rule.
These are issues that have found their way into Taiwan literature. The literary historian Huang Teh-shi is quoted who, as early as 1943, noted that Taiwan literature could be distinguished by two archetypical genres, being “nostalgic” and “inter-ethnic
integration, subjugation and resistance”. With the former he refers to emigrants longing
Figure 4: National Museum of Taiwan Literature (author's photo)
for a romanticized homeland, with the latter the difficulties and tension that integrating into Taiwan society brings. Building on this, the permanent exhibition is divided into three sections: ‘Call of the Mountains and Sea’, ‘Disparate Dialogues’, and the
‘Literature Victorious’. The first addresses nostalgia. Taiwan nativism is the most prominent exponent of nostalgia, reason for the extra attention below. The second deals with tension through issues such as interethnic competition and troubled co-existence.
Self-destructing internal conflicts, resistance to government oppression,
anti-colonialism and battles for linguistic rights have left their mark on Taiwan history. The third tackles issues that, through liberalisation of Taiwan society, can now be freely discussed. Here is room for feminist and LGBT writers, and writers who have detached themselves from Taiwanese themes, writing postmodern and avant-garde fiction. For all the understated appearance of the museum’s exhibitions, the NMTL has the most explicit and clearest position on Taiwan society and recent history of the museums I have visited (Website National Museum of Taiwan Literature)
Nativism
The developments in Taiwan nativism closely follow Taiwan recent history. When looking into Taiwaneseness, nativism is a rich source. Taiwan nativism has its roots in the Japanese Colonial period. It was a reaction to the stigma of ‘otherness’ applied by the coloniser, implying inferiority. To put a timeframe on this literary movement, the early 1920s is taken as a starting point. In the mid 1930s, with the push towards further Japanisation of the Taiwanese, embodied in the kōminka assimilation policy, the movement withered. This early nativist movement was a reaction to the inferred
superiority of the Japanese culture, promoting a repressed Taiwanese culture. A distinct characteristic of nativism is writing on subjects close to the heart of ordinary people in
vernacular language, the language of the people in which they think and express themselves. The nativist movement sought to define Taiwaneseness and so construct a Taiwanese national identity. Already in those early days, there was discussion on what this meant. There were those who linked the Taiwan identity to China and others who recognised a unique Taiwan identity grown out of a very different own history.
Nativism as a literary movement resurfaced in the 1970s as a reaction to the KMT’s Sinification policies, made possible by a loosening of the constraints of the martial-law period. As in the 1920s, the movement was born out of defiance,
reinforcing the value of a repressed local culture. With the martial-law period ending in the 1980s, nativism receded. The ideology however has found its way into the political debate on Chineseness or Taiwaneseness in which Taiwan is submerged since. Taiwan Nativism as a literature movement has served the emancipation of Taiwan. The
movement is a part of Taiwan modern history and has been formative for recognising a Taiwan identity feeding into Taiwan nationalism. Nativism is not exclusive to Taiwan and is linked, as neo-nativism, to the wider discourse of globalism versus localism. As with the imposed culture of the coloniser, globalism too represses local culture. Neo-nativism is a reaction to globalism, essentialising local cultural features, set against unwanted ‘outside’ influences. The rise of populism worldwide is an ominous exponent of this (Lee 2003: 1-7).
8. Human Rights Museums
Human rights is an important political topic in Taiwan a reason to elaborate on this. The DPP emerged out of Taiwan’s human rights movement, which had its pivotal moment on 10 December 1979, International Human Rights Day. A rally organised in
Kaohsiung by Meilidao, also known as Formosa Magazine, a magazine critical of the government, was violently broken up. The organisers, who became known as the Kaohsiung Eight, were arrested, severely maltreated, forced to sign confessions, and subsequently sentenced to long prison terms. Other arrests of activists followed. The Kaohsiung Eight included Annette Lu, whose defence lawyer was Chen Shui-bian.
Annette Lu went on to become vice president when Chen Shui-bian was elected as Taiwan’s first DPP president in 2000.
Democracy and human rights are bedfellows. To be able to claim democratic rights, this must be able to be done without repercussions. Minorities need protection against the dictatorship of the majority. Promoting human rights and acting on these have proven not to be a given. In 1967 the KMT government ratified the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both drafted in 1966 and eventually endorsed in the UN in 1976. These covenants, together with the Declaration of Human Rights (1948), form the International Bill of Rights (Office of the High Commissioner 1948), It was not until International Human Rights Day 2009, forty-two years after ratification, that the act implementing the ICCPR and ICESCR came into effect in Taiwan. What happened in the mean time? It was apparent that the
authoritarian KMT government of 1967 had international politics as driver. The government not only signed but was, as a member of the UN Security Council at that time, an active participant in moving the human rights agenda forward. This to enhance the image of a free and civilised ROC set against a despotic PRC, but without the sense of obligation to act accordingly. When in 1971 the ROC was replaced by the PRC in the UN and Taiwan lost its international podium, human rights went on a backburner.
What may have been the biggest boost to the Taiwan Human Rights movement was another major incident in 1979. This was the United States switching recognition of the government of China from the ROC to the PRC, sealing Taiwan’s international isolation. To address Taiwan’s security concerns, the US regulated their relationship with Taiwan with the unilateral Taiwan Relations Act (1979), with which the US committed itself to the defence of Taiwan. For continued domestic support in the US, issues such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law were important. The
Kaohsiung crackdown and harsh treatment of the arrested activists later that year proved counter-productive. Ultimately, the aftermath of the Kaohsiung Incident led to the KMT’s recognising that justification of Taiwan’s existence as a nation was to be sought in a favourable comparison against the PRC, and its repressive politics were hurting its image. Democratisation was unavoidable. The Kaohsiung Incident proved to be a double-edged sword for the KMT. Being forced to initiate the democratisation process provided the KMT with the credible claim that it was this party that led Taiwan to democracy, a factor in the continued prominence of the KMT in Taiwan politics.
(Bowman 2012: 485-93).
When the DPP took over the presidency in 2000, President Chen Shui-bian set off to make good on his human rights agenda but his attempt of ratification of the ICCPR and ICESCR got held up in party politics. With ratification, Taiwan would distance itself from its authoritarian past and consolidate Taiwan democracy, demonstrating to the international community that Taiwan was on par with other developed countries. Taking this a step further, President Chen wanted Taiwan to be in the forefront of the human rights movement. This amongst others by addressing LGBT rights such as the right to marry and form a family, which would make Taiwan the first Asian country to do so, a topic still very much on the agenda today. President Chen was
up against a KMT-dominated Legislative Yuan reluctant to let the DPP shine in the international arena, and inclusion of LGBT rights was a step too far, even for
representatives of his own party. The most contentious issue however was Article 1 of both the ICCPR and ICESCR, which are identical in stating: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. Working this statement into Taiwanese legislation would feed, KMT legislators believed, into the DPP’s pro-independence bias. This would provide the DPP the opportunity to interpret this as a legal right to independence, as opposed to the KMT’s One-China stance, upsetting the delicate relationship with the PRC. Consequently, when submitted for ratification to the Legislative Yuan in 2003, the UN covenants did not pass (ibid.: 496-98).
When the ICCPR and ICESCR eventually were ratified in 2009, this was under KMT President Ma Ying-jiou’s tenure. This for much the same reasons as President Chen had, but with the Legislative Yuan firmly in hand of the KMT, matching the standards set in the covenants with existing Taiwan law was a controlled process.
Critics were sceptical about this. The ROC constitution, adopted on 25 December 1946 and coming into effect a year later, contained rights and guarantees such as the
impartiality of law, personal freedom, freedom of speech, religion and assembly, but ample circumstances allowing restriction of these are also written into the constitution, plainly demonstrated by the martial law period (Bowman citing Tan: 467). The Ma administration went on to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2011, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2014. With these, and including the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which was ratified back in 1971, Taiwan has ratified six of the nine core international rights instruments. Missing are the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which is ensnarled in the Taiwan death penalty debate, the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICMW) because of political sensitivities and the 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (CRPD) due to priorities set (“Shadow Report 2016”; Office of the High Commissioner accessed 2018; International Review Committee).
Independent control over enforcement of human rights is an issue worldwide.
The method of choice is the establishment of an independent National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Next to investigating human rights violations by government agencies or others, responsibilities include human rights promotion, education and awareness (Bowman 2012: 501). President Chen was a strong advocate for a Taiwan NHRC and included this in his proposal. He wanted to organise the NHRC under the Office of the President. This did not sit well with the Control Yuan with its broad investigative role within the government but Chen was wary of political influence of the Legislative Yuan on the functioning of the Control Yuan, not unjustly as proven by the shut-down of the Control Yuan from February 2005 to July 2008 because the KMT dominated Legislative Yuan did not approve Chen’s nominations. It only opened again after the 2008 presidential elections when the President’s Office was re-won by the KMT (Cadwell 2017: 31-32). For President Ma, independent check on human rights enforcement did not have a high priority and he was content this being a responsibility of the Control Yuan. The establishment of an NHRC was not taken on. The issue reappeared on the agenda when the President’s Office reverted to the DPP in 2016 and
President Tsai Ing-wen took over. The establishment of a NHRC remains a cumbersome process. Two years into Tsai’s presidency, such a commission has not yet materialised.
An issue remains where this should be organised. The thinking is now to establish a National Human Rights Institute (NHRI), the distinction being that, contrary to a commission, such an institute would be positioned completely outside of the government structure, maximising independence (“National Human Rights Institution…” 2017).
Not having a NHRC or NHRI does not mean that Taiwan’s human rights progress is not independently monitored. The KMT government instituted an
‘International Review Committee’ consisting of a panel of independent foreign experts, who reported on review results in 2013 and 2017. There is also a Taiwan NGO,
‘Covenants Watch’ monitoring the government’s human rights obligations and taking on other NHRC(I) tasks such as enabling human rights education and training and awareness-raising activities. A recent addition to human rights monitoring is the annual Human Rights Consultation between Taiwan and the European Union. The first was held in March 2018. Common issues coming out of reviews are the need to introduce a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, corporate responsibility in regards to human rights, the rights of foreign workers in Taiwan and foreign fishers on Taiwanese fishing vessels, and Taiwan’s position on the death penalty. The report of the International Review Committee is the more comprehensive one. The 2017 report includes an issue that the Supreme Administrative Court, in 2014, effectively ruled out the applicability of the ICESCR as basis for economic, social and cultural rights for consideration before domestic courts, ruling that national law prevails. Another issue brought up and close at heart to many in Taiwan is that of the lack of affordable housing due to speculation with housing, property and land. The right to property prevails over the right to adequate
housing and land. An issue of particular interest to this thesis is the point made on transitional justice, addressing past wrongdoings. The Committee writes: “The
government’s legislative proposals need to effectively and directly address the right to truth and the restoration of access to justice after the lift of martial law”. Museums play a role in this (International Review Committee 2017; “Shadow Report 2016”; "Taiwan and the European Union…” 2018).
228 Incident
The two most traumatic occurrences in modern Taiwan history are the 228 Incident in 1947 and the ‘White Terror’ during the 1949-1987 martial law period. The perpetrators stayed in power and memory of these occurrences were erased from collective memory, only to be recreated when democracy set in. The 228 Incident was an incident waiting to happen. At the time of the Japanese handover of Taiwan to the ROC in 1945, there was a sense of euphoria with the Taiwanese who were looking forward to be treated as equals by the Chinese ‘motherland’, what the Japanese certainly did not do. This euphoria lasted only a short while. The KMT leadership of the ROC was suspicious about the Japanisation of the population and resentful of Taiwan’s participation in the war effort on the side of the Japanese. There was no sense of equality from their side.
The ROC military commander of Taiwan, Governor General Chen Yi, came down on the population hardhandedly and Japanese bureaucrats and Taiwanese executives were replaced by Mainland Chinese.
The situation deteriorated quickly. Corruption was rampant and tension built up due to the economic exploitation of the island leading to shortages and inflation. An influx of Mainland Chinese migrants added to the tension. It only took a minor incident to light up this tinderbox. This happened on the night of February 27, 1947, only a year and a half into KMT nationalist rule. A female tobacco seller who sold contraband