| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 104 === This essay elaborates the interaction between national goals and rights of people under the development of tangible heritage preservation from 1895 to 2015 in Taiwan. Since these two characters have a relationship of co-existence and contradiction, it is necessary to look back the practice of preservation, especially its process of nation-building, in the context of colonial, authoritarian and democratic Taiwan.
Under Japanese ruling starting from 1895, tangible heritage preservation in colonial Taiwan is not the same as in Japan. First, the Colonial Government (Sōtoku-Fu) doesn’t extend the Temple Preservation Law of 1897 to Taiwan, which aims to protect the historical, religion and aesthetic essence of Japan. Second, even though after 1920s, the Colonial Government strengthens its assimilation policy toward colonial territories, and in 1919, the Historical Site, Scenic Beauty and Natural Monument Preservation Law is effective in Japan, not until 1930 does it come into force in Taiwan. Further, the object of the law, which is to civilize Japanese people, is not the same as the goal of assimilation. Only for the scientific and research reason makes the government willing to extent it into the colonial. Although in practice, the system is taken as a mean to commemorate the Japanese Emperor and shows the legitimacy of his ruling as well. All of these point out an”exclusion” in the work of “assimilation.”
After 1945, the KMT government brings the Antiquities Preservation Act of 1930 into Taiwan. Because of its particular emphasis on antique rather than historical sites, accompanying with the government’s depreciation of Japanese character, the government doesn’t treasure the historical heritage of Taiwan, only regarding it as a local culture without necessity to preserve. This attitude leads to some right-related controversies and continue to 1960s, as National Palace Museum becomes the most attended manifestation of the long, gorgeous and splendid Chinese culture. Nevertheless, around the age of 1970s, Due to the change of political atmosphere, the governor adjusts his cultural policy and preservation strategy, including and absorbing the local power into political field. In addition, the incident of Preservation of the Lin-An Tai Residence accelerates the pace of legislative action. Therefore, in the year of 1982, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law officially becomes effective in Taiwan.
1982-1990s can be seen as a multiple, dynamic period of tangible heritage preservation. During the democratic time, people start to know how to fight for their interests and rights. Also, because the law doesn’t pay enough attention to the protection of property, lots of controversies arise, which eventually lead to several amendments of the law. Further, the local governments intent to struggle against the KMT-led central government through the law, showing multiple, extensive interactions among different groups and historical memories. In addition, the legal research groups introduce the meaning of due process of law and other concepts of right protection, which gradually influence the thinking of Taiwanese people and their practice in courts.
After the rotation of political parties in 2000, the development of tangible heritage preservation turn into a new page. Based on the general understanding of Taiwanese-Nationalism, the government establishes the identity and subjectivity through following international documents of preservation, respecting the culture of different ethnically groups, and tracing the history of the authoritarian ruling. At the same time, the government engages in”culture industry” as a new field of national development with claims to pursue property rights. Nevertheless, under the understanding of economic value, lots of object loss their fundamental meaning of preservation. Among the contests of property rights, values of preservation and development, the courts try to define and designate different roles and functions of these factors. However, without the substantial realization of the value of preservation, the law cannot do beyond the personal rights of property, not to mention the indigenous groups who are far from being possible to be smoothly incorporated into the traditional legal system.
Based on these historical findings, this essay argues a more substantial, people-oriented way to realize preservation under the values of international documents and constitutional protections. First, rights should be given more protection. At the same time, negative effects caused by the majority’s value of urban development should be mitigated by strengthening the institution of preservation, such as deleting TDR reward of urban development in the preservation context, and adding Public interest litigation. Further, faced with the social fact of multiple historical experiences, the government should increase the chance of mutual understanding and communication by implementing the mutual-accepted cultural value assessment and intensifying the character of people in the hearing and deliberation process. Last but not Least, long-neglected Indigenous culture should be given more emphasis by respecting the spirit of The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law in the field of tangible heritage preservation. American system can be a reference to intensify their control of heritage.
|
|---|
