Essential Building Blocks to Recreating Kyoto on Taiwan

Essential Building Blocks to Recreating Kyoto on Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2009

Everyone assumed the merger of Tainan City and Tainan County was a lost cause. But to everyone's surprise, Premier Liu's supplementary review allowed it to rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes. According to the Executive Yuan, the go ahead was based on two factors: Tainan's "status as an historical and cultural city," and "its lead in regional development." Tainan City and Tainan County were finally given the green light for upgrade to Directly Administered status. Leave aside for the moment whether the ruling party and ruling administration were motivated by electoral concerns. Recreating Kyoto on Taiwan is a major undertaking. Winning approval is merely the first step. How to turn these blueprints into reality is far more important.

We have to wonder why only a handful of scholars and officials have paid any attention to the case. No public hearings or citizens review boards were convened. The entire process seemed rushed and slap-dash. We affirm Premier Liu's desire to balance development in the North and South, and his determination to avoid old patterns of development. After all, upgrading may return Tainan to its old glory, and ease fears that Southern Taiwan will not be taken seriously. It may allow the concept of a dual-core in the South to take root. The blueprint for a "Kyoto on Taiwan" is persuasive for Premier Liu and other officials. We should review the history of Kyoto from its very beginning. It will allow Kyoto to serve as an historical precedent. It will allow us to solicit diverse opinions. It will prevent the concept of an "historic cultural city" from being stillborn.

During the reign of Emperor Kammu, the government attemped to break free of Buddhist influences. It moved the capital away from Nara. First it moved the capital to Nagaokakyo. Later, in 794, it founded the city of Heian-kyo, in Yamashiro, where it remained until 1869. Eventually its name was changed from Heian-kyo to Kyoto. During the Kamakura period it was the center of power for the Edo shogunate, as well as a refuge from war. Kyoto had much authority but little real power. These factors allowed Kyoto to remain the capital of the Japanese empire. But just as the human body is subject to birth, aging, sickness, and death, a boom and bust cycle appeared. It created Heian-kyo's aristocratic culture. Various Buddhist sects and buildings followed. Natural and man-made disasters destroyed the old world. But they also brought new opportunities for the common man. When the Emperor Meiji visited the East then failed to return, people in Kyoto suddenly realized Kyoto had lost its status as political hub. It had also lost its traditional status as a thousand year old center of culture.

The proud people of Kyoto did not give up. Officials and the public promoted a "Kyoto Strategy." First, they stressed education. Then they expanded and updated their transportation system. Finally, they implemented comprehensive urban renewal. They decided that Kyoto would both tradition but also welcome modernization. Today, Kyoto has 17 properties on the World Heritage list. It has hundreds of national treasures, and thousands of Buddhist temples and shrines. It has one of Japan's largest, most unique, post-modern train stations. It has Nintendo, Wacoal, Kyocera and other multinational companies. The people of Japan have never doubted Kyoto's historical and cultural role. Kyoto's population is merely the seventh largest in Japan. Its trade and industry cannot compare with that of Tokyo or Osaka. But Kyoto and Osaka, separated by only 40 kilometers, along with Kobe, form a regional triangle. Kyoto, Osaka, and Kobe in Kansai, together with Tokyo as capital, constitute two ends of a lever. This continues a history of struggle between the East and West. It is also necessary to unify power at the center. Kanto and Kansai look very different. The differences between Kyoto, Osaka, and Kobe may be great. But the revitalization of Kyoto shows us its importance to contemporary Japan.

Let's return to Tainan. Tainan was the capital of Taiwan during the Dutch occupation, during the Ming Dynasty under Koxinga, and during the Qing Dynasty. Its cultural heritage, architecture, and cultural values lead Taiwan, both in quantity and quality. The tea, sugar, camphor trade shifted Taiwan's historical center of gravity northward during the 1880s. But during Japanese colonial occupation many of members of the gentry in Tainan (including Lien Heng, Feng-Yuan Chen, Maw-Sheng Lin, and Han Shiquan) joined with idealists in Taichung under traditional Confucianists or the Presbyterian Church. They formed a covert resistance against Taipei, analogous to the antagonism between Kanto and Kansai. When the Nationalist government moved the capital to Taiwan, Tainan's status was uncertain. During the 1970 trade and industry took off. The imbalance between the North and the South became increasingly serious. Tainan's political and economic power and cultural influence continued to decline. Even today a sense of crisis remains, leading to the emergence of a self-help movement. For the above reasons, Kyoto provides a perfect prototype.

We celebrate the fact that Premier Liu appreciates Tainan's status as the first capital of Taiwan. It has a wealth of monuments, historical buildings, and traditional crafts. It has seven lagoons and four wetlands, enough to attract international tourists. It has the Tainan Science-Based Industrial Park, the Tainan Technology Industrial Park, the Southern Branch of the Industrial Technology Research Institute, and the Southern Taiwan Innovation Park. These make it the center of science and technology research in the South. These provide an economic base for its cultural history. These can help revitalize the Yunlin, Chiayi, and Tainan region as a whole. After all, for the population and resources on Taiwan to be overly concentrated in the North benefits no one.

More importantly, Premier Liu's "three living circles, seven development zones" proposal allows us to escape the myth of the three capitals. It allows us to see that all seven development zones are essential to national land planning. This converges with the five states, three offices plan during the Japanese occupation. In all fairness, the Japanese five states, three offices plan was an even better match for life on Taiwan. We need not evade this fact. Today Tainan City and Tainan County have unexpectedly broken out and inspired new thinking about national land planning.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.07.03
社論－打造台灣的京都 他山之石不可少
本報訊

出人意表，各界咸認「補考」無望的台南市縣合併改制案，竟在劉揆召開「複審會議」後浴火重生。據行政院表示，基於「歷史文化重鎮」和「帶頭區域發展」兩大關鍵因素，終讓台南市縣升格案拍板！暫撇黨政部門是否有選舉的權謀；當扛著「打造台灣的京都」的堂皇大纛，繼而攻城掠地後，如何落實藍圖，恐更為重要。

我們質疑，如斯重大的國土規畫，竟只有少數學者與官員與聞其事。畢竟少了諸如公聽會、公民審議等由下而上的草根民主後，整個過程就予人倉卒、拼湊的印象；然而，我們還是得肯定劉揆本於南北均衡、避開發展主義舊窠臼的魄力。畢竟升格之舉不但可讓台南重返歷史榮光、緩和南台不被重視的恐慌，且讓南部雙核心概念得以綻露生機。當然，「台灣的京都」藍圖對於劉揆暨與會官員似頗具說服力。循此，我們有必要將日本京都歷史細說從頭，既可做為他山之石，又能集思廣義，讓「歷史文化重鎮」之說不致蹈空。

日本在桓武天皇時期，為擺脫舊佛教勢力的牽絆，遂決意遷離平城京（奈良）。先是遷至長岡京，其後在七九四年於山背國興建了平安京，如此以迄一八六九年，幽幽歲月裡名號也由平安改為京都，其間鎌倉、江戶幕府的別立權力核心，以及戰國的離亂，都讓京都徒擁權威而少實權，但其做為日本帝都的身分未曾或變。千年光陰猶如人體有生老病死、繁華災厄互替諸現象。它既造就平安貴族文化，各類佛教宗派、建築也踵繼添華；而天災人禍的不時侵襲，既毀棄舊世界，也帶來庶民新契機。然而等到明治天皇東巡不返後，京都人赫然驚覺，京都不僅失去其政治樞紐地位，也喪失了千年來傳統權力與文化中心的角色。

驕傲的京都人並未屈服，官民努力推動「京都策」，先是扎根教育，次為廣興交通，最後是全面的都市更新，奠定了京都既恪守傳統，又不時迎納現代化的成就。如今的京都不僅坐擁十七項世界遺產、數以百計的國寶、上千座的佛寺與神社，它也擁有全日本最大、最具後現代特色的車站，任天堂、華歌爾及京瓷等跨國公司亦駐於其間。另一方面，日本人從未曾質疑京都崇隆的歷史文化地位，所以盡管京都人口僅居日本第七、工商產業更無法和東京、大阪相埒，然而它就是京都府，和相隔僅有四十多公里的大阪府（以及神戶市）合組為近畿三角。關西的京阪神和以東京都為首的關東地區形成槓桿兩端，這不只是歷史上東西軍合戰的延續，更是矯治一元化中央集權的必要之舉。而且，關東和關西樣貌固然大異其趣，即便是京阪神之間也是差異鮮明，可知京都活化在日本現代史上何其重要。

回過頭來看台南的例子。自荷據、明鄭到清領時期，台南做為台灣的首府，傳承的文化、建築和價值風尚於質於量都冠於全台，即使因為茶、糖、樟腦貿易導致台灣歷史重心在一八八○年代北移；但日治時期諸多台南仕紳（如連橫、陳逢源、林茂生、韓石泉…等）在傳統儒家或基督長老教會的化育下和台中志士聯手，隱約和台北城形成抗衡關係，猶如日本關東、關西的頡頏意象。直到國民政府遷台，由於對台南定位不明，以及七○年代工商起飛後，南北失衡日益嚴重，台南的政經實力和文化影響日墮，乃至今日因危機感加深，遂興起自覺自救運動。凡此，京都前例足供示範。

我們慶喜劉揆認知到，台南做為開台首府，不但擁有豐富的古蹟、歷史建築、傳統工藝，且其境內有七股潟湖、四草溼地，足以吸引國際觀光客；而台南科學園區、台南科技工業區、工研院南部分院、南台灣創新園區，使其成為南部產學研的科技重鎮，種種都可做為文化歷史和經濟的基礎，帶動雲嘉南的全面活化。畢竟人口、資源過度傾北，絕非全民之福。

更重要者，劉揆「三生活圈、七發展區」的新提示，讓我們得以跳脫三都的幻影，直視七發展區才是國土規畫要務，這隱然已和日治時期的五州三廳規畫相銜接了。平心而論，日人的五州三廳較貼近台灣生活圈，所以不須諱而避之。如今台南市縣的意外突圍反倒啟動由下而上的國土規畫想像。