Q: What was the original planning for the CCPD like? Over the past ten years, what do you see as the most gratifying achievements?

A: My understanding of the structural plan for the CCPD was to use the model of the Council for Economic Planning and Development to plan, evaluate, and coordinate cultural affairs, without any real power to implement But after ten years, it is clear this path cannot be successful. Thus we have had suggestions to establish a Ministry of Culture. The reason is that the CEPD has a longterm lineage behind it, with a great deal of talented personnel, and it was often a premier or vice premier level person who personally took charge of their affairs. Any proposal of the Executive Yuan which would exceed NT$3-500 million had to receive its approval. It received a degree of attention with which the CCPD could never compete. The innate capacity of the CCPD was inadequate, and there are many government organs which govern culture.

In terms of the overall cultural accomplishments in the last ten years, I feel that compared to ten years ago, there are a great many more arts activities across the province. First, there was the beginning of establishment of Cultural Centers in each county and city in 1978, with each center having a performance hall, a gallery, and a lecture hall. Perhaps the standard of programs is not up to the level of Taipei, but it has definitely brought an atmosphere of art. You can even see internationally first rate groups perform in Kaohsiung or Hualien from time to time. And then there's last year's CCPD Arts Festival. All of these are domestically produced programs, with 152 different events, of which two-thirds have performed in small cities, counties, and rural townships. Add to this the "trips to the countryside" in the Taipei City Music Festival and the Drama Festival, and there is a plethora of activities.

Another point of overall progress is that ten years ago the only performing groups in the country were the Tri-Service Peking Opera Troupe and other official, large-scale groups, but now, like Taiwan's economy, "small and medium enterprises" have sprung up in the cultural world.

Q: In what areas are things not as you would wish, which need strengthening?

A: Of course these exist. First, the protection of cultural assets is still inadequate. For example, there was the case of the Pali Water Pollution Plant construction destroying a major archaeological site. If you go through the Cultural Assets Protection Law, you will find not a single compulsory regulation to stop them.

Secondly, the larger arts environment is still not good enough. Government subsidies are both small and unsystematic--the CCPD only has NT$200 million in subsidies in its annual budget. And funding for arts activities from the private sector is even farther behind compared with the situation abroad.

Third, arts activities are still excessively concentrated in Taipei City. Recently the CCPD has been strongly promoting a "fair division of cultural wealth." But it has still not been very effective. But starting last year, we began to subsidize the Cultural Centers in every city and county. Each city and county got NT$10 million. Moreover, the less adequate the funding in a given place, the more we will subsidize. We call this "positive discrimination," and it is done to realize a "fair distribution of cultural wealth."

There are still many problems which need breakthroughs. For example, the rigidity of personnel regulations means that it is hard for specially talented people to get into cultural affairs. They may understand art, but they haven't passed the exam for civil service qualification. In the past there was only the Educational Administration Special Examination; only in the last year or two have Cultural Administration Special Exams been held. But if there are no personnel regulations for special employment in cultural affairs, we cannot meet current needs.

In terms of accounting, the biggest headache for us hasn't been inadequate funds but the "annual budget" system. The new accounting year begins every July, and we have to wait until the end of May for the Legislative Yuan to pass the budget before we can be certain of anything. In fact, it's hard to determine funds for arts activities. Art is entirely dependent on quality, so you can't award contracts by bid or by negotiating prices.

Further, I feel that the government should not be the main force in cultural activities. We want to encourage the private sector more, with the government playing a planning and assisting role.

Q: Ten years ago, several aspects of the overall arts environment, including the dimensions of politics, the tax system for arts performances, and the subsidy problem were all seen as obstacles to the development of the arts. Ten years later, has there been any improvement?

A: Over the past ten years, we have certainly resolved more than a few problems. For example, in the past when holding arts performances it was necessary to first pay 10- 11% for operating tax and entertainment tax, and moreover it didn't matter what percentage of seats were actually sold, you had to pay beforehand on the assumption of 100% ticket sales. Beginning last year, the operations tax was dropped from 5% to 1%. And the entertainment tax has been turned over to the localities, with each city and county council setting its own.

In addition, since the establishment of the Cultural Construction Fund, a number of new methods for financial assistance have been passed. For example, last April approval was given to pay up to half of the housing rents for an arts group, up to a limit of NT$80,000 per month. Even more importantly, this year methods for low interest loans were finally approved--a long term loan for a creative group can be for up to twenty years and NT$5 million. Loans for individual performances can be for up to three years and NT$2 million. Each year the Bank of Taiwan and the Commercial Bank of China each set aside NT$100 million for this purpose, and any interest over 0.5% is to be subsidized by the CCPD.

Q: The "mainland fever" in the arts community over the past two years it seems has not yet receded. Yet because of restrictions that mean the Ministry of Education cannot invite mainland personages to give commercial performances, or can only invite individuals but not groups, cultural exchange between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits is hindered and cannot develop. What is your view?

A: Fundamentally I believe that cultural assets belong to the whole Chinese people. If the Chinese Communists lower their enmity toward us, there could be cooperation between the two sides in maintaining national cultural assets. We could provide a little money and a little help. We would be very happy to do systematic video and audio recording and storage of mainland artists who are the last of their kind, especially of the minority peoples.

Secondly, social and cultural progress in Taiwan has been very rapid these past few years and there are many high quality published and audio-video works. This should be shared with the mainland.

As for the points you raised, a lot of people in the private sector are also calling for mainland artists to come to Taiwan to perform. But don't forget, you have to consider Taiwan's own arts environment. There are many talented people on the mainland, and prices are low. If we allow them to come here in great numbers to do commercial performances, wouldn't the local arts groups built up with such painful effort these past decades quickly lose their market? This is a necessary policy from the position of protecting our own artists.

[Picture Caption]

CCPD director Kuo Wei-fan has insightful views about overall cultural development. (photo by Huang Lili)