Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Palace Museum officials go too far with plan for a private club
By Wan Lixin |
May 18, 2011, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
A thief broke into the Palace Museum in Beijing and made away with a few gem-studded items.
It was highly embarrassing for the museum, also known as the Forbidden City, which is assumed to be well guarded with its 240-strong patrol crew, police dogs, and high-tech surveillance system.
And what a relief for the museum's management when a 28-year-old suspect surnamed Shi was detained by police 58 hours after the incident.
In accordance with best tradition, museum staff sent a silk banner to the Beijing police who caught Shi.
Nothing harmonizes the subtle situation more than some good platitudes. But the museum even managed to botch this.
The banner was intended to praise the police for "safeguarding" the country's power and prosperity, but to sound more impressive, the museum decided on a slightly different character which sounds the same but actually means "undermining" the country's power and prosperity.
Shi is apparently more deserving of the commendation. The faux pas put the museum's management team into hot water again, for the museum is seen as a sort of symbol of Chinese culture.
After making some clumsy attempts at defending their choice of word, the authority finally issued an apology, in which they accused palace security guards of ignorance.
But more damning facts emerged. The museum was accused of trying to turn one of its palaces into an exclusive club for the rich after CCTV reporter Rui Chenggang first blogged that the management had turned Jianfu Hall, a complex of gardened buildings, into a private club.
The management belatedly put a stop to the plan and blamed it on a firm commissioned to provide hospitality services.
The invitations for the opening ceremony in March were couched in an archaic style peculiar to that used by emperors when summoning ministers. But once again, the wording betrayed the management's astonishing lack of grasp of that style.
According to the disclosed agreement, members and their spouses and friends were to enjoy the privilege of holding banquets and conferences at the hall if they paid regular membership fees. Becoming a member at Jianfu Hall reportedly was going to cost 1 million yuan (US$154,000).
At the opening ceremony, palace guards, attired in traditional clothing for imperial servants, lined up at the entrance in a show of respect to the well-heeled VIP guests. They were served dishes handed down from the imperial past, and palace treasures were on display.
Jianfu Hall's garden was built in 1740 and was the second largest garden in the palace before it was ruined by a fire in 1923. The China Heritage Fund sponsored its restoration in 2005.
In blaming the "affiliated company," the museum said turning Jianfu Hall into a private club was out of the question.
It could only be used for "entertaining VIP guests, sponsoring press conferences, small exhibitions, themed saloons and seminars" among other things.
Decades of reforms have been marked by growing instances of turning public assets into private profits.
But turning a state-owned historical and cultural site like the Palace Museum into a cash cow further taxes our imagination. By now, it wouldn't be so surprising if the palace museum turned into a palace hotel one day.
There has been much talk of the industrialization of culture as a source of multibillion yuan investments.
In this new paradigm for growth, the mandate is to deprive "cultural" of its burdensome moral implications. The Palace Museum, for instance, may have tried to charge massive fees to set up a private club without questioning whether the money was made on the toil, tears, and blood of coal miners or the ravaged land.
We expect further answers from the palace, but we also expect higher authorities to see the case as more than isolated.
And in our anger and doubt, do not forget Shi, the loner peasant son (found in an Internet cafe) whose adventure led to a series of discoveries much more valuable than the handful of trinkets that he failed to despoil.
It was highly embarrassing for the museum, also known as the Forbidden City, which is assumed to be well guarded with its 240-strong patrol crew, police dogs, and high-tech surveillance system.
And what a relief for the museum's management when a 28-year-old suspect surnamed Shi was detained by police 58 hours after the incident.
In accordance with best tradition, museum staff sent a silk banner to the Beijing police who caught Shi.
Nothing harmonizes the subtle situation more than some good platitudes. But the museum even managed to botch this.
The banner was intended to praise the police for "safeguarding" the country's power and prosperity, but to sound more impressive, the museum decided on a slightly different character which sounds the same but actually means "undermining" the country's power and prosperity.
Shi is apparently more deserving of the commendation. The faux pas put the museum's management team into hot water again, for the museum is seen as a sort of symbol of Chinese culture.
After making some clumsy attempts at defending their choice of word, the authority finally issued an apology, in which they accused palace security guards of ignorance.
But more damning facts emerged. The museum was accused of trying to turn one of its palaces into an exclusive club for the rich after CCTV reporter Rui Chenggang first blogged that the management had turned Jianfu Hall, a complex of gardened buildings, into a private club.
The management belatedly put a stop to the plan and blamed it on a firm commissioned to provide hospitality services.
The invitations for the opening ceremony in March were couched in an archaic style peculiar to that used by emperors when summoning ministers. But once again, the wording betrayed the management's astonishing lack of grasp of that style.
According to the disclosed agreement, members and their spouses and friends were to enjoy the privilege of holding banquets and conferences at the hall if they paid regular membership fees. Becoming a member at Jianfu Hall reportedly was going to cost 1 million yuan (US$154,000).
At the opening ceremony, palace guards, attired in traditional clothing for imperial servants, lined up at the entrance in a show of respect to the well-heeled VIP guests. They were served dishes handed down from the imperial past, and palace treasures were on display.
Jianfu Hall's garden was built in 1740 and was the second largest garden in the palace before it was ruined by a fire in 1923. The China Heritage Fund sponsored its restoration in 2005.
In blaming the "affiliated company," the museum said turning Jianfu Hall into a private club was out of the question.
It could only be used for "entertaining VIP guests, sponsoring press conferences, small exhibitions, themed saloons and seminars" among other things.
Decades of reforms have been marked by growing instances of turning public assets into private profits.
But turning a state-owned historical and cultural site like the Palace Museum into a cash cow further taxes our imagination. By now, it wouldn't be so surprising if the palace museum turned into a palace hotel one day.
There has been much talk of the industrialization of culture as a source of multibillion yuan investments.
In this new paradigm for growth, the mandate is to deprive "cultural" of its burdensome moral implications. The Palace Museum, for instance, may have tried to charge massive fees to set up a private club without questioning whether the money was made on the toil, tears, and blood of coal miners or the ravaged land.
We expect further answers from the palace, but we also expect higher authorities to see the case as more than isolated.
And in our anger and doubt, do not forget Shi, the loner peasant son (found in an Internet cafe) whose adventure led to a series of discoveries much more valuable than the handful of trinkets that he failed to despoil.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
