The anti-President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) campaign was initiated and has been sustained by tremendous support from the pan-blue camp. It has also been strengthened by supporters motivated by former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) claim that he represents the people. Shih has duped many into backing the protests.
But do the protests really represent the public will? To a certain extent it does, but certainly not a majority.
The legislature, which is popularly elected, has the authority to represent the will of Taiwanese. The president is also directly elected by voters, and therefore is the most direct reflection of the popular will.
A dictatorship seeks to emphasize its "democratic" elements, but in a democracy it is the republican spirit that is important. This spirit emphasizes the rule of law, respect for political give-and-take and social reform through legal process.
Taiwan's pro-blue-camp media have continued to play up the idea that in a democratic country, the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly guarantee the citizens the right to demonstrate and demand that the president step down. In principle, this is correct, but when the rights of freedom of speech and assembly are stretched to become an excuse to deprive the majority of people of their freedom to make their own political choices, then there is a problem. We need to take a close look at such "freedom," and in some instances even use legal means to constrain this freedom.
Take the relatively developed democratic system of the US, for example. Not long ago, tens of thousands of people, including legal and illegal immigrants, marched in California and Washington demanding that Congress change its immigration policy to permit more immigration to the US and give illegal immigrants in the US welfare and legal status.
The demonstration fell within the limits of freedom of speech and expression, and therefore enjoyed the protection of the law. However, if this kind of protest were to surround Congress and the White House and refuse to end until President George W. Bush changed his policy, then the nature of the protest would have changed. Once the gathering obstructed the functioning of government, affected law and order or interfered with the very rule of law, then it would have to be checked.
Had it obstructed the normal functioning of the White House, Congress and general community order, then police would have intervened.
The media then would not accuse police of trampling on freedom of speech because disrupting social order is a separate issue -- and it is illegal.
Immigration law in the US is a product of the representatives of the American people. Anyone who opposes that law may express his opinion, but this does not give him the right to demand Congress and the president do everything according to his wishes. This is tantamount to demanding that millions of American voters be deprived of their right to a political choice.
Because laws are determined by Congress, it stands as the most authentic voice of the voter. A minority of protesters may express dissent, but it is unimaginable that in the US this right of choice would be taken away from the majority through forcing the president out of office or forcing Congress to change laws. It seems that the Shih supporters, who are pledging not to rest until Chen steps down, lack this basic understanding, which should in fact be shared by every citizen of a democratic country.
Looking back on the US in the 1970s, there were many protests by people opposed to the Vietnam War. However, they couldn't force the government to change its policy by surrounding Congress and the White House and not allowing government organizations to function. It was eventually a congressional vote that failed to support a military budget that ended the conflict. The policy change came completely through congressional procedures.
There is also a contentious split between the Democratic and Republican parties on the Iraq War, but the Democrats haven't begun any "topple Bush" movements. Rather, they have focused on this year's mid-term elections in November to try to win a majority in Congress so they can resolve the issue from there.
Those who speak of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should remember a fundamental principle: Under the democratic rule of law, enjoying freedoms does not bestow the right to violate the freedoms of other people.
Let's say, for example, that a small group of people sitting in a theater stands up and says that the lead actor is performing poorly and should get off the stage, or that the play doesn't suit their taste. The content of their expression is protected, but by exercising their freedom in this way, they will have deprived the majority of spectators of their right to choose. At that point, security would remove them from the theater.
If one doesn't like an actor or play, one can express displeasure by not buying more tickets or not going to that theater again. If the majority of spectators make the same choice, the play will eventually close.
This kind of behavior is not protected by the law, and moves beyond the bounds of freedom of speech.
In a normal society, the anti-Chen demonstrations on Taipei's streets would not only have been prevented from going so far, but would also have been condemned by the public and attacked by a majority of media outlets. But Taiwan has only been a democratic society for a short time. Many people do not have an understanding of republicanism, while the media has developed in an unbalanced way.
And political parties are split along lines of national identity rather than on ideological issues as in other democratic countries.
But just like the series of street protests led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the 2004 presidential election, the current campaign is doomed to fail. For although Taiwan's democracy is immature, it is still a democracy. As long as this fundamental does not change, then it must continue to proceed along the road of democracy.
The thousands of Shih supporters can yell and scream as loud as they like and indulge in their desire to create disorder. It will change nothing.
This anti-Chen movement, which began as a heroic tragedy, will ultimately end as a farce.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Marc Langer
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.