The Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 644 has struck down Article 2 of the Civil Organizations Act (人民團體法), which prohibited civil groups from advocating communism or secession, because it violated the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and association.
Why did the promotion of communism and Taiwanese independence become taboos in the Martial Law era? Against the backdrop of the Temporary Provisions Effective during the Period of National Mobilization for the Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員勘亂時期臨時條款), the Chinese Civil War and the Cold War, it is easier to understand why victims of the White Terror in the 1950s included those suspected of having communist connections. Indeed, thousands of political prisoners held on Green Island, Taitung County, in the 1950s came from this group.
At that time, the call for Taiwanese independence could only be circulated among a small number of Taiwanese intellectuals in Japan and the US. In September 1961 the Taiwan Garrison Command released a report on a so-called “pro-independence conspiracy” and brought trumped-up charges against Kao Yu-shu (高玉樹), Kuo Yu-hsin (郭雨新) and other prominent figures.
Political cases did not have to be based on evidence, and the importance given to a case and punishments were based on political motives. But in the end, only Yunlin County councilor Su Tung-chi (蘇東啟) and a few other less prominent defendants were found guilty of subversion.
Defendants in other cases relating to independence in the 1960s included Shih Ming-teh (施明德), Chen San-hsing (陳三興), Tsai Tsai-yuan (蔡財源) and some military students, Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) — the co-author of the Declaration of Taiwan Self-Salvation — and Lin Shui-chuan (林水泉) and Huang Hua (黃華), who belonged to a pro-independence national youth association.
Gradually, the number of pro-independence political prisoners at the Taiyuan (泰源) rehabilitation camp, also in Taitung County, caught up with the number of communist prisoners. This showed that the threat to the legality and legitimacy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime came not only from communists but also Taiwanese who wanted to be their own masters.
Today, communism and Taiwanese independence are as incompatible as fire and water. But during the Martial Law era, the KMT portrayed dangwai (outside the KMT, 黨外) activists, overseas pro-independence activists and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the “three-in-one enemy” of the state.
This can be observed in the interrogation of prisoners caught up in the Kaohsiung Incident of 1979. Some were charged with communist espionage, and others with fomenting independence.
Based on my observations, the causes of Taiwanese independence, democracy and freedom were using each other. This was the factor that forced the KMT to lift martial law and the ban on political parties in the 1980s, a result that could not have been achieved by any one cause alone.
As for communism, the CCP abandoned its ideological framework in the 1990s, making it pointless to replace martial law with the National Security Act (國家安全法) to ban communism and Taiwanese independence.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 644 thus accords with reality. Communism is already passe.
But what about Taiwanese independence? It is no longer a tool to fight oppression, but rather an unaccomplished goal in the Taiwanese people’s pursuit of identity. Our challenge now is to enrich the discourse in a responsible manner and turn it into a universal pursuit.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations