The visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and the events surrounding it have brought a fundamental change in Taiwan’s political scene.
It goes beyond the advance in cross-strait peace claimed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and its pan-blue allies, and beyond the pan-green opposition’s accusations that the government is leaning too close to China. What we are seeing now is a new line of thinking on freedom — or the lack of it.
Over the past decade, political parties have focused on the issue of national identity — on whether Taiwan should be independent or united with China. But the pro-unification pan-blue camp and the pro-independence pan-green camp have been unable to convince one another of the merits of their positions.
Although Taiwan has had several democratic elections, politicians still mobilize and motivate supporters through manipulation and the demonizing of opponents. This has created an almost unbridgeable rift. Agitation and negative campaigning has led to the public losing confidence in politics and politicians in general. With the blue and green camps mired in mutual accusations of selling out Taiwan and corruption, there is no room for the neutral voter or new elector.
The ARATS visit brought this situation to the fore once again. With the blue and green camps attacking each other’s positions, clashes broke out between agitated crowds and security forces. Politicians of both camps sought the limelight by putting on performances, while biased media outlets distorted their reporting to fit political standpoints.
Chen sought to gain whatever benefits he could from Taiwan’s political rift. However, just as his visit was drawing to a close, and with bloody clashes around the Grand Hotel reaching a climax, a new social force was quietly taking shape.
A group of students and academics linked up via the Internet to launch a silent vigil, one quite different in form and purpose from the noisy mobilizations of the blue and green parties.
Their goals are very simple: Criticize police for acting outside their authority and infringing on freedom of speech in the name of security; demand that the government admit to and apologize for its errors; and call for amendments to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) where the law conflicts with freedom of expression.
The students are straightforward, sincere and deserve to be taken seriously. These are people who originally gave politics the cold shoulder and who are sick and tired of the endless war of words between pro-unification and pro-independence forces. During the overextension of police authority during Chen’s visit, the students saw the ugly face of the abuse of government power. They saw how the police were selective in approving applications for assembly, how they banned the display of the Republic of China flag in specified areas, how they gratuitously marched into a record shop and ordered the management to stop playing certain music.
To the protesters, all of these actions exceeded the boundaries of law enforcement.
The protesters’ agenda indicates that a new generation has appeared with its own way of thinking. The axis of political debate in Taiwan may gradually move away from the struggle between unification and independence forces, which the younger generation finds meaningless, toward a fight for deeper democracy and civil liberties.
Politicians should recognize the sincerity of this movement instead of smearing it. Any party that fails to recognize the shift that is taking place risks being sidelined and swept away.
Jack Wu is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University.Translated by Julian Clegg
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS