Tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the Kaohsiung Incident of 1979. It was a watershed in Taiwan’s political history, as it galvanized the democratic opposition in Taiwan and overseas Taiwanese into action, and thus ushered in the beginning of the end of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) martial law and one-party police state.
In Taiwan itself, the event is being commemorated with a series of activities, including seminars, a photo exhibition and a concert in Kaohsiung. The irony of the situation is that one of the defendants in the “sedition” trial that followed the Incident was Chen Chu (陳菊), now mayor of Kaohsiung.
Over the years, much has been written about the significance of the events of December 1979, the subsequent trials and the Incident’s impact on Taiwan’s transition to democracy. Here we want to highlight two aspects: one, what was said during the incident, and did it constitute “sedition,” and two, how it played a role in galvanizing the overseas Taiwanese community.
The event, which started out as a Human Rights Day celebration by the nascent democratic opposition, turned into a melee after the police surrounded the crowd and started using teargas. Three days later, the KMT authorities used the disturbances as an excuse to arrest virtually all leaders of the opposition. Eight major leaders were accused of “sedition,” tried in a military court and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 12 years to life imprisonment.
What is less well-known is that the course of events during the evening of Dec. 10 were later chronicled in a publication called The Kaohsiung Tapes, published in December 1981, which is now available at www.taiwandc.org/kao-tapes.pdf. The document presents a word-for-word account of what was said during the evening, and strongly contradicts the KMT government’s claim that the speakers were “inciting” the crowd to “overthrow” the government — the basis for the sedition charges.
The document shows that the police were primarily responsible for the disturbances, when heavily armed military and police units encircled the crowd and started to throw teargas into the peaceful demonstration. The melee occurred after the crowd broke through the police cordon to escape the teargas.
On the second point: How did the Incident play a role in galvanizing the overseas Taiwanese community? It is of course well-known that the defendants and their defense lawyers became the core of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which was founded in 1986. Their roster reads like the Who is Who of the DPP.
What is less well-known is that the Incident provided a strong impetus for overseas Taiwanese to get organized and to speak out. Before “Kaohsiung” there were pro-democracy organizations and groups, such as the World United Formosans for Independence, the various Taiwanese associations (in the US, Europe, etc) and the Overseas Alliance for Democratic Rule in Taiwan, which was organized by Kuo Yu-hsin (郭雨新). But their impact was relatively limited.
After “Kaohsiung,” the existing active clusters attained critical mass and gained considerable political power and influence in their host countries. In the US, Canada and in European states the overseas Taiwanese organized themselves and started to lobby the US Congress and European parliaments and governments.
This increased political awareness and activity led to the establishment of a number of like-minded organizations, such as the North American Taiwanese Professors Association (1980), the North American Taiwanese Women’s Association (1986) and the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) — set up in 1982 by Mark Chen (陳唐山), who later became foreign minister; Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) and Peng Ming-min (彭明敏).
FAPA was specifically set up to work with the US Congress, and it has gained strong support for human rights and democracy in Taiwan. Through its activities, the “Gang of Four” (senators Ted Kennedy, Claiborne Pell and representatives Stephen Solarz and Jim Leach) frequently and forcefully spoke out for an end to the KMT’s one-party dictatorship and the 40-year-old martial law.
After Taiwan made its successful transition to democracy in the late 1980s, FAPA and the other organizations reoriented their work to support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations, such as the UN and the WHO.
Sadly, the erosion of justice under the President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, and the drift toward China at the expense of democracy and hard-earned freedoms are now necessitating a renewed focus on human rights and democracy in Taiwan.
The anniversary of the Kaohsiung Incident presents a good opportunity for the people in Taiwan and abroad to reflect on what has been achieved — and what can so easily be whittled away.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, published in Washington by the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS