Taiwan is no stranger to protests. From the Kaohsiung Incident on up to the present, protests have occurred with increasing frequency and over an increasing variety of issues. More recent protests include issues like the red shirts against corruption under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), China’s “Anti-Secession” Law, the import of US beef and even dissatisfaction following President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) first term in office. However, with any social movement or protest, questions naturally arise on how to evaluate their success and effectiveness as well as how crucial they were to a nation’s development.
This past Saturday’s protest against the Want Want China Times Group’s attempts to create a media monopoly, while smaller than previous protests, nevertheless ranks high in importance because of its link to democracy. A true democracy cannot function if one corporation controls the media. However, whether this protest was successful still awaits the National Communications Commission’s decision on Want Want’s purchase. If it approves, what will happen next?
With this in mind, it is good look back and to examine three definitive protests that have shaped Taiwan’s democracy. In what ways can their success be measured and what was their price?
Taiwan’s pivotal protest was the Kaohsiung Incident on Dec. 10, 1979. There was clear preparation and even clearer goals. The set flashpoint or hook was a Human Rights Day celebration emphasizing the abuses of human rights and lack of democracy under martial law.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government set a trap for the participants. It created a fake riot, which would justify a subsequent harsh crackdown. There were no negotiations. Hundreds were jailed and key leaders were put on public trial and given harsh prison sentences. Was the protest successful? The White Terror and Martial Law era continued for another seven years, along with high profile murders of innocent citizens, but the attention gained through international exposure helped mobilize and energize more Taiwanese as well as generate international pressure. How could a political party that allegedly espoused democracy justify its continued one-party state? Eventually a reluctant KMT allowed a two-party system and lifted martial law in 1987 and the nation moved closer to being a true democracy.
Another pivotal protest came with the Wild Lily movement in March 1990. This was a clearly organized protest with specific goals and sit-in. The flashpoint/hook was the upcoming presidential election where there was only one party and one candidate — former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). The goals were clear; it was time for Taiwan to become a full democracy. The government again knew the protest was coming, but with a multi-party system already in place any type of suppression was out of the question. As more than 300,000 people joined the students, Lee proved up to the task. On the day after his election, he met with 50 student leaders. Success can be measured as to how those demands were met. Within two years, Lee retired the iron rice bowl legislators of 1947; the people would elect future legislators.
The Taiwan Garrison Command was also disbanded, and the blacklist ended, allowing dissidents to return. Finally in 1996, the people would elect Taiwan’s president. Taiwan had taken another giant step in developing itself as a democratic nation.
Are there any other obstacles that still stand in the way of Taiwan’s nation building and identity? What then might be the next pivotal protest for Taiwan as it moves forward? I propose the following for consideration.
One clear obstacle to true democracy in Taiwan is the un-level playing field created by the KMT’s “stolen assets.” The KMT still has a war chest some 700 times larger than those of all other parties combined, allowing it to outspend them and “out-influence” them in all elections.
A second obstacle is the continued lack of transitional justice dating back from the 228 Incident on. Apologies have been made, and restitution has been given to some families. However, the records of all responsible parties have yet to be made public.
A third obstacle is the need for reform of its judicial court system. Dinosaur judges and prosecutors from the one-party-state KMT days still mete out uneven justice with a double standard. These three obstacles, along with an outdated Constitution, continue to obstruct Taiwan’s nationhood and democracy. Unfortunately their lack of a flashpoint/hook makes them more difficult to target with protest. Is anyone up to the task?
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS