The week of protests against the cross-strait service trade agreement concluded last week with a “siege” of the Legislative Yuan by the Youths Against Service Trade Agreement with China movement. As young people climbed the fence and clashed with police — a common occurrence nowadays — I could not help but think that all that effort, commendable though it was, will amount to little if it is not part of a larger strategy.
After years of being criticized for not caring about politics, it is absolutely refreshing to see youth movements, often supported by artists and academics, take action against injustice, evictions, demolitions, murders in the military and government ineptitude.
The individuals who have joined these efforts, some of them issue-specific, but most as part of a growing alliance of causes, are among the most extraordinary people I’ve known in my almost eight years in Taiwan. Far from being troublemakers or anarchists, as some of their detractors might be tempted to describe them, the majority of activists are aware, highly educated and are increasingly willing to sacrifice their time, money and personal comfort for causes that, in their view, are directly related to the fabric of their nation, present and future.
One of the main factors behind their decision to take direct action is the widening gap between the government — a government of and for the rich — and the public. Simply put, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) machine that lies behind him have grown increasingly disconnected from ordinary Taiwanese and downright voracious in their treatment of the weaker segments of society, who have the misfortune of standing in the way of the party’s definition of “modernity” and “development.”
Another factor behind the increase in protests is because Taiwan at present does not have an opposition party that can hold the KMT in check. Sadly, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is once again a mess, constantly fighting against itself, divisive and incapable of looking beyond the next election. Consequently, the party has been unable to propose any policy that appeals to today’s youth, let alone ones that could encourage light-blues within the KMT to work with them.
The Ma administration, therefore, does not have to worry about the costs of disregarding public opinion. As long as it does just a little better than the DPP, and by using its unequaled financial resources, it will almost certainly prevail in future elections.
Faced with this situation, it is no surprise that a larger segment of the public has become disillusioned with politics and cynical about politicians. They are therefore taking matters into their own hands by organizing protests, conferences, breakfasts, film showings and developing a truly fascinating Internet platform for information sharing and event organization.
Such efforts will not, by themselves, change policy. They generate publicity, no doubt, and they gnaw away at the image of the Ma administration. They also serve as education tools so that Taiwanese can be better informed about the issues over which they have mobilized.
However, these battles must be part of a campaign and, unless the plan is to overthrow the government altogether, will ultimately need to translate into votes — enough votes so that policies which are detrimental to Taiwan are not adopted.
This starts at the local level: with families, friends and with one’s local party representative. They need to be pressured non-stop, and then pressured again so that the ramifications of disregarding public sentiment are drilled into the local official’s head, and the message is then passed upwards. In other words, civil society must explore ways to translate its actions into political memes. The message must be such that it keeps local officials up at night wondering whether old practices will still be sufficient to keep them in power.
I don’t pretend to have all the solutions to this challenge, but one thing that Taiwanese can certainly do — and must do — is to learn from other polities that have gone through similar processes. And for this kind of activity, there is no better place than Hong Kong. Not only is the territory replete with warnings and lessons for Taiwan, its civil society is highly activist and has developed various ways of making itself heard over the years (remember that, unlike Taiwan, Hong Kong was never a democracy, not even under the British).
Current movement leaders in Taiwan must look beyond their differences with people in Hong Kong and join hands with them, as they are both confronted with powers that are keen on keeping them in a state of subjugation. Taiwanese youth should explore opportunities for exchange programs with their counterparts in Hong Kong, perhaps with some assistance from the universities or NGOs to which they are attached.
The time has come for idealistic Taiwanese to join forces with others. Protests cannot occur in a vacuum; someone needs to provide a master plan.
J. Michael Cole is a deputy news editor at the Taipei Times.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies