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.
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
The US on Friday hosted the second Global COVID-19 Summit, with at least 98 countries, including Taiwan, and regional alliances such as the G7, the G20, the African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attending. Washington is also leading a proposal to revise one of the most important documents in global health security — the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which are to be discussed during the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) that starts on Sunday. These two actions highlight the US’ strategic move to dominate the global health agenda and return to the core of governance, with the WHA
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with