The presence of up to 250,000 people at a protest on Aug. 3 made the government succumb to public pressure with the removal of the military judiciary in peacetime. The protest was billed as a watershed moment for Taiwan as well as the beginning of a new civil movement. Things have begun to change.
There was criticism of the hundreds of people who “ambushed” the Joint Central Government Building and occupied the plaza on Sunday in protest at the Ministry of the Interior’s (MOI) ignorance of numerous land expropriation cases across the country, in particular the one in Dapu Borough (大埔), Miaoli County.
Participants in the “Tear down the government” sit-in decorated the MOI building’s windows and walls with stickers, and sprayed slogans on the walls and the sidewalk. The protesters said they expected to be removed at midnight, but the police decided to leave them alone and the demonstration ended peacefully 20 hours later on Monday evening.
While politicians and political pundits were largely silent on the anti-military protest, they had something to say about the MOI protest.
New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming (郁慕明) said the protest was “organized crime” which tried to overthrow the government and the protesters should have all been arrested.
Political commentator Tang Hsiang-lung (唐湘龍) described the protesters as “political bandits.”
Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) insisted that the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例), which the protesters demanded be abolished, was “not a bad law” and did not rule out seeking compensation from and filing a lawsuit against the protesters.
Members of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) criticized the police as “soft” in their dealings with the protesters.
Some netizens chastised the demonstrators for endangering social stability and social order.
These comments share a basic mentality: Regardless of what people ask for, they should do so within the system. Taiwanese were told during the fierce democratic movement of the 1970s and 1980s that stability should always be the No. 1 priority. Blood-stained police uniforms were displayed in public after the Kaohsiung Incident in 1979 and a photo of a “Legislative Yuan” signboard was shown after the 520 Farmers Movement in 1988, hinting that violence should not be tolerated.
Stability and social order have been among the ideas most used by the government to divide social opinion while resisting change. However, stability should not be interpreted as merely the “status quo,” and change of the “status quo” should not be interpreted as instability. Otherwise, there would not be such a thing as civil disobedience.
It is difficult to understand why stability is an unchallengeable idea in people’s minds. Surely they know that activists before them made unbearable sacrifices for Taiwan’s democratic transformation.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law,” US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr said.
Civil disobedience and demonstrations happen because people have exhausted all means within the system, not because they enjoy clashing with the police and breaking into government buildings.
The democracy that Taiwan has is the hard-won result of numerous people willing to, as King said, accept the penalty to arouse public awareness on injustice and to strive for the public good.
The misinterpretation of stability is a concern because, without change, hope for a better government and a better society hinges on one thing — the government itself. And that situation, judging from past experience, is dangerous.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS