The student-led Sunflower movement’s occupation of the legislative chamber is set to end peacefully this evening. The fact that an almost revolutionary campaign is to end peacefully and without bloodshed is a sign of the maturity and rationality of Taiwan’s democracy.
The campaign may have ended, but Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) has said that the students’ occupation of the legislative chamber and the Executive Yuan were illegal and must be investigated. The students knew that they were breaking the law and they are not trying to evade legal accountability.
As the government deals with the legal aspect, it must remember that the movement is widely supported. Although the movement has broken the law, it did so reasonably and legitimately.
It is a delicate issue and the government must not go into score-settling mode by widening its scope and arbitrarily targeting large numbers of protesters. Doing so would only result in further social conflict.
Student leaders Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷) and Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) are being investigated on eight and 10 possible charges respectively, and might face prison sentences. Hopefully, prosecutors will decide that the complaints are minor and do not warrant indictments.
When issuing verdicts, judges should consider not-guilty verdicts, probation, the possibility to commute verdicts to fines and social work.
Imprisonment for political reasons will only provoke further public outrage. It can only be hoped that the judiciary will consider social perceptions as well as the rule of law.
When the legislature resumes operations, lawmakers must remember that the protests were sparked by legislative misconduct, and that it was a lack of sincerity and an inability to respect the procedural agenda that made it possible to decide that the review of the cross-strait service trade agreement was completed after 30 seconds of chaos.
When the legislature returns to normal, legislators must not forget that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) have promised to pass legislation regulating the oversight of cross-strait deals before the service trade agreement is reviewed and to quickly review the oversight legislation before turning to a clause-by-clause analysis of the agreement.
Legislators must behave like adults and prove that they can hold a proper meeting instead of occupying the speaker’s podium or resorting to the use of hidden microphones. They must be able to seriously and earnestly debate the pros and cons of the agreement.
The government’s signing of the trade agreement without first soliciting the opinion of business and industry has been criticized as being opaque.
The lack of communication with the legislature and the public after the signing is what triggered the civil unrest and backlash.
The government has been too passive and conservative in its handling of the movement’s concerns and doubts over the negative effects of the agreement, as well as generational concerns, the issues of complimentary measures and of political and economic strategy.
The government has been unable to dispel doubt, and this has created a lopsided public policy debate.
The March 30 protest, which drew hundreds of thousands of people, should make the government understand that anything it does will be judged indirectly by public opinion in the legislature and directly by public opinion through oversight.
The drafting of public policy must be careful, meticulous and transparent, and it must take the opinions of all sectors of society into consideration. Although this may result in a more complex and time-consuming debate, the result will be that policies and agreements will not be rejected by the legislature and the public.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS