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.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did
RSS