People who live in a democracy enjoy freedom of assembly and expression. The most common situation in which these two rights are exercised together is demonstrations.
Unfortunately the word shiwei (示威) — the standard Chinese translation of the English word “demonstration” — carries misleading implications of coercion and violence, whereas the original word is more akin to “expression.”
Last week extremist elements opposed to pension reforms blocked the gates of the Legislative Yuan, where they coerced and assaulted legislators.
This blatantly violent and criminal behavior was certainly not a “demonstration,” still less a reasonable and rational “expression of opinion.” No such coercion and attacks would ever take place against members of the US Congress and the US authorities would never allow such a thing to happen.
This kind of violence belongs to the law of the jungle and it crosses a legal red line.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government should determinedly restore law and order, but some leaders of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who always protect vested interests and oppose reform, say the protesters were practicing “civil disobedience” or resisting the “tyranny” of the ruling party. Such talk is utterly ridiculous.
American philosopher Henry Thoreau, who first proposed the theory of civil disobedience, refused to pay tax, and willingly submitted to arrest and went to prison on the ethical ground of opposition to war and slavery.
That is quite different from Taiwan’s pension reform opponents, who surrounded, beat and coerced legislators outside the Legislative Yuan before lawmakers had even started to deliberate the proposed reforms.
What kind of “civil disobedience” is that, and what kind of “tyranny” can they claim to be resisting?
A democratic system upholds the individual and collective right of expression, and gives citizens the right to elect a government and legislators. The government’s job is to formulate and implement laws and administer policies according to legitimate processes.
Voters can use their ballots to sanction political parties or legislators, but they cannot coerce them by means of violence.
The most successful demonstration in US political history was the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which was part of the Civil Rights movement.
The protest was conceived as a “march,” a word that has military connotations, but instead of marching on the US Congress in Washington, it was changed to a fixed “demonstration,” with protesters gathering in front of the Lincoln Memorial to protest against racial discrimination. As a result, the protest won widespread support.
Groups and individuals all have the right of expression, but to be influential they need legitimacy and they have to employ rational means, without crossing the red line of violence.
If those who disagree with pension reforms rely on a handful of familiar demagogues who talk in irrational terms and stir up violence, they and their movement are sure to be spurned by the public at large.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with