In the three years since the Sunflower movement flew the civil disobedience banner in 2014, Taipei has experienced a series of protests and demonstrations. On Wednesday last week, the draft pension reform bill was discussed in the legislature’s Economics Committee while anti-reform groups gathered in a massive protest outside the Legislative Yuan.
The protesters also claimed the civil disobedience banner, saying that if it was alright for the Sunflower movement, then why should it not be OK for them, too?
However, is a group of demonstrating citizens calling for “disobedience” sufficient to dub the protest an act of civil disobedience? Are the reform protests and the Sunflower movement even comparable?
Civil disobedience requires a few special characteristics: concern for the public interest based on social conscience and justice, which is based on an intentional violation of the law; an extraordinary action that commands the acceptance of a majority of the public, that does not involve violent protest and rioting; holding to principles of fairness and justice, and being an ethical, open, non-violent and peaceful protest aimed at urging the government to change unjust policies or actions.
This demonstrates that civil disobedience is not simply a matter of citizens being disobedient. Furthermore, the Sunflower movement and the reform protesters are different both in substance and action.
One difference is the attempt to persuade people with reason or force. The reform protesters attacked legislators, county commissioners and city mayors, surrounding, pushing, beating and pouring water on them. They also broke a window on a media van and threw smoke bombs outside the Presidential Office.
Such behavior turns the concept of non-violent and peaceful civil disobedience on its head. This attempt to use force to persuade the government stands in stark contrast to the Sunflower movement’s peaceful, non-violent attempt to persuade the government using reason.
The second difference is public interest versus vested interest. The Sunflower movement took action to block the opaque cross-strait service trade agreement and in doing so, displayed social conscience and a concern for the public interest that reached far beyond their own interest.
The reform protesters, on the other hand, are working to protect their own vested interests rather than the interests of the public, and they are trying to maintain an unjust system rather than working for fairness and justice. One wonders whether they are really working for harmony and forgiveness between generations or if they are just trying to exploit the younger generation.
The third difference between the two movements is the issue of popular will versus subversion of the will of the people. The political parties and civic groups that participated in the rally against the cross-strait service trade agreement on March 30, 2014, were marginalized at the time.
The vast majority of the approximately 500,000 people who participated in the rally were young and had never been to a demonstration before; a far cry from the middle-aged, predominantly male pan-green camp demonstrators who usually attend anti-government rallies.
Most of the March 30 demonstrators came by MRT rather than being bused in; one recognized the faces of hardly any of the marchers.
In contrast, the pension reform protest was called for by special interest groups. At the protest, the usual suspects, clothed in black, were very much in evidence and claimed that they were speaking up for the “silent majority.”
The pension mess was created by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Facing a choice between reform and offending voters, the party chose compromise with the next election in mind.
The KMT, which only knows how to curry favor with special interest groups, must be baffled at the moment. While in power, it was opposed by the Democratic Progressive Party, which organized protests; public opinion often appeared to be on their side. Now that the KMT is in opposition, it also organizes protests, but public opinion seems to side with the government. What is going on?
The ability to harness public opinion has nothing to do with whether the party is in government or in opposition. While in power, the KMT opposed pension reform; while in opposition, it still opposes pension reform. No wonder the public, overwhelmingly supporting pension reform, is not applauding.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Edward Jones
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US