The New Power Party (NPP) on Tuesday said it would ignore a police summons for questioning over the party’s protest in front of the Presidential Office Building last month.
NPP Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) and NPP Legislator Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明) urged the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to amend the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) soon, which they said President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has long promised, but failed to act on.
While this might be so, current regulations restrict rallies and demonstrations near the Presidential Office Building, and although the police and Presidential Office Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) urged protesters to leave the protest site, they remained for several days.
“This has overextended the Taipei police, diverting them from their regular duties of maintaining social order and public safety, regulating road traffic and other security tasks,” Taipei Police Department Zhongzheng District First Precinct Chief Liao Tsai-chen (廖材楨) said at the time.
Huang and Hsu conversely accused the police of using excessive force in tearing down their tents, as well as erecting barricades to prevent more people from joining the protest.
Doing so violated provisions of the Criminal Code, they said.
Their defiance toward the police and the Presidential Office is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement from which they emerged, leaving some to question how effectively they have made the transition to sanctioned politics.
DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) denounced the protest as an “irrational boycott” of the legislation and questioned the consistency of their demands.
“Although the NPP was vocally critical about the ‘one fixed day off and one flexible rest day’ policy during the last revision of the [Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) in 2015], they now say that no changes should be made,” Ker said on Jan. 7, adding that about 60 percent of respondents to opinion polls supported revising the policy.
“[We] have negotiated with the NPP for a long time. Their political strategy is to divide DPP supporters with radical policies. Further negotiations will not yield a different result,” Minister Without Portfolio Chang Ching-sen (張景森) said on Facebook at the time.
What does the NPP hope to achieve with the protest? US Democrats joined protesters last month as part of the global Women’s March movement, but their purpose in doing so was very clear.
The British daily the Independent quoted former march organizer Linda Sarsour as telling The Associated Press that politicians joined the demonstrations in Las Vegas last month because Nevada is a “swing state that gave [former US secretary of state] Hillary Clinton a narrow win in the presidential election and will have one of the most competitive US Senate races in 2018.”
Arguably, the NPP’s sit-in was significantly less “irrational” than scuffles in the Legislative Yuan in July last year when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsu Shu-hua (許淑華) slapped DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) across the face, and others threw flour and water balloons — all due to disagreements surrounding the DPP’s Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program.
However, unlike the US Democrats’ participation in the Women’s March, the NPP sit-in is unlikely to rouse new support for the party, nor will it get the labor amendments retracted, if that is what the NPP had hoped to achieve. More likely, the demonstration was only theatrics intended to appease supporters who might otherwise have thought the NPP was too idle.
In a democracy, a minority party can be effective without incessant revolutionary tactics. Taiwan’s democracy can only evolve and thrive if opposition parties cooperate with each other and drop the theatrics.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers