The Wild Lily student movement of March 1990 is a shared memory for a generation of Taiwanese born in the 1960s.
During that time, about 5,000 students “occupied” the square in front of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall and presented the government with four main demands: to dissolve the National Assembly, to abolish the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of the Communist Rebellion (動員戡亂時期臨時條款), to hold a national affairs conference and to set a timetable for political and economic changes.
However, the movement took place not long after martial law ended in July 1987, and there were still many people who had not caught up with the times. Students were accused of “not attending classes as they should” and of being “rioters,” “decadent youth,” “Taiwanese independence supporters,” “professional students” and so on. They included repeated calls from within the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to suppress the movement.
As it turned out, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) chose to engage in dialogue with the students. He suggested that each university should appoint one representative to go into the Presidential Office. A video of the dialogues was recorded and broadcast on the square.
I remember sitting there and watching Lee on the screen as he said: “I agree with your ideas, but our country is ruled by law. A lot of these things can only be done by amending laws or even amending the Constitution. That will take time, so please give me some time and I promise to get them done.” (I cannot find his original words, but this is the gist of what he said, as I remember it.)
After watching the broadcast, the first thought that crossed my mind was: “It is time to go home.”
That evening our small group of Tunghai University students, who had come up from Taichung, decided to go home. There were no trains or buses at that time of night, so we went to the Yoshinoya Japanese-style fast food restaurant on Guanqian Road, near Taipei New Park — or what is now the 228 Peace Memorial Park — where we each ordered a bowl of beef with rice and, when we had finished, slept through the night in the restaurant, resting our heads on the tables.
Although Taiwan’s democracy developed in fits and starts, it blossomed and bore fruit in the end. Apart from a handful of people who got into politics and continued the struggle, most of those “angry young people” went back to school, where they went on studying, or goofing off, whichever was the case.
Later on, they married, had children and got on with their jobs and careers. Three decades later, they are all well into middle age. As for the people who criticized them back in the day, they are also enjoying the fruits of democracy.
During the past few months in Hong Kong, online comments from time to time call Hong Kongers “rioters” or “thugs,” and accuse them of “causing havoc in Hong Kong” and “wrecking the economy.”
Considering what we went through, it pains me to see such comments. Unless they are pushed into a corner, what people would want to take to the streets again and again, scorched by the sun and braving tear gas, getting beaten and kicked and arrested?
It brings to mind that evening when I arrived in Taipei in March 1990, and I crossed the police cordon and squeezed through a gap in the barbed wire and, as I walked past a military policeman on guard duty, I heard a quiet voice say: “Keep it up, but stay safe.”
How can the Hong Kong government refuse to make even the slightest concession after two million Hong Kongers took to the streets in protest? That is 400 times the 5,000 people who took part in the Wild Lily movement. Is it so hard to sit down with protesters and talk things out? Who are the stubborn ones and who is to blame? Surely the answer is as plain as day.
As Hong Kongers work to tear down that wall, if some Taiwanese do not help them, so be it. However, do not pile more bricks and stones on the wall. Is that really too much to ask?
Steve Chiu is a social worker.
Translated by Julian Clegg
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS