JUNE 24 to JUNE 30
Accusations of “Green Terror” reignited this week as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) increased sentences and fines for people spying for China (and other countries) on Wednesday. They did so by amending the National Security Act (國家安全法), which was implemented on July 1, 1987 before the lifting of martial law on July 15.
This was the same act that served as the basis for the indictment of New Party spokesman Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) on espionage charges in June last year, which was also decried by political opponents as “Green Terror.”
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
What’s intriguing about this situation is that exactly 32 years ago today, DPP members staged a sit-in at the Legislative Yuan to protest the act, calling it a device for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to continue its reign of “White Terror” despite its promises to end martial law. The act was implemented anyway, and after several amendments over the decades, it still exists and the tables have turned in a drastically different political landscape.
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ban on opposition parties was still in effect at that time, the DPP was technically illegal and its members ran as independent candidates; newspaper reports back then put all references to the party in quotation marks. This ban ended with the lifting of martial law less than a month later.
COMMUNISTS STILL A THREAT
Photo: Huang Yao-cheng, Taipei Times
Upon the passing of the National Security Act on June 24, 1987, then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) stated in a speech that the law would “bring our country forward into a brand new era.”
“A secure environment is the most important condition for economic development and the road to democracy,” he continued. “In 1949, when our country was in a most perilous situation, martial law was declared to ensure our security … Now that [martial law] has served its purpose, under the protection of the new act, we will create a more democratic and free society that’s prosperous and progressive …”
Opposition groups had been protesting the act ever since the KMT announced their plans in October 1986. On the anniversary of the May 19, 1986 rally to end martial law, crowds gathered again to oppose the act. On June 12, supporters and critics of the law clashed in front of the Legislative Yuan.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
The original version of the act still refers to the “Period of mobilization for the suppression of Communist rebellion” which wasn’t lifted until 1991. Article 2 prohibits people from gathering or forming groups for unconstitutional reasons, promoting communism or attempting to divide the country. Article 3 prohibits certain persons from leaving the country, including wanted criminals and those who are suspected with sufficient evidence of obstructing national and social security.
The next few lines appear to be general rules on border security and military zones. Military trials were banned for civilians, and provisions laid out for those undergoing trial or already convicted.
Article 2 has since been deleted from today’s version, replaced by an article prohibiting people from spying or working on behalf of the government, military or other public institutions belonging to foreign countries in addition to “the mainland.” Article 3 has also been deleted. The rest of it remains pretty much intact, except for adjusted punishments.
Photo courtesy of National Central Library
THE ARGUMENTS
Two books provide drastically contrasting perspectives on the law, shedding light on the points of contention between the KMT and DPP. Published in November 1987, The Number One Unjust Law: National Security Act (第一惡法—國安法) is a scathing critique that blasts the act as a tool for the KMT to retain authoritarian control over Taiwan. Three months later, Rebuilding Law and Order After the Lifting of Martial Law (解嚴後的法序再建) hit the shelves, defending the act as necessary to protect Taiwan against the evil Chinese Communists and bashing the DPP as troublemakers trying to undermine national safety.
The book supporting the act states: “The lifting of martial law is conditional upon the act, because unconditional lifting of martial law means unconditional surrender [toward the communists].”
“The National Security Act will not hamper political reform, but we cannot abandon our nation’s safety in the name of political reform.” The author states that without the act, the existing laws are not enough to protect the country. “It is time consuming and unnecessary to maintain national security through a number of separate laws.”
“If anyone opposes the National Security Act, they are essentially destroying the foundation of the walls that protect our anti-communist fortress of Taiwan. Surely nobody would be so heartless to sacrifice the freedom and property of the 19 million residents of Taiwan.”
The Number One Unjust Law accuses the KMT of pushing through the National Security Act just before the newly elected legislators took office in March 1987, which would include 13 DPP members who would surely vote against it.
“After martial law is lifted, the country should return to constitutional rule,” it stated. “Replacing martial law with the National Security Act is sufficient evidence that the KMT has no sincerity in doing so…”
The DPP was very unhappy with the first draft, and the process of revising the draft dragged on as discussions intensified between the two sides, often erupting in conflict. After a tense 15th session on June 19, 1987, the DPP walked out, and the law was quickly pushed through.
The lawmakers who staged a sit-in at the Legislative Yuan on June 23 made the following statement: “The act restricts the basic freedom and the rights of the people; how is that different from martial law? The fact that the ruling party is adamant in passing the act before the lifting of martial law shows that it has no intention of returning the country to normal.”
Although many restrictions were relaxed by the lifting of martial law, this was just the beginning of Taiwan’s path toward democracy, which would take almost another decade.
Taiwan in Time, a column about Taiwan’s history that is published every Sunday, spotlights important or interesting events around the nation that have anniversaries this week.
Last week Joseph Nye, the well-known China scholar, wrote on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s website about how war over Taiwan might be averted. He noted that years ago he was on a team that met with then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), “whose previous ‘unofficial’ visit to the US had caused a crisis in which China fired missiles into the sea and the US deployed carriers off the coast of Taiwan.” Yes, that’s right, mighty Chen caused that crisis all by himself. Neither the US nor the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercised any agency. Nye then nostalgically invoked the comical specter
Relations between Taiwan and the Czech Republic have flourished in recent years. However, not everyone is pleased about the growing friendship between the two countries. Last month, an incident involving a Chinese diplomat tailing the car of vice president-elect Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) in Prague, drew public attention to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) operations to undermine Taiwan overseas. The trip was not Hsiao’s first visit to the Central European country. It was meant to be low-key, a chance to meet with local academics and politicians, until her police escort noticed a car was tailing her through the Czech capital. The
April 15 to April 21 Yang Kui (楊逵) was horrified as he drove past trucks, oxcarts and trolleys loaded with coffins on his way to Tuntzechiao (屯子腳), which he heard had been completely destroyed. The friend he came to check on was safe, but most residents were suffering in the town hit the hardest by the 7.1-magnitude Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake on April 21, 1935. It remains the deadliest in Taiwan’s recorded history, claiming around 3,300 lives and injuring nearly 12,000. The disaster completely flattened roughly 18,000 houses and damaged countless more. The social activist and
Over the course of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) 11-day trip to China that included a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) a surprising number of people commented that the former president was now “irrelevant.” Upon reflection, it became apparent that these comments were coming from pro-Taiwan, pan-green supporters and they were expressing what they hoped was the case, rather than the reality. Ma’s ideology is so pro-China (read: deep blue) and controversial that many in his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hope he retires quickly, or at least refrains from speaking on some subjects. Regardless