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.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
Peter Brighton was amazed when he found the giant jackfruit. He had been watching it grow on his farm in far north Queensland, and when it came time to pick it from the tree, it was so heavy it needed two people to do the job. “I was surprised when we cut it off and felt how heavy it was,” he says. “I grabbed it and my wife cut it — couldn’t do it by myself, it took two of us.” Weighing in at 45 kilograms, it is the heaviest jackfruit that Brighton has ever grown on his tropical fruit farm, located