It is reported that 100,000 teachers swarmed from around Taiwan to hold a street demonstration in Taipei on National Teachers' Day last Saturday, setting a record for the largest demonstration in Taiwan's history.
The purpose and demands of the march were unclear. Perhaps the vagueness allowed the biggest room for attracting participants.
As Minister of Education Huang Jong-tsun (
The most important factor is that the common grudge initially created by the cause of "resisting taxation" not only lacked legitimacy but also tarnished the reputation of teachers.
Therefore, the appeal of "tax-paying" was highlighted on purpose during the parade with attendees calling out "give me back the right to pay taxes," turning their practical benefits into nothing.
The statement issued by the organizer, the National Teachers' Association (
It then appealed for the "three rights" -- the rights stated in the nation's labor laws that empower labor unions to launch a strike, organize employees and negotiate with employers.
More importantly, the statement announced they would "break away from the role of being instrumentalized" and "fight for equity and justice for the Taiwanese society without hesitation." Honestly speaking, this is not a protest letter, but, rather, a penitence letter.
In the past, teachers were used as a tool to support the KMT's four-in-one system (political party, government, military and schools). Under martial law, teachers never consolidated their forces to fight for equity and justice.
In this sense, the demonstration was more of a declaration of a break with the past than a protest against the education ministry. The significance of the Sept. 28 march therefore would become unique and leave a mark in history.
Since tax-paying is a duty as they claimed, the Cabinet's offer of subsidies to make up for the taxes teachers pay turns out to be unnecessary.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine. Translated by Jackie Lin
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS