When the campaign aimed at ousting President Chen Shui-bian (
The most obvious examples can be found among the anti-Chen actions on Ketagalan Boulevard, such as veteran actor Chin Ti's (
The crowd in red shouted along, forgetting that former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (
Without Chiang's crackdown on the democracy movement, Shih would never have been called "Taiwan's Nelson Mandela." But without the support of Chiang's followers, there would not be an anti-Chen demonstration today. In the face of this historical irony, it is hard to say if Shih has betrayed himself or if his pan-blue supporters have betrayed Chiang.
The former is probably more likely. When campaign spokeswoman Wang Lie-ping (王麗萍) called out "Republic of Taiwan" during a speech, she was booed by the crowd and had to issue a public apology, which showed the anti-independence sentiment of those participating in the sit-in.
By contrast, no one criticized Chin for praising the KMT. Nor was he given a dressing down in the way Shih lectured Liao Lin Li-ling (廖林麗玲), the Taiwan Solidarity Union's (TSU) candidate in the upcoming Taipei City councilor elections, when she suggested that the nation should apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan" instead of the Republic of China.
I wonder what "Taiwan" -- a place that Shih sacrificed so much for -- means to the people dressed in red? Will he now compromise his past ideals just to maintain his leadership?
What is being betrayed here is not only the "Republic of Taiwan," but also the spirit of the nation's democratic history. If Shih really was one of the most important individuals in this historical discourse, his position is now at risk of being seriously distorted.
The campaign to depose Chen represents a certain set of values. But if these values are tied to Chiang's legacy, that would negate the claim to transcend partisan politics and the unification-independence debate. The protesters would inadvertently become the political mainstream.
Some academics are so naive. They see the "love" and non-violence demonstrated on Ketagalan Boulevard as a beautiful song that will purify people's hearts and develop into a new creed. They also believe that even if Chen does not resign, the seeds of democracy have been firmly planted. However, the confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps would only lead to rising hatred and violence, and possibly even to a national strike that would feed social unrest.
The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979 remains a milestone in Taiwan's democratic development. Its influence has actually increased over time. Answering the question of whether the campaign's "siege"of the Presidential Office on Friday was a glorious replay of the Kaohsiung Incident or a betrayal of that incident is critical for evaluating the nation's democratization, and Shih's role in that movement.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow in the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS