On Saturday, the Taiwan Association of University Professors hosted a forum to discuss the legality of the lawsuits against Sunflower movement participants from the perspective of the right to resistance and constitutional guarantees.
The main address was given by constitutional expert Hsu Ching-hsiung (許慶雄), and several students charged in connection to the occupation of the Executive Yuan on March 23 last year were also present. I was shocked to find that the more than 100 accused that have appeared before the courts since March 10 had not agreed on a stance or a strategy, despite the expert help of a team of defense lawyers.
This makes me think of the 1980 court martial in the wake of the Kaohsiung Incident, when government intelligence obtained confessions from the accused, given in the belief that an admission of guilt would mean lighter sentencing and a denial of guilt would mean the death sentence — not to mention the impact of the loss of morale following several months’ isolation.
Fortunately, the defense lawyers agreed that they should focus on defending the tangwai (outside the party) democracy movement rather than the individual “criminals.”
Defense lawyers then used members of the defendants’ families to inform the defendants. They also relied on court proceedings to challenge the legality of post-1949 martial law, highlight democratic and liberal values according to which civilians should not be tried in a military court, as well as other issues. The defendants gradually regained their confidence and passion, and bravely elaborated on the ideals of the tangwai group. The brilliant court transcripts were published in full by newspapers, enlightening many members of the public, including me.
The verdicts were light and the court battle changed the social atmosphere. The assistance of US representatives and renowned US academics also had an effect.
Although the students charged in connection with the occupation of the Executive Yuan have not been kept in isolation, they have been scattered and have failed to organize. In addition, if the team of lawyers lack an awareness with respect to political movements, there is reason to be concerned over the outcome.
On March 23 last year, I published an opinion piece in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) in response to a group of legal academics who said that the occupation was an expression of the right to resistance, and that unless the president and the premier came out to address the crisis promptly, the public had the right to further expand their resistance.
At the time, I also felt that the students should also quickly find another pressure point, and that evening, protesters occupied the Executive Yuan.
From the perspective of the right to resistance, the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan occupations were similar. Both were a matter of active resistance, calling on society to participate in open and peaceful actions that were neither revolutionary or violent. The protesters’ demands were clear: Opposition to the opaque handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement and that legislation should come before review.
Based on the current social situation and the original goals of the movement, the right-to-resistance narrative would be the best way to promote the understanding of, and win the support of, the public — and hopefully also the judges. The premise is that the defendants frame the trial as an extension of the resistance action that began on March 18 last year.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS