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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS