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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS