People who live in a democracy enjoy freedom of assembly and expression. The most common situation in which these two rights are exercised together is demonstrations.
Unfortunately the word shiwei (示威) — the standard Chinese translation of the English word “demonstration” — carries misleading implications of coercion and violence, whereas the original word is more akin to “expression.”
Last week extremist elements opposed to pension reforms blocked the gates of the Legislative Yuan, where they coerced and assaulted legislators.
This blatantly violent and criminal behavior was certainly not a “demonstration,” still less a reasonable and rational “expression of opinion.” No such coercion and attacks would ever take place against members of the US Congress and the US authorities would never allow such a thing to happen.
This kind of violence belongs to the law of the jungle and it crosses a legal red line.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government should determinedly restore law and order, but some leaders of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who always protect vested interests and oppose reform, say the protesters were practicing “civil disobedience” or resisting the “tyranny” of the ruling party. Such talk is utterly ridiculous.
American philosopher Henry Thoreau, who first proposed the theory of civil disobedience, refused to pay tax, and willingly submitted to arrest and went to prison on the ethical ground of opposition to war and slavery.
That is quite different from Taiwan’s pension reform opponents, who surrounded, beat and coerced legislators outside the Legislative Yuan before lawmakers had even started to deliberate the proposed reforms.
What kind of “civil disobedience” is that, and what kind of “tyranny” can they claim to be resisting?
A democratic system upholds the individual and collective right of expression, and gives citizens the right to elect a government and legislators. The government’s job is to formulate and implement laws and administer policies according to legitimate processes.
Voters can use their ballots to sanction political parties or legislators, but they cannot coerce them by means of violence.
The most successful demonstration in US political history was the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which was part of the Civil Rights movement.
The protest was conceived as a “march,” a word that has military connotations, but instead of marching on the US Congress in Washington, it was changed to a fixed “demonstration,” with protesters gathering in front of the Lincoln Memorial to protest against racial discrimination. As a result, the protest won widespread support.
Groups and individuals all have the right of expression, but to be influential they need legitimacy and they have to employ rational means, without crossing the red line of violence.
If those who disagree with pension reforms rely on a handful of familiar demagogues who talk in irrational terms and stir up violence, they and their movement are sure to be spurned by the public at large.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS