On Jan. 6, supporters of US President Donald Trump forced their way into the US Capitol. One of the invaders was shot dead by Capitol Police and others were arrested.
Mainstream US opinion and the majority of international figures have condemned the occupation, and many figures from Taiwan’s pan-blue camp have been keen to have their say.
Former premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and others have used the occasion to criticize and satirize the 2014 Sunflower movement’s occupation of the Legislative Yuan.
Supporters of the Sunflower movement have not said much in response.
Consider the similarities and differences between the two incidents and whether they were lawful or unlawful, violent or nonviolent, rational or irrational.
Both involved protesters forcibly invading and occupying their respective legislatures, which is without doubt an unlawful act.
Furthermore, one of the principles of civil disobedience is that protesters must accept the consequences of their unlawful actions, and that it is a price to be paid to achieve a movement’s ideals and aims.
Media reported that some of those who invaded the Capitol attacked police officers with fire extinguishers, one of which was thrown and hit an officer on the head, leading to his death. Even if this was done by left-wing extremists who mingled with the crowd, as some people claim, the protesters must still bear responsibility for ineffective leadership.
In contrast, there were no violent attacks by protesters during the Sunflower movement, thus no loss of legitimacy.
The final aspect to consider is whether these actions were rational. This can be decided by whether the movements exhausted all available remedies within the system, and whether the unlawful acts helped achieve their aims.
This is the most important difference between what happened in Taiwan and what happened in the US.
In the Sunflower movement, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus, fronted by then-legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠), tried to force through ratification of the cross-strait service trade agreement, it signaled that the possibility of opponents achieving their demands through representative politics was already remote, which provided justification for unlawful protests.
In the US, the Congress was still in the process of certifying the election results. Furthermore, it was known that numerous senators wanted to question the results in some swing states. This means that, with regard to the protesters who claimed that the election process was unfair, the remedies available to them within the system had not been exhausted, so there was no need to resort to unlawful protest.
The Sunflower movement brought about a stalemate that forced executive authorities to allow renewed deliberation on the articles of the trade deal. In contrast, the Trump supporters’ invasion of the congressional buildings while proceedings were under way, without any clear plan of action, could not possibly succeed. On the contrary, it allowed the anti-Trump bloc to take the moral high ground and gave them pretext to suppress Trump’s supporters. It also put senators who had planned to question the election results under political pressure, forcing them to withdraw their complaints.
The Trump supporters’ occupation of the Capitol was therefore irrational from moral and utilitarian points of view, which makes it very different from the Sunflower movement.
Chiu Yi-ting took part in the Sunflower movement and is now a doctoral candidate in public policy at George Mason University in Virginia.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
Taiwan ranks second globally in terms of share of population with a higher-education degree, with about 60 percent of Taiwanese holding a post-secondary or graduate degree, a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed. The findings are consistent with Ministry of the Interior data, which showed that as of the end of last year, 10.602 million Taiwanese had completed post-secondary education or higher. Among them, the number of women with graduate degrees was 786,000, an increase of 48.1 percent over the past decade and a faster rate of growth than among men. A highly educated population brings clear advantages.
RSS