The passing of professor Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) on Thursday brings back many memories.
Peng was one of the early pioneers in Taiwan’s democracy and independence movement, who inspired many people like myself and my wife to work for Taiwan’s future as a full and equal member of the international community.
Our own story as activists in support of Taiwan began in 1973, when I read Peng’s A Taste of Freedom, in which he recounted his life story, interwoven with Taiwan’s history.
It was a gripping read that awoke my sense of anger at the injustice that Taiwanese were experiencing at the time. It started a lifetime of activism in support of Taiwan’s democracy and fight for human rights.
A first opportunity came in December 1975, when we were able to organize a lecture for Peng at the University of Washington in Seattle, where we were doing our graduate studies at the time. We were able to involve a number of the university’s prominent professors in the event, so it was a success.
Of course, agents of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) tried to disrupt the event and tore down posters advertising the lecture. We had many spare posters, so we put up new ones where the old ones had been torn down.
The experience gave us a taste of the repressiveness of the KMT regime and the lack of freedom of expression in Taiwan at the time.
A second opportunity came a few years later. In the summer of 1979, the World Federation of Taiwanese Organizations held its annual conference in Seattle. The organization was quickly becoming a core for overseas activists in support of human rights and democracy in Taiwan, and Peng was one of the keynote speakers.
In discussions with Peng, and with Japan-based Lynn Miles, we agreed it would be good to establish an English-language newsletter to focus attention on developments in Taiwan, and the lack of human rights and democracy in the nation.
From the summer 1979 through December 1980, we published the Newsletter of the International Committee for Human Rights in Taiwan, which presented a detailed account of the Kaohsiung Incident and its subsequent trials.
This newsletter formed the foundation of the subsequent Taiwan Communique, which we published from December 1980 through March 2016. It constitutes 35 years of chronicling developments in Taiwan and the country’s transition to democracy.
Peng certainly stood at the foundation of our efforts in support of Taiwan. We kept in touch over the years. In the winter of 1982, he came to the Netherlands, after I had finished my studies in Seattle, to convince me to work for the newly established Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) in Washington.
However, I had just returned to my home country after some 10 years abroad, and had accepted a job with the Dutch government. It was not until many years later, in 2005, that I would start working full-time for FAPA.
Peng would continue his advocacy work, become FAPA president for several years, and after the transition to democracy in 1992, return to Taiwan. As is well known, he would become the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate in Taiwan’s first presidential elections in 1996, running against his old friend Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Peng came to visit us again in 2003, when I worked for the Dutch government and we lived close to a beautiful old windmill near The Hague.
We met again in 2007, when I had returned to Washington. I was working for FAPA now. With the Brookings Institution, we organized an event on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 228 Incident. Peng was the keynote speaker.
Another momentous event happened in 2012: the presidential election campaign in which the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) challenged then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Together with others, Peng organized the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan, and invited a group of foreign observers headed by former Alaskan senator and governor Frank Murkowski to observe the elections.
I was part of the group. Our conclusions were that the elections were free, but only partly fair.
In the 2016 presidential election, which pitted Tsai Ing-wen against the KMT’s Eric Chu (朱立倫), we had a second election observation mission.
This time Tsai won, and we concluded that the elections had been free and fair. To us, a lifetime mission had been fulfilled, and we decided to retire from FAPA and stop publishing our Taiwan Communique.
We met Peng for the last time in 2017, when we visited his home in Tamsui. He was indeed getting old and grumpy, but was still following the issues and — at the advanced age of 94 — had an opinion on most everything.
Thank you, Professor Peng, for what you meant to us in our lives. May you rest in peace.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat. From 1980 through 2016 he served as chief editor of Taiwan Communique. He teaches history of Taiwan at George Mason University and current issues in East Asia at George Washington University.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS