JUNE 24 to JUNE 30
Accusations of “Green Terror” reignited this week as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) increased sentences and fines for people spying for China (and other countries) on Wednesday. They did so by amending the National Security Act (國家安全法), which was implemented on July 1, 1987 before the lifting of martial law on July 15.
This was the same act that served as the basis for the indictment of New Party spokesman Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) on espionage charges in June last year, which was also decried by political opponents as “Green Terror.”
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
What’s intriguing about this situation is that exactly 32 years ago today, DPP members staged a sit-in at the Legislative Yuan to protest the act, calling it a device for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to continue its reign of “White Terror” despite its promises to end martial law. The act was implemented anyway, and after several amendments over the decades, it still exists and the tables have turned in a drastically different political landscape.
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ban on opposition parties was still in effect at that time, the DPP was technically illegal and its members ran as independent candidates; newspaper reports back then put all references to the party in quotation marks. This ban ended with the lifting of martial law less than a month later.
COMMUNISTS STILL A THREAT
Photo: Huang Yao-cheng, Taipei Times
Upon the passing of the National Security Act on June 24, 1987, then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) stated in a speech that the law would “bring our country forward into a brand new era.”
“A secure environment is the most important condition for economic development and the road to democracy,” he continued. “In 1949, when our country was in a most perilous situation, martial law was declared to ensure our security … Now that [martial law] has served its purpose, under the protection of the new act, we will create a more democratic and free society that’s prosperous and progressive …”
Opposition groups had been protesting the act ever since the KMT announced their plans in October 1986. On the anniversary of the May 19, 1986 rally to end martial law, crowds gathered again to oppose the act. On June 12, supporters and critics of the law clashed in front of the Legislative Yuan.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
The original version of the act still refers to the “Period of mobilization for the suppression of Communist rebellion” which wasn’t lifted until 1991. Article 2 prohibits people from gathering or forming groups for unconstitutional reasons, promoting communism or attempting to divide the country. Article 3 prohibits certain persons from leaving the country, including wanted criminals and those who are suspected with sufficient evidence of obstructing national and social security.
The next few lines appear to be general rules on border security and military zones. Military trials were banned for civilians, and provisions laid out for those undergoing trial or already convicted.
Article 2 has since been deleted from today’s version, replaced by an article prohibiting people from spying or working on behalf of the government, military or other public institutions belonging to foreign countries in addition to “the mainland.” Article 3 has also been deleted. The rest of it remains pretty much intact, except for adjusted punishments.
Photo courtesy of National Central Library
THE ARGUMENTS
Two books provide drastically contrasting perspectives on the law, shedding light on the points of contention between the KMT and DPP. Published in November 1987, The Number One Unjust Law: National Security Act (第一惡法—國安法) is a scathing critique that blasts the act as a tool for the KMT to retain authoritarian control over Taiwan. Three months later, Rebuilding Law and Order After the Lifting of Martial Law (解嚴後的法序再建) hit the shelves, defending the act as necessary to protect Taiwan against the evil Chinese Communists and bashing the DPP as troublemakers trying to undermine national safety.
The book supporting the act states: “The lifting of martial law is conditional upon the act, because unconditional lifting of martial law means unconditional surrender [toward the communists].”
“The National Security Act will not hamper political reform, but we cannot abandon our nation’s safety in the name of political reform.” The author states that without the act, the existing laws are not enough to protect the country. “It is time consuming and unnecessary to maintain national security through a number of separate laws.”
“If anyone opposes the National Security Act, they are essentially destroying the foundation of the walls that protect our anti-communist fortress of Taiwan. Surely nobody would be so heartless to sacrifice the freedom and property of the 19 million residents of Taiwan.”
The Number One Unjust Law accuses the KMT of pushing through the National Security Act just before the newly elected legislators took office in March 1987, which would include 13 DPP members who would surely vote against it.
“After martial law is lifted, the country should return to constitutional rule,” it stated. “Replacing martial law with the National Security Act is sufficient evidence that the KMT has no sincerity in doing so…”
The DPP was very unhappy with the first draft, and the process of revising the draft dragged on as discussions intensified between the two sides, often erupting in conflict. After a tense 15th session on June 19, 1987, the DPP walked out, and the law was quickly pushed through.
The lawmakers who staged a sit-in at the Legislative Yuan on June 23 made the following statement: “The act restricts the basic freedom and the rights of the people; how is that different from martial law? The fact that the ruling party is adamant in passing the act before the lifting of martial law shows that it has no intention of returning the country to normal.”
Although many restrictions were relaxed by the lifting of martial law, this was just the beginning of Taiwan’s path toward democracy, which would take almost another decade.
Taiwan in Time, a column about Taiwan’s history that is published every Sunday, spotlights important or interesting events around the nation that have anniversaries this week.
Behind a car repair business on a nondescript Thai street are the cherished pets of a rising TikTok animal influencer: two lions and a 200-kilogram lion-tiger hybrid called “Big George.” Lion ownership is legal in Thailand, and Tharnuwarht Plengkemratch is an enthusiastic advocate, posting updates on his feline companions to nearly three million followers. “They’re playful and affectionate, just like dogs or cats,” he said from inside their cage complex at his home in the northern city of Chiang Mai. Thailand’s captive lion population has exploded in recent years, with nearly 500 registered in zoos, breeding farms, petting cafes and homes. Experts warn the
No one saw it coming. Everyone — including the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — expected at least some of the recall campaigns against 24 of its lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) to succeed. Underground gamblers reportedly expected between five and eight lawmakers to lose their jobs. All of this analysis made sense, but contained a fatal flaw. The record of the recall campaigns, the collapse of the KMT-led recalls, and polling data all pointed to enthusiastic high turnout in support of the recall campaigns, and that those against the recalls were unenthusiastic and far less likely to vote. That
The unexpected collapse of the recall campaigns is being viewed through many lenses, most of them skewed and self-absorbed. The international media unsurprisingly focuses on what they perceive as the message that Taiwanese voters were sending in the failure of the mass recall, especially to China, the US and to friendly Western nations. This made some sense prior to early last month. One of the main arguments used by recall campaigners for recalling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers was that they were too pro-China, and by extension not to be trusted with defending the nation. Also by extension, that argument could be
The centuries-old fiery Chinese spirit baijiu (白酒), long associated with business dinners, is being reshaped to appeal to younger generations as its makers adapt to changing times. Mostly distilled from sorghum, the clear but pungent liquor contains as much as 60 percent alcohol. It’s the usual choice for toasts of gan bei (乾杯), the Chinese expression for bottoms up, and raucous drinking games. “If you like to drink spirits and you’ve never had baijiu, it’s kind of like eating noodles but you’ve never had spaghetti,” said Jim Boyce, a Canadian writer and wine expert who founded World Baijiu Day a decade
RSS