Tomorrow's "March for Democracy and Peace to Protect Taiwan" in Taipei City was initiated by neither the government nor a political party. It is a public event uniting all of Taiwan's people, regardless of ethnicity, sex, age, place of birth or political affiliation.
DPP Legislator Lin Cho-shui (
The Taipei Society, long a mouthpiece for Taiwan's democratization, has also discouraged Chen and Hsieh from taking a major role in the march. The society believes their participation would change the nature of the rally and undermine its value as a civilian action.
Chen yesterday announced that he would take his family to the rally, but stressed that he will march as one of the crowd and not make any speeches. The rally, which hopes to attract 1 million participants to express their anger over the "Anti-Secession" Law, will therefore include the families of both the president and premier. But their presence will not make the rally a government-organized event. That they will march in silence and not make any public pronouncements is an indication of Taiwan's restraint. That this is the first time that the president will take part in a rally as a part of the crowd, is a forceful gesture, but one that also reflects restraint.
By not usurping the "unofficial" nature of the rally with his official presence, Chen will calm domestic and international concerns. His role in the rally will serve as a compromise.
Over the last few days the Democracy, Peace and Defend Taiwan Alliance (
As the march is in the collective interest of all Taiwanese, it's necessary to show a united front. But the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) instead chose to hold a separate rally last Saturday. Moreover, KMT Deputy Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (
The KMT deserves reproach for putting party interests ahead of the national interest.
Additionally, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) refusal to grant permission for the rally -- on security concerns about Ketagalan Boulevard, where the march is to end -- marks yet another political blunder on his part. The Taipei City Government just allowed, last weekend, a march terminating at the very same spot. This is nothing but political game-playing. Even if the scale of this march raises concerns about whether city police can maintain order, Taipei City should simply ask the central government for support.
The international community has responded emphatically to China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law. This gives even more reason for Taiwan to stand up and say "no" to China. Of the options available for Taiwan to respond to China, a protest march is the most direct, but also the one least likely to be perceived as changing the status quo.
The number of participants who join the protest matters. In 2003 Hong Kong, 500,000 people took to the streets to protest legislation based on Article 23 of the territory's Basic Law, shocking Beijing and the international community.
If tomorrow's rally can attract over 1 million people, the expression of public sentiment would be on par with a referendum. But if only a limited number turn out, the international community might mistakenly take this to mean that Taiwan tacitly accepts the "Anti-Secession" Law, and simply sit back to watch developments.
For the benefit of everyone in Taiwan, make your voice heard tomorrow.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS