It is inevitable that a mass movement will get pulled in different directions. When former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) launched the "Million Voices Against Corruption" campaign to depose President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), there was a group of people behind the scenes handling strategy. Ho De-fen (賀德芬), a professor emeritus at National Taiwan University, surfaced as the spokeswoman and the campaign's most public face, with more media exposure than Shih himself.
Ho took a soft approach, which didn't sit well with Shih's hawkish "live or die" rhetoric. Her approach had two themes.
The first was keeping a distance from violence and gangsters. After former DPP legislator Lin Cheng-chieh (林正杰) assaulted Contemporary Monthly editor-in-chief Chin Heng-wei (金恆偉) on the talk show The People Talk on Aug. 24, Ho barred Lin and his team, which consisted of bodyguards organized to protect Shih during the sit-in.
The second was avoiding affiliation with any political party. This would create a campaign for "everyone." This approach was similar to that of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Not long after this, however, Ho lost her post as spokeswoman. Her replacement, Jerry Fan (范可欽), gave Lin and his team a hero's welcome. It was then that the "red army" was properly organized.
The protesters may have been "red," but they had no reason to reject "blue," and so the pan-blue camp joined the campaign.
Ho later said that it was impossible to get rid of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), and that his presence embarrassed Ma, who had showed up at the sit-in on behalf of the KMT and provided breakfast for the protesters.
After Ho's approach was rejected, the "red terror" began. Red represents rage, revolution, anti-Chen sentiment (in this case) and, in the minds of some, the Chinese Communist Party. This could not be openly stated, however, lest a sizeable number of protesters object to this and abandon the campaign.
And so the red tide rolled over Taipei, carrying the message "join or perish." This served to mobilize pan-green-camp supporters, and was also a wake-up call to the US.
Ho's approach might have been too soft for some, but if it had been allowed to continue, it might have struck a chord with more people. Instead, the anti-Chen campaign has now turned into a stand-off between red and green. The red tide has generated a powerful backlash.
The Sept. 15 "siege" of the Presidential Office district ended without major incident, thanks to the self-restraint of most of the participants and the work of the police. But some politicians were unhappy with this and urged "constant revolution," a million-strong car demonstration and other radical measures to paralyze Taiwan and incite violence.
On Monday, Shih suddenly canceled the more radical plans, but in the evening there were violent clashes in Kaohsiung. Did Shih plan this but back off at the last moment, or did the protesters refuse to obey Shih's orders?
If Shih has backed away from a radical stance, then those who pushed for radical action should have been dismissed and Ho reinstated. After Ho was prevented from participating, headquarters issued a statement saying that its next move would be to "lay siege to the nation."
All that remains is to see if Ho's removal means the end of the campaign's non-violent stance -- and the utter collapse of its credibility.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS