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.
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