Many articles have been published this week saying that Monday was the 10th anniversary of the occupation of the legislative chamber that marked the beginning of the Sunflower movement. While they deal with the reasons behind the movement, the role of the students and the repercussions today, there are aspects that bear fleshing out.
While the movement started with a protest against the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) attempt to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement and the non-transparent nature of the process, it was not instigated by political parties or political figures. Although it was students who occupied the building, the movement itself was initiated at least in part by civic groups and non-governmental organizations.
Also, although the occupation began on March 18, 2014, it did not end until almost 23 days later, on the evening of April 10. During those three weeks, the entire nation was transfixed.
With the exception of one night in particular, things did not turn violent, but at the time, nobody had any idea how things would transpire. People were asking how the authorities in other countries might have reacted to their congress or parliament being paralyzed by protesters. The longer the occupation went on, the more fraught the situation became, with fissures showing in society, within the KMT, among the movement itself, between interests in business, academia and politics, and even internationally.
Even those largely sympathetic to the students were uneasy about the unprecedented nature of the interruption to the operation of the state and the sense of unease only grew. What happened in those three weeks was a distillation of all the political, intergenerational, historical and nationalist tensions that have resulted from 300 years of Taiwan’s complex and nuanced story. The situation could have spun out of control.
For almost the duration, the building had emblazoned on an external wall Chinese characters reading: “When dictatorship is a fact, revolution is a duty.” It was not a good look for a nation that prides itself on its democracy, but the contrast was the point.
Then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) initially refused to engage with the occupiers, but eventually agreed to talks, albeit stubbornly holding on to his plan to pass the agreement. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) called on Ma to listen to the occupiers’ objections; then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) won plaudits for his handling of the matter, directing the police not to intervene and allowing the international press, as well as food and drink, onto the occupied legislative floor, but in so doing inflating tensions between himself and Ma. Then-premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) did the opposite, directing police to forcibly remove an offshoot occupancy of the Executive Yuan in the early hours of March 24, winning Ma’s gratitude, but the condemnation of others for unleashing violence on members of the public, as well as the threat of a lawsuit for attempted murder from one injured actvist.
University professors held civics classes outside, teams of lawyers offered their services to students in legal trouble as a result of the occupancy, China Unification Promotion Party founder Chang An-le (張安樂) threatened the students with violence, the then-opposition Democratic Progressive Party was accused of trying to gain political advantage and Merrill Lynch said that the situation could possibly affect Taiwan’s GDP.
China said it wanted the agreement passed.
This all happened at a time that the young generation was regarded as largely uninterested in politics. That was proven to be false.
KMT legislators are trying to revive the agreement, literally at their very first opportunity since their failure a decade ago. Has the KMT learned nothing?
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS