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?
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS