Wave Makers captures the zeitgeist of election campaigns in Taiwan

The Netflix series Wave Makers (人選之人 造浪者) is a behind the scenes look at election campaigns in Taiwan. It is set in the office of the Justice Party (公平正義黨) who are currently in opposition and campaigning to win the presidency from the incumbent Democracy and Peace Party (民主和平黨).

The parties are fictional, but the Justice Party most closely represents the pan-green camp while the ruling Democracy and Peace Party is a stand in for the pan-blue camp. However, the series studiously avoids the Taiwan-China cleavage that dominates politics in Taiwan. Some might feel it lacks something for avoiding this issue but instead it focuses on grassroots campaigning. The campaign staff are more intent on winning the election than engaging in global power politics. Organising rallies and countering the latest scandal in the tabloids or social media are what dominate the daily cut and thrust of the campaign.

Instead of the tension between Taiwan and China the series focuses on some other more local, but equally perennial, issues in Taiwan politics such as corruption, pollution and the death penalty. The key theme is gender politics with sexual harassment, homophobia and the power dynamics of office relationships examined in detail.

Given its feminist intentions it is fitting that the star of the series is Weng Wen-fang, played by Hsieh Ying-hsuan (謝盈萱). She is the deputy director of the public relations department of the Justice Party. She is from a political family and has her own electoral aspirations but she has a troubled relationship with her politician father who cannot accept that she is in a same-sex relationship. Weng acts as a mentor for Chang Ya-ching (Gingle Wang; 王淨) who experiences an incident of sexual harassment in the office and also deals with the consequences of a previous relationship with a powerful politician. The power dynamics of that relationship blurred the lines of consent and continue to have ramifications that play out through the series.

Both the incumbent president and the opposition’s presidential candidate in the series are female. Women are shown to be active participants and leaders in politics but it is also clear that they face extra challenges in achieving success and there is still an unequal power balance between the genders in decision making.

Another sub-plot in the series is the relationship of Chen Chia-ching (Jag Huang; 黃健瑋) with his wife. Chen is so dedicated to his job that he fails to devote enough time to his wife and young son leading to a difficulties in their relationship. Chen makes efforts to repair the relationship but it is clear that the demands of his work take priority.

Overall, I found the series wonderfully portrays the back office workings of an election campaign. It shows both the exuberance and disappointment; the compromise between living up to one’s ideals and doing what is necessary to win an election. It also doesn’t shy away from addressing critical social issues and gives a strong female perspective of sexual harassment in the workplace. For anyone familiar with Taiwanese politics it is a must watch. However, I am not sure how well it will resonate with viewers unfamiliar with the languages and culture of Taiwan. Still it serves as a great portrayal of the vibrant spirit of Taiwan’s democracy.

Book Review: Taiwan’s Green Parties

Taiwan’s Green Parties: Alternative Politics in Taiwan, by Dafydd Fell

My review of Dafydd Fell’s book Taiwan’s Green Parties was published in the Asia Pacific Greens newsletter. Also of note, the Asia Pacific Greens have issued a statement which expresses strong support for Taiwan’s sovereignty. Read the full statement.

Taiwan’s Green Parties is a thorough history of Green Party Taiwan (GPT) since its formation in 1996. The plural form of parties in the title refers to the splinter party, Trees Party, that formed in 2014 and the Social Democratic Party which formed short-lived alliances with the Green Party in the 2016 elections. While these other parties also contribute to the fabric of progressive politics and social movements in Taiwan, the main focus of the book is on the GPT. 

The GPT formed in 1996, the same year that Taiwan held its first presidential election. Some would consider this the date that Taiwan became a full democracy. Hence, the GPT can be considered to be one of the parties that has been a constant participant in Taiwan’s electoral democracy. This is significant because although Taiwan’s politics is dominated by two major parties there have been many third parties that have risen and fallen over time. Although the GPT may have had less electoral success than some other third parties, it has still had an important place in Taiwan’s political landscape. 

The book focuses on three key areas: electoral performance, media visibility and international engagement. It is perhaps the latter where the GPT have been most successful. Fell writes of the visit of Penny Kemp of the Green Party of Wales and England to Taiwan in 1996 soon after the party was formed. This was during the Taiwan Strait Missile Crisis and the visit represented a strong show of support for Taiwan’s democracy at the time. 

Bob Brown visited Taiwan in May 1996 which led to the development of an Asia-Pacific Greens network. There have been ongoing ties between the Australian Greens and the GPT. Taiwan hosted the Asia-Pacific Greens Congress in 2010 with Bob Brown in attendance. 

Although the GPT has had limited electoral success it has been at the forefront of activism for numerous causes. The prominence of various issues in the party’s campaigns have often reflected the key issues of social movements in Taiwan. In its early days the party was focused on anti-nuclear and environmental issues. Since 2010 the party has nominated a number of LGBT candidates. These candidates have played a prominent role in the GPT’s campaigns and LGBT issues have become a policy priority for the GPT. Taiwan eventually legislated for same-sex marriage in 2019. What was once a marginal issue had become accepted by the mainstream. 

GPT have been innovative in campaigning. In some ways this may be a response to a lack of resources, but it also in part reflects their values. GPT were the first party to campaign by riding bicycles. Although other parties later followed this trend, for the GPT it reflected that their members already rode bicycles regularly, not just for the purpose of political campaigning. The GPT was also innovative in the use of social media. This enabled them to reach a large audience without having to spend large amounts of money. 

The book delves into the details of the party’s electoral campaigns and in doing so reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the party. Lack of continuity in candidates has been a problem with most candidates only contesting one election. Electoral wins are more likely if candidates build support and name recognition over multiple elections. 

Another important point is balancing the tension between staying true to the party’s values while being able to gain enough votes to win elections. The GPT has often opted for ideological purity over political pragmatism which has placed a limit on its ability to win votes. It has on occasion foregone chances to cooperate with or support the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in order to remain true to the ideals of its members. Fell notes that one of the more successful third parties in recent years, the New Power Party, has been able to successfully balance its relationship with the DPP. The GPT needs to be able to find that balance point. 

Fell’s study is comprehensive and contains many details of the relatively short history of Green politics in Taiwan. He ends with recommendations for the future of the GPT. Some of the recommendations are quite general and could apply to any political party. For example, expanding the membership base and building a sound financial base with regular donations. Although the GPT has not had the level of electoral success that it aspires to, it is notable for its persistence as other third parties in Taiwan have tended to fade away as their success has been dependent on personalities or their ideologies have lost electoral support. Whether or not the GPT experiences electoral success in the near future, they will still be an important force in promoting critical environmental and social issues in Taiwan.

Morning tea with Tsai Ing-wen

Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) spoke to a group of foreign residents in Taipei yesterday morning. She first spent some time outlining her vision for Taiwan before taking questions from the floor.  Tsai is currently on leave from her position as chair of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as she competes in the party’s primary for the presidential nomination. The primary will be decided by opinion polls conducted in the next few days with the announcement of the result expected on 4 May.

In outlining her vision for Taiwan, Tsai focused mainly on relations with China and economic policy. She had some interesting ideas about Taiwan’s future economic development.

On the issue of jobs Tsai said, “We don’t have enough jobs and enough good jobs. Despite the fact you may be able to find a job, you may not be able to find a job with good pay. So the quality of jobs is important too.” Tsai then discussed how this was related to the structure of the economy. Since the 1990s as Taiwanese businesses and capital moved to China the restructuring of the economy was delayed.

This led to Tsai mentioning the effect of large numbers of Chinese tourists coming to Taiwan. “With the outward movement of industrial production to China we are exporting higher pay, better jobs to China. With the inflow of Chinese tourists we are actually importing lower pay service jobs,” Tsai said.

Tsai presented some of her ideas for creating better jobs in Taiwan. These revolved around promoting R&D industries and locating these in rural areas. She also mentioned encouraging artists to move to rural areas. Tsai also mentioned the importance of agriculture. She said Taiwan needs more professional farmers and that people from the cities need to move to the country to get involved in agriculture. These ideas are laudable but I would like to see some more concrete details of the policies.

Hsiao Bi-Khim talks about the election campaign

Klaus Bardenhagen, a German reporter based in Taiwan, interviewed Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), director of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Department of International Affairs, in Banqiao yesterday. He kindly provided me with a copy of the interview for use on this blog. In the interview Hsiao talks about the current election campaign and the the development of democracy in Taiwan.

I recently noted how the DPP was actively encouraging youth to vote. Hsiao explained, “Young people, according to polls, favour our party over the others by a two to one margin which is very good. Unfortunately the young people are not reliable because their voter turnout is low. Only about 30% of the young people come out to vote. So we really want to increase the voter turnout among younger people.”

Part of the strategy to improve the youth vote makes use of the internet. I blogged about how the DPP was actively using social media in the local elections last year.  “Social media is very important. In addition to traditional TV commercials and advertising, which is very expensive, we want to work on cost effective means to reach the younger people. We have new internet campaign advertising. We use Facebook, Plurk, YouTube and other means to reach younger people,” Hsiao said.

Another part of the DPP campaign is focused on swing voters. Hsiao said, “In order to win the election we have to capture the swing voters. It’s actually a small number of people in Taiwan, but there are people who do fluctuate between the two major political parties. We need to capture them. That’s very important. So our strategy needs to be focused on the issues that are very much relevant to the people’s daily lives. Contrary to other national level elections where ideology and national security issues would be prominent, these elections are really about the local life here in the cities.”

People who watch television news in Taiwan will see a lot of images of candidates out amongst the voters handshaking and greeting. This is a more traditional form of campaigning. Hsiao said, “I think a lot of Taiwanese want to make a personal connection to the political leaders who they see on TV. But there is not that personal connection so as candidates we try to meet them in person and to do that we really need to be on the streets a lot. Walking along the streets and shopping districts shaking hands, going to the marketplaces where crowds tend to congregate.”

The DPP has its roots in the opposition movement that formed during the Martial Law era. The culture of election campaigns has changed a lot since those days. Hsiao said, “Taiwan has matured significantly over the past 20 years in our democratization so nowadays in our rallies we try to be more positive and forward looking instead of protesting something negative, instead of being confrontational. We still have street rallies and parades but we try to be more festive and positive so that families so that families can come. We are no longer a confrontational challenge, but instead a party that has a forward looking and happy agenda.”

Voters in the five cities — Greater Kaohsiung, Greater Tainan, Greater Taichung, Xinbei City (formerly Taipei County) and Taipei City — will cast their votes on 27 November. The DPP is widely expected to win the mayorship in Kaohsiung and Tainan while the KMT is expected to win in Taichung. The contests in Taipei and Xinbei cities are much closer and difficult to predict. The results will set the stage for the next major elections for the legislature and president in 2012.

*Photo from Hsiao Bi-khim’s Facebook page.

Youth can change Taiwan!

My recent letter in the Taipei Times ended by saying that youth must speak out to protect freedom in Taiwan. After I posted a link to my letter on Facebook Michael Turton commented that the youth also need to vote.

It seems very timely that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) just released a campaign video featuring rapper Dog G* (大支) titled “Change Taiwan” (改變台灣). The DPP writes in the description (see full text and translation below) of Dog G’s video that they want youth to actively participate in and contribute their ideas to the election campaign. They go on to write, “the DPP wants to promote an overall increase in the youth vote. It is not just concerned with the overall breakdown of votes between the parties. The key point is that youth should play a key role in this election!”

The description also says that the video seeks to overthrow older people’s stereotypes about the younger generation. The lyrics intend to highlight how young people are actively engaged in society. For example, mobilising to help after the Typhoon Morakot floods and their role in the Dapu Land Grab Incident.

The video is also interesting because although it was created for the DPP, it doesn’t actually mention the DPP anywhere in the video. This follows an earlier campaign video from the DPP which also appealed to the centre ground. Peter Martin at Sinocentric noted the earlier ad, “pitches strait to the political centre-ground and tries to talk past the highly partisan debates which often characterize Taiwanese politics.”

The lyrics of the song represent a paradigm change from the ethnic-based politics of the past to a younger generation who have gone beyond ethnicity to just identify with Taiwan. Dog G sings:

我們不管藍綠綠藍這些

[We don’t care about blue versus green and green versus blue]

我們很簡單就是關心台灣，關心社會

[We just simply care about Taiwan and care about the society]

我們也沒有什麼族權問題總總

[We also don’t have a problem with different ethnic groups]

The V-sign in the video represents the word “vote”. I also suggest that V can represent “voice”. The combination of youth using their vote and their voice can change Taiwan.

*At the time this article was published rap artist 大支 used the English name Dog G. He now goes by the name Dwagie.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Chinese-language text from the video description. English translation by David.

年輕選票成為這場選舉的關鍵力量！

Let the youth vote become this election’s key power!

對於台灣的未來，年輕人應該擔當的是有主導權的關鍵者，而不該是在一旁唱唱跳跳的旁觀者。因此選戰以來，民進黨不僅鼓勵年輕人主動參與、規劃各項競選事務，由他們按著自己的想法來主導，對於青年族群在選舉中的影響，民進黨更關心的是整體青年投票率的提升，而非僅僅於政黨的得票比例。重點是年輕人要在這場選舉裡扮演關鍵角色！

Regarding Taiwan’s future, youth are taking on a key leadership role and not just standing on the sidelines as spectators. Hence, since the election campaign began the DPP has not just encouraged youth to participate in planning every aspect of the campaign, it has also let their ideas lead the way. Concerning the influence of youth groups on the election the DPP wants to promote an overall increase in the youth vote. It is not just concerned with the overall breakdown of votes between the parties. The key point is that youth should play a key role in this election!

這首[改變台灣]由知名的HIP HOP歌手大支創作，MV則由來自五都，包括多個大學HIP HOP社團學生、運動員、藝術工作者等各行各業超過150位年輕朋友在月前透過網路揪團拍攝。[改變台灣]歌詞推翻年輕人被大人世界加上的[草莓族]、[政治冷感]刻板印象，特別以88水災時年輕人發動比政府更有效率的救災行動、日前成功爭取社會注目，最後逼得馬政府退讓的「大埔農地」事件為例，強調年輕人不僅不是冷漠的旁觀者，更有領導時代，改變台灣的雄心與能力。而改變台灣的方式，mv當中則以[v]手勢，作為年輕族群揪團投票(vote)的默契，邀請所有年輕人用選票打造自己的理想五都。

The song “Change Taiwan” was created by well known hip hop artist Dog G. In the music video there are students from university hip hop clubs, athletes, artists and workers of every kind from all five cities* who seized the chance to film last month. The lyrics overthrow older people’s stereotypes of the youth as being the strawberry generation or indifferent to politics. The lyrics especially mention the youth response in providing disaster relief during the Typhoon Morakot floods was more effective than the government’s response. The way youth argued with the Ma government over the Dapu Land Grab Incident is another example. This emphasizes that youth are not just indifferent spectators. They are leaders with ambitions and potential to change Taiwan. The V-sign in the video means “vote” and signifies youth recognising the power of the vote. We invite every young person to use their vote to create their ideal “five cities”.

*Five cities refers to the five cities holding elections: Taipei City, Xinbei City (Taipei County), Greater Taichung, Greater Tainan and Greater Kaohsiung.

Asia Pacific Greens Network Congress in Taipei

The Asia Pacific Greens Network Congress took place in Taipei from Friday through Sunday. It brought together members of Green parties and environmental activists from many countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region and also from Europe. I attended the conference on Saturday.

The focus of the day’s talks was climate change, particularly in the light of the failure of the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen last December to achieve a satisfactory outcome. The opening speech was given by Mr Apisai Ielemia, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu. Tuvalu is one of the smallest nations on Earth and also one of the most vulnerable to climate change. The people of Tuvalu must face not just the impacts of climate change but the possibility that their entire country may be submerged by rising sea levels.

Ielemia explained why he believed the talks in Copenhagen were a failure. He put the blame squarely on the USA, saying the Copenhagen Accord was hastily put together to cover over the lack of action by the USA and for President Obama to have something to take home for domestic political reasons.

A problem with the Accord is that it sets a target of below 2ºC for the peaking of global temperatures. “Recent science tells us that a global temperature peak of around two degrees is likely to cause Tuvalu to disappear under the sea. I was certainly not going to sign on to a document that would spell the end of Tuvalu,” Ielemia said.

Ielemia proposed that the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and setting ambitious targets for this. “The Kyoto Protocol is the only international agreement that binds industrialised countries to emission reduction targets,” Ielemia said. He also said the UK government has expressed support for continuation of the Protocol and he hopes the rest of Europe will follow.

AIT Director speaks at NCCU

William Stanton, the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), gave a speech at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University (國立政治大學) this morning. He addressed the topic of US-Taiwan relations highlighting the close ties between the two countries especially in the areas of education, trade and military exchanges.

Last week Taiwan lifted a ban on US beef imports that had been in place since 2003. This topic seems to be of great interest to the Taiwanese media and there were cameras from a number of Taiwan television stations present. (All the cameras left immediately after Stanton commented on the beef issue.)

Stanton addressed the beef issue early in his talk saying, “There’s never been one case of any person getting Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease from eating US beef. I’d like to point out in contrast that in 2008 1,034 people tragically lost their lives riding motorscooters in Taiwan. There really is no risk eating US beef.” He added that more than 50 countries in the world import US beef.

Stanton went on to discuss the close ties that exist between the US and Taiwan. He highlighted education and trade as key areas. The US has more trade with Taiwan than it does with India, Spain, Italy and Singapore. He noted Taiwan was once the largest source of foreign students for the US. It is currently ranked sixth even though it only has 23 million people.

Stanton noted the improvement in cross-strait ties. He said, “We believe that the improved relationship fosters stability. It makes Taiwan a more attractive place to invest and do business.”

Stanton said that improved cross-strait relations, “avoids the risk of miscalculation and potential conflict.” He added that, “The nature, the scope and the pace of that relationship is for the people of Taiwan to decide. Despite the warming trend, Taiwan’s sense of security — whether politically, economically or militarily — is certainly not as strong as it should be. Taiwan, in order to feel secure, needs friends and the United States will continue to be a dependable friend to Taiwan.”

This led to the security issue. Stanton said US policy is, “based on the Taiwan Relations Act which commits the United States to ensuring sufficient self-defense capability for Taiwan. We’re not going to waiver in that commitment.”  The issue of F-16’s was still under discussion, but he said that one year ago the US concluded a US$6.4 billion deal which provided Apache helicopters, Javelin anti-tank missiles, Harpoon missiles for ships, upgrades to the E-2 reconnaissance aircraft, Patriot PAC-3 missiles and also aircraft spare parts.

Stanton then emphasised that the security relationship was not just about weapons sales. He said, “It’s an ongoing dialogue. We have regular exchanges between our militaries.” He noted that some Taiwanese military personnel were receiving training and education in the United States.

Questions following Stanton’s talk gave NCCU students a great chance to ask a high ranking US diplomat about key issues in the US-Taiwan relationship.

A diplomacy student from the US asked what the US could learn from Taiwan’s development. He said that Taiwan’s healthcare system could be a model for the US.

Stanton replied, “The biggest lesson from Taiwan is the theme that President Obama is stressing, the need for education. A decision that Taiwan made early on was intensive high-level education and it has been a great formula for success.” On healthcare he said he personally supported the program President Obama was working on. He also cited a personal example of the high costs his daughter had faced for basic medical treatment in the US.

An exchange student from China said that Taiwan officials had said that Taiwan would be a peacemaker rather than a troublemaker in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the US arm sales to Taiwan contribute a potential threat that would make Taiwan a troublemaker.

On the US arms sales Stanton said, “It’s a two-way street. There are somewhere between a 1,000 and 1,400 missiles along the Chinese coast aimed at Taiwan. Taiwan feels very vulnerable. The mainland [sic] has never given up its policy of saying it would strike if independence were declared.”

“There hasn’t been much done by the mainland to reassure the people of Taiwan. It’s a US policy going back 30 years that we will support the self defense of Taiwan. The principle issue is the relationship between Taiwan and the mainland and the sense of threat that people here feel.”

Deepening democracy in Asia

A forum in Taipei yesterday titled “Democracy Building in Asia” brought together experts from Taiwan, the US and Asian countries. The forum was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) and the Institute for National Policy Research.

In one of the opening speeches John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), a Vice-Chairman of the KMT and board member of TFD, said it was timely to have the conference in Taiwan now that there have been two orderly and peaceful transitions of power and this shows that democracy can work in Asia.

Lin Wen-cheng (林文程), the President of TFD, speaking in the afternoon said that democratic countries should be more pro-active in promoting democracy in their foreign policy. Taiwan is the only country in Asia that has established a national foundation to promote democracy in the region. Lin said that other countries, especially Japan and South Korea, should establish similar organisations.

The need for greater regional efforts in promoting democracy was highlighted by the presentations of several foreign speakers. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, President of the National Human Rights Society in Malaysia, said that Malaysia had a very good constitution that included a bill of rights when it obtained independence in 1957. However, since 1987 its democracy has been under attack. Malik emphasised the harm that had been done to the judiciary through sacking key judges who made decisions that went against the government and appointing crony judges.

Jarius Bondoc, a journalist from the Philippines, said that 67 journalists had been killed in the Philippines since 2001 and the harassment of journalists continues.

The first session in the morning was about legislative optimisation. It included talks by representatives of the Congressional/Parliamentary Research services from the US and India.

Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), a former legislator and currently Director of International Affairs for the DPP, spoke about how procedure in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan could be improved to consolidate democracy. She identified four categories for change: (1) electoral system, (2) structure of the Legislative Yuan, (3) accountability and (4) quality of legislation.

With regard to the electoral system she said the new system, first adopted in the 2008 election, resulted in a the KMT winning a large majority with many more seats than the percentage of their vote. Small parties were also locked out by the new system. I raised a question about exactly how the system should be improved. Bi-khim replied the issue is being discussed by the DPP but there is no consensus within the party. There is also no consensus between parties on the issue.

Bi-khim also discussed how there was a need to change the committee system in the legislature. The current system offers advantages to members of certain committees who can use them to secure projects for their electorates. There is no consideration of professional skills or seniority in assigning legislators to committees. The rotation of committee chairs also leads to inconsistencies.

As well as reform of the legislature, judicial reform was the topic in the final afternoon session. Dr Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), Taiwan’s former representative in Washington and now a professor at NCCU, said Taiwan has consolidated its democracy through two transitions of power, but there were still important issues that need to be resolved.

Wu highlighted the cases of the Kaohsiung MRT, Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen and former President Chen Shui-bian as examples of problems in the judicial system. He said there was a need for serious reform of the judicial system. In particular there needs to be better monitoring of judges, judges should not maintain close relationships with prosecutors, there should be presumption of innocence and the recruitment of prosecutors and judges needs to be reformed. There is also a need to revise the criminal procedure code to limit the detention period, Wu said.

Wu said the top leadership must recognise there is a problem with the judiciary and ask top officials to research and investigate this. The government must accept whatever recommendations are made and put them into place.

Other media: The Taipei Times published an article about the forum. The China Post also has a report. The Taiwan News has a related editorial today on reform of Legislative Yuan.

A tale of two nations

It might seem hard to imagine now but 20 years ago there were many similarities between the political situation in Taiwan and China. Both countries had an authoritarian polity with strict controls on freedom of speech. On university campuses the party-state (KMT or CCP) maintained tight control over student organisations and political activities. Although the situation in Taiwan was less repressive and there was a formal opposition movement in the DPP.

In The Perils of Protest, Teresa Wright makes a comparative study of the 1989 student protests in Beijing and the March 1990 Wild Lily Student Movement in Taipei. She examines in detail the organisational and decision making behaviour of the students. The actions taken by the students in Beijing and Taipei had many similarities including the launching of hunger strikes and separation of students from non-students during protests.

At the time both the KMT and CCP were in the midst of factional struggles for power. In China the reform-minded Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) was then the likely successor to Deng Xiaoping. However, Zhao’s reform plans met with opposition from the conservative Premier Li Peng (李鵬). In Taiwan Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) became the President following the death of Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) in 1988. Under the constitution Lee had to stand for reelection by the National Assembly in March 1990. This was the cause of a power struggle between the mainstream faction of Lee and the non-mainstream faction, consisting of “mainlanders”.

The student movements that developed in both countries had the potential to promote genuine political reform. In Taiwan the Wild Lily Movement demanded the re-election of the National Assembly and convening a National Affairs Conference to discuss direct elections for the President. President Lee met with the students and agreed to their demands leading to the Wild Lily protest ending peacefully.

In Beijing the protests met with an increasingly hardline response from the government that culminated in the tragedy of the Tian’anmen Square Massacre. While Taiwan developed into a democracy, China has remained strictly authoritarian. 20 years on there seems even less hope for democracy in China than there was in 1989. One can only imagine what might have been if the brave students in Tian’anmen Square had sparked reform instead of meeting with a brutal crackdown.

Taiwan needs justice not persecution

For a long time I have wanted to write something about the detention of former President Chen Shui-bian. I have avoided it for a number of reasons. First, it has been painful to watch the downfall of someone I once greatly admired. Second, I find it hard to accept the animosity and vitriol that many people in Taiwan express toward A-bian. It is clear the KMT and its cohorts in the media have succeeded in convincing a significant percentage of people in Taiwan that A-bian is an evil monster who doesn’t even deserve basic human rights. As a result it is difficult to have a calm and rational conversation about the topic.

A must read article by Paul Katz (中文) at The China Beat finally prompted me to go back to this article that has been in draft for so long. Katz writes that 4 June marks the 185th day of Chen’s detention. That’s more than half a year. It’s too long. Remember that Chen was first detained on 12 November 2008 and not indicted until 12 December 2008. He was released and two subsequent appeals by prosecutors to detain Chen were rejected by the court. It was only after the much criticised switching of judges that Chen was detained again on 30 December 2008. He has been continuously in detention since then.

It is clear that Chen Shui-bian’s family have engaged in inappropriate financial dealings. Their actions should be investigated and tried before a court. All people are equal before the law and the fact a former President is on trial is proof of that. Nobody should escape justice because of any position they hold. It is important to remember though, there is a significant difference between doing something wrong and being found guilty in a court of law. The principles of being innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial are fundamental.

From the beginning it was obvious Chen’s trial would be subject to great scrutiny and needed to be conducted to the highest judicial standards. Katz expresses it quite eloquently:

having a top-ranking politician found guilty after a trial deemed fair and impartial would constitute an immense boost in prestige for Taiwan’s judicial system, while also sending a crystal-clear message to all politicians facing similar forms of temptation. However, a conviction following proceedings that suggest Chen is presumed guilty and likely to be found guilty as well would represent a major step backwards, and risk causing a reversion to traditional views of the law as being simply a tool to enhance state interests.

Chen’s trial has been marked by ongoing events which show that the judiciary doesn’t adhere to the high standards that it should. There has been political interference in the appointment of judges, inappropriate behaviour by prosecutors and a lack of respect for basic principles of human rights. Chen’s detention has limited his ability to properly consult with his lawyers in preparing the case for his defense. Chen has a sharp legal mind and the chance to stand up and defend himself in a fair trial is something that he would have relished not run away from.

Ma Ying-jeou was charged with corruption in 2007 and subsequently acquitted. He did not spend a single day in detention. The double standard in Chen’s ongoing detention is clear and obvious. Katz further elucidates here:

detention of politicians on such charges is almost unprecedented. Over the years, numerous politicians of all stripes have been accused of corruption. Some have been found guilty and sent to prison, while others have been proven innocent. Only a small percentage has been subjected to detention (most are allowed the right to bail), although many suspects have fled the country and are currently living high on the hog (swine flu notwithstanding) in China and the U.S. Apart from Chen, however, no Taiwanese politician has been detained for such a long period of time on corruption charges without having first been convicted of a crime.

The real reason for A-bian’s ongoing detention has nothing to do with justice. The Taiwan News writes in its editorial today:

After all, the genuine source of the hatred against Chen has little to do with the question of whether he was really corrupt but lies in the fact that the human rights lawyer and fiery lawmaker and “upstart,” for all of his undeniable defects, led Taiwan’s grassroots Democratic Progressive Party in an electoral campaign that pulled the KMT down after nearly 55 years of unchallenged authoritarian and one-party dominant rule.

The Ma government had a great chance to show that it was genuinely committed to fighting corruption through Chen’s trial. Instead we got a circus, a kangaroo court and trial by media. There is no justice in Taiwan. The KMT continues to act with impunity while those that challenge its power are persecuted.

中文版：台灣需要公平正義而不是迫害