TDB Vol. 2 No. 1: BERSIH 2.0: More than Just Street Protests

TDB Vol. 2 No. 1: BERSIH 2.0: More than Just Street Protests

Maria Chin Abdullah, head of the recipient of the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award, shares her views on democracy and the role of civic groups with Taiwanese NGOs. Olivia Yang reports.

 

“We are trying to define democracy in Malaysia, to say that it is all right for you to speak up, it’s all right to not fear them. Because once we show fear, we back down, we compromise.”

BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah is speaking at a discussion with Taiwan NGOs in Taipei on Dec. 10, 2017. The Malaysia-based coalition had just been presented with the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award earlier that day, and proceeded to share her experiences with Taiwan NGOS on how civil societies in Asia advocate for fair and clean elections.

While BERSIH 2.0 is well-known for its sea of bright yellow-clad protesters in the streets of major cities around the world, rallies are not the only approach the coalition takes in expanding civil political participation throughout Malaysia.

“At any time now we can confidently say we can bring 100,000 people to the streets, but it took us 10 years to build up this momentum,” says Maria Chin Abdullah. “The other thing we are saying to the government is that you have to respect rule of law. We are actually challenging them.”

To build more awareness among Malaysians on the importance of civil participation in public affairs, BERSIH 2.0 has come up with new strategies. These include organizing electoral observations, forming a Delineation Action and Research Team (DART), and holding boot camps that provide education on the basics of democracy, elections and mass mobilization.

But the coalition’s efforts have not all been carried out smoothly.

Maria Chin Abdullah says that “as we get more sophisticated in reaching out to people, the state also gets more sophisticated in trying to counter us.”

BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah at the 2017 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award Ceremony. (Photo: 黃謙賢 / TFD).

Pushback from the government is not unexpected; however BERSIH 2.0 is also seeing frustration from the civil society. Sometimes people want quick solutions to changing the government, which is very difficult due to the “uneven” system, says the BERSIH 2.0 chairperson.

“People think that just because they vote they should get the results they want. But it doesn’t work that way.”

While elections in Taiwan are comparatively clean and fair, challenges like vote-buying still exist.

Huang Shiow-duan is a standing board member at Transparency International Chinese Taipei (TICT) and chairperson of Citizen Congress Watch (CCW), a coalition of NGOs that monitors the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s Parliament.

During the conversation with BERSIH 2.0, Huang gave examples of how the organizations she is affiliated with are fighting corruption in the island-nation.

From 2013 to 2014, TICT collaborated with the Tainan District Prosecutors Office to produce a series of anti-corruption animated education videos. Huang says it is crucial to start anti-corruption education from a young age, and children can also be more persuasive in communicating information to older generations.

CCW, on the other hand, supervises Taiwan’s parliamentarians by broadcasting legislative sessions and making legislative documents accessible to the public. It also evaluates legislators once every six months and the evaluation report is made public so that civil society, along with legislators, are aware of their performance.

“I don’t think the government will clean itself. It needs supervision. That’s why we need to create a system of separation of power,” says Huang.

Compared to TICT and CCW, Watchout Co. is a younger NGO founded in 2013 with a mission of lowering the threshold of political participation. Being a media platform, Watchout empowers the people by sharing facts and informed opinions in a way that is easy to consume. It also utilizes social media and technology to oversee the government.

But echoing Maria Chin Abdullah, Yu Chih-hao, design and technology lead at Watchout, says that “empowering the people is the ultimate solution — but it’s the toughest solution.”

The main challenges Watchout faces is coming up with methods to free people’s time and minds, and getting other media outlets to distribute its information so the facts flow between different eco-chambers.

Yu nevertheless emphasizes the importance of democratic countries defining their own democracy and learning from each other.

“Practicing democracy in Taiwan is our lifeline,“ says Yu. “It’s one of the factors that differentiate Taiwan from China, and it’s one of the factors that get Taiwan international recognition and respect.”

“Democracy does not happen overnight. Democracy takes time,” says Maria Chin Abdullah. “We are struggling. We are backsliding. But I still believe in the power of the people.”

Top photo:  BERSIH 2.0 Chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah speaking at a discussion with Taiwan NGOs in Taipei on Dec. 10, 2017. (Photo: Olivia Yang).

 

TDB Vol. 1 No. 23: Ten Questions About Taiwan’s Transitional Justice

TDB Vol. 1 No. 23: Ten Questions About Taiwan’s Transitional Justice

There has been much discussion about the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice since it was passed in early December. The Taiwan Association for Truth and Reconciliation has come up with a Q&A to respond to the myths and controversies concerning the newly passed law and to help put transitional justice in its proper Taiwanese context.

 

1. Why does the transitional justice concerned in the Act only target the Kuomintang (KMT)? This is none other than political vendetta!

Transitional justice is to hold rulers and the state apparatus accountable for their violations of the basic rights of the people and their abuse of state institutions and power. The KMT was the sole ruling party during the Martial Law period and where decision-making and discussion of many policies took place. It is difficult to undertake the project of Taiwan’s transitional justice and rectify the wrongs committed during the Martial Law period without making the party the target.

Post-democratization governments certainly are not immune to taking illegitimate actions that are against the principles of justice, but people living in a democratic society are more aptly equipped with rights guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by mechanisms such as separation of power and checks and balances. When their rights are violated, they have access to both institutional and non-institutional ways to demand a response from the government (appeal, court, petition or social protest).

What “transitional justice” deals with is the political persecution committed before democratization.

2. Taiwan’s transitional justice is purely a political scheme against waishengren and to de-Sinicize Taiwan?

In fact, according to statistical information derived from the number of people receiving state compensation, the percentage of waishengren political victims in the White Terror cases was actually a lot greater than the percentage of ethnic groups in Taiwan’s total population. The case of Shandong exiled students is an example that involved a large number of waishengren. Clearing up the history helps solve certain myths surrounding the ethnic divisions and antagonism. Due to its idiosyncratic history, Taiwan’s democratic transformation was intertwined with a process of change in people’s national identity; the two thereby have often been conflated but should actually be looked into with extra caution.

The core of transitional justice, however, is about how a society faces its history, about making those denying historical traumas and mistakes understand that it would come at a cost. Transitional justice is a task with concrete goals to achieve.

3. Chiang Kai-shek had made contributions to the country as well. Why can’t his contributions be displayed alongside his misdeeds? If not for him, Taiwan would have been taken over by the People’s Republic of China long ago and very likely be overwhelmed by the storm of the Cultural Revolution.

As said in the answer to the first question, transitional justice is to hold rulers and the state apparatus accountable for their past violations, not to write biographies for historical figures. Those political parties and individuals who harbor special feelings for Chiang Kai-shek can continue their support for him.

Nonetheless, the rhetoric of “safeguarding Taiwan (against Chinese aggression)” cannot explain why Chiang perpetuated Martial Law rule even after his control over Taiwan (and offshore islands) was consolidated in the mid-1950s (after the Korean War) and why he targeted the communists, the tangwai/dangwai people and overseas Taiwanese independence activists as “three-in-one enemy” starting in the 1970s. “Protecting the island from falling under communist control” was a propaganda slogan for the ruler to rationalize his use of political repression and carrying out of comprehensive social surveillance during the Martial Law period.

4. The government has been compensating political victims since the 1990s. What else is to be done 30 years after Martial Law was lifted?

Bound by the National Security Act and Constitutional Interpretation No. 272, before the passage of the Act on Transitional Justice, the political victims, despite receiving compensation, were not cleared of their convictions and criminal records, seized properties were not returned, and the KMT archives during the years when the country was ruled by the party-state have not been made public. Even now, we still do not know exactly how many political victims there were during the White Terror. Why were they persecuted? Who should be held accountable? How extensive was the persecuting system? What, if any, have the persecutors done to redeem themselves? What was wrong with Martial Law and the constitutional institutions? The state has to face its own past deeds. Holding the repressive system accountable is much more than simply pointing fingers at Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo; a lot more needs to be done.

▶︎ See also: TDB Vol. 1 No. 22: Taiwan Passes Act Promoting Transitional Justice

Discovered in the 1990s, the Liuzhangli graveyard in Taipei was the burial ground for hundreds of White Terror victims. The cemetery was designated a municipal cultural landmark in 2015 (Photo: TATR).

5. The amendments to the Labor Standards Act have been stalled and same-sex marriage legalization (seemingly) mothballed; is the ruling Democratic Progressive Party pushing for transitional justice just to divert public attention?

What we need to do is to work together for the realization of social justice of various kinds rather than elbowing each other out. The passage of the Act on Transitional Justice does not mean that transitional justice has been achieved. The Transitional Justice Promotion Committee has to be overseen and kept from descending into formalism. We need to take this historical opportunity and build a bridge between the past and the future in our era.

6. Granted, the task of transitional justice should be done, but don’t we need to have a sense of proportion by first working hard on improving the economy?

Most of the living political victims are aged. This is probably the only time period in which we live alongside these people. When else but now are we to rectify the past wrongs for them and grant them their historical status? There are things that cannot be bought with money: lost youth, freedom and lives. They could have had a different life, if only Taiwanese society had been free from the decades-long suppression and suffocation. It’s hard to weigh the possibilities they had once owned for their worth, let alone against money.

7. Those political victims were not all innocent. Some of them were underground Chinese Communist Party members who were supposed to be executed.

No one would object to redressing the wrongful charges against the innocent, but the greatest challenge of transitional justice precisely lies in questioning the legitimacy and legality of the laws that the “criminals” had broken during the Martial Law era. How did the state violate the people’s basic rights and deprive the people of their rights under the pretext of maintaining social stability and national security via court-martial and laws? How do we draw the boundary between national security and protection of personal rights? This is a question in need of serious debate even in a democratic society. We can choose to forget and pretend nothing of the sort happened, or we can choose to face the history. Those interested in the debate can find a related extensive discussion on the website of the third constitutional court simulation (in Chinese) that was held in November, 2016.

8. Why are Indigenous peoples and “comfort women” not included in the Act?

Those who support the redressing of historical wrongs are supposed to also be in support of the restoring of justice for Indigenous people and for “comfort women.” Taking other countries’ cases as examples, these two groups deserve separate legislative bills for delicate and thorough handling of their demands, rather than being squeezed with other groups into the same piece of cloth.

The persecution that Indigenous people have been subjected to span different regimes, which requires a more comprehensive examination and solution that goes to the root of the problems stemming from political institutions and existing laws. If not, the same kind of persecution would only reappear in different forms. The issue of “comfort women,” on the other hand, requires the government to negotiate with the Japanese government and demand compensation and an apology.

It is hard to imagine these different forms of violence that require different routes for restoring justice could be dealt with by the same set of rules. Only through different legal and institutional frameworks can these issues be allowed more room for detailed and practical solutions to these complicated problems.

9. The constitutionality of the Act on Transitional Justice is in question?

Whether a law is unconstitutional is up to the grand justices to decide. Insofar as it has not been ruled unconstitutional, a law passed by the legislature is nevertheless effective.

Questions have been raised as to whether the jurisdiction assigned to the Transitional Justice Promotion Committee oversteps the jurisdiction of the judiciary, such as Article 14 of the Act granting the Committee the right to investigate, and Article 15 and Article 16 allowing the Committee to seal documents and materials regarded as evidence and to require those under investigation to speak the truth. According to Constitutional Interpretation No. 613 concerning the operation of an independent agency, the constitutionality of the operation of an independent agency will be upheld “if important matters are determined by means of hearings, if the performance of the execution of its mission is made transparent and public for the purpose of public supervision,” and with the existing “authority of the Legislative Yuan to supervise the operation of the independent agency through legislation and budget review.” Article 19 prohibits damaging of political archives on pain of imprisonment; however, the one who initiates the investigation should still be the prosecutors, as how the offenses of destruction, abandonment, and damage of property are governed in the Criminal Code.

In general, the Committee will be operating in the same way as other independent agencies (e.g. the National Communications Commission and the Fair Trade Commission), exercising its jurisdiction independently, unaffected by the change of premier and having the power of administrative enforcement (one could refer to the Administrative Execution Act for an understanding of how the power is governed). However, the Committee should be as prudent and transparent as possible when exercising these powers, with the Committee making critical decisions by consensus.

10. What is transitional justice anyway? What should be done to achieve it?

Transitional justice” used to be a professional term developed by international academia to refer to how a society that has achieved democratic transition faces and deals with mass human rights violations committed in the past by the state. It has therefore also been termed as “dealing with past wrongs.” The main objective of transitional justice is “Never Again” and to make up for the past sufferings of our fellow countrymen and -women. The core objectives of transitional justice are: seeking the truth, compensating the victims, restoring justice, attaining social reconciliation and preventing the return of state violence.

How is transitional justice done then? The more commonly seen mechanisms include (1) trials and vetting (holding the persecuting system and persecutors accountable); (2) setting up a Truth Committee and sorting and making public the related archives (the state needs to recognize what mistakes it has done); (3) compensating the victims and their families and restoring their reputation; (4) rebuilding the memory (removing/remaking symbols of authoritarianism and cautioning future generations against the return of authoritarianism through museums, memorials and textbooks). Every country has its own distinct way of carrying out transitional justice under different historical/political contexts; there is no “correct way.”

This piece originally appeared in Chinese. Translation by Alison Hsiao

TDB Vol. 1 No. 22: Taiwan Passes Act Promoting Transitional Justice

TDB Vol. 1 No. 22: Taiwan Passes Act Promoting Transitional Justice

Nearly a year since a draft bill was introduced in the Legislative Yuan, the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice was passed on Dec. 5, marking an important step in the country’s effort to shed light on and redress past injustices committed during the Martial Law period. Alison Hsiao looks at the Act and its implications.

 

At 21:09 on Dec. 5, Legislative Speaker Su Jia-chyuan struck the gavel and announced the passage of the “Act on Promoting Transitional Justice” (促進轉型正義條例) on the legislative floor, signifying a new beginning for the country’s transitional justice.

Different versions of the bill had been proposed and heated debates on various issues — from the time span covered and the authority granted to the Transitional Justice Promotion Committee to the decision to make indigenous groups’ transitional justice a separate issue not included in the Act — were stoked in the year-long period since the draft bill was introduced in the legislature last year.

The Act that cleared the legislature on Dec. 5 put an end to the battle — temporarily, however, as the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) indicated right after the passage that it would petition for an interpretation of the Constitution on the grounds that some clauses of the Act are unconstitutional.

Covering the period from Aug. 15, 1945 to Nov. 6, 1992, when Martial Law was lifted on the offshore islands of Kinmen and Matsu (five years later than on Taiwan proper), the Act will see the setup of an independent, nine-people Transitional Justice Promotion Committee overseen by the Executive Yuan.

The Committee will be tasked with five main missions: opening up political archives, erasing symbols of authoritarianism and keeping the sites of past injustice, redressing judicial wrongs, restoring the historical truth and promoting social reconciliation, and settling and re-channeling ill-gotten party assets.

Beside the party assets settlement that has already been undertaken, the task that is expected to stir up future debate is the erasing of “symbols that are nostalgic or in memorial of the authoritarian ruler(s) in public buildings and spaces,” written in Article 5 of the Act. It has already been interpreted by some local media as a directive to conduct a house-cleaning removal of references to “Zhong-zheng” (Chiang Kai-shek’s given name) in the names of schools, places and streets. That claim has since been rebutted by Minister of the Interior Yeh Jiunn-rong, who said that it will be up to the Committee to decide.

The Act also stipulates that any institution, group or people evading, refusing or hindering investigations launched under the Act, and political parties and their affiliated organizations refusing to return political archives (determined as relevant by the Committee) to the state will be subject to repeatable penalties of NT$100,000 to NT$500,000 and NT$1 million to NT$5 million respectively. Those who have disposed of, destroyed, damaged or concealed political archives, or have attempted to do so, will be liable to punishment of no more than five years behind bars.

Transitional Justice with Taiwanese Characteristics’

The major breakthrough has been praised by the Taiwan Association of Truth and Reconciliation (TATR), a non-governmental group that has advocated for transitional justice since 2008 and which was directly involved in the legislative process leading to the Act. TATR has lauded the annulling of Article 9 (Paragraph 2) of the National Security Act — passed less than a month before the lifting of the Martial Law in 1987 in Taiwan proper — that prevented political victims convicted of criminal charges by a court martial during the authoritarian period from appealing in the post-martial-law time.

“The Act has made concrete advances on both rectifying past injustices and truth seeking, particularly the former,” the association said on Facebook. “This is a transitional justice model with Taiwanese characteristics.”

Article 6 of the new legislation now demands that the right to appeal for re-investigation be returned to those who “had been subjected to criminal sentencing — resulting in punishments, rehabilitative measures and confiscation of properties — that had violated the constitutional order of liberal democracy and the principle of fair trial during the authoritarian rule.” The cases should not be bound by Article 9 of the National Security Act, the article says, adding that redressing judicial wrongs can be achieved by “identifying the persecutors and holding them accountable, restoring and compensating for the damages to the victims or their families’ reputation and rights, and setting history right and making public the judicial wrongs.”

Two scenarios are considered in Article 6.

Those who have been compensated or had their rights re-instituted in accordance with the February 28 Incident Disposition and Compensation Act (1995) (二二八事件處理及賠償條例), the Compensation Act for Wrongful Trials on Charges of Sedition and Espionage during the Martial Law Period (1998) (戒嚴時期不當叛亂暨匪諜審判案件補償條例) and the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law (2000) (戒嚴時期人民受損權利回復條例), shall see the related convictions annulled and criminal records expunged, according to the Act, without the need to go through judicial proceedings.

Rendered criminal-record-free without the need to go to court, they can nevertheless still make use of the reinstated right to appeal, TATR President Yeh Hung-ling said. Such individuals can now appeal the convictions of offenses of sedition or treason under Martial Law in order to receive compensation or to secure the return of properties seized as accessory penalty (which was supplementary to the principal penalty of imprisonment or death). Such appeals were not possible before, as the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law (Article 4) restricts the right to demand the return of or compensation for confiscated properties to those who are “found innocent.” This very article was literally empty because, when coupled with Article 9 of the National Security Act, no acquittal was possible without the right to appeal in court.

The second scenario involves those cases not covered by the three compensation acts. The new legislation demands they be redressed in the same way if approved by the Committee through a review launched upon the petition of the claimant or initiated by the Committee itself.

Those rare cases are the “controversial” ones, the association said. They include that of Voyue Tosku (杜孝生), a Tsou Aborigine who received a 17-year prison sentence in 1954 for “corruption,” and of Li Ma-dou (李媽兜), whose conviction of sedition/treason “survives the legal review under current laws and rules of evidence” — meaning that he did “by violence commit an overt act” with intent to destroy the state or use illegal means to overthrow the government according to the Criminal Code, and is thereby not compensable under the Compensation Act for Wrongful Trials on Charges of Sedition and Espionage during the Martial Law Period.

The claimants in the second scenario also have the right to appeal in court if their claims are rejected by the Committee, the Act states.

Milestone’

Putting an end to the applicability of Article 9 of the National Security Act is a “milestone” for Taiwan’s transitional justice since the lift of the Martial Law 30 years ago, the TATR said.

“We ask that the Democratic Progressive Party government exercise extra prudence when choosing the members of the Transitional Justice Promotion Committee, and attend to all the indispensable aspects of transitional justice — truth, justice, compensation for and rectification of wrongs, and reconciliation — with a holistic vision,” it added, stressing the need to pass the bill of political archives that has been waiting in the wings of the Legislative Yuan to further clear up the past.

President Tsai Ing-wen, on the next day of the legislative achievement, also called the passage of the Act “a milestone of Taiwan’s freedom and democracy.”

“I’ve said on the day of the 70th anniversary of the 228 Incident this year that the goal of transitional justice is reconciliation, not political vendetta; this is the principle that the government will insist on, as only when the people face the past together can the country move toward the future in unity,” she said.

The president said she “looks forward to the advent of the day when the work of transitional justice is complete and no political party in Taiwan would any longer need to bear the brunt of the country’s criticism against past authoritarian rule.”

“People would no longer harbor hatred against each other, trapped in painful historical memory. Taiwan will transform into a different country, and our democracy will also take a step forward,” she said.

President Tsai Ing-wen addresses victims and families of victims of political repression under Martial Law on International Human Rights Day 2016 (Photo courtesy of the Tsai Ing-wen official Facebook page).

TDB Vol. 1 No. 21: Lee Ming-che Sentencing a Warning to Others (Analysis)

TDB Vol. 1 No. 21: Lee Ming-che Sentencing a Warning to Others (Analysis)

More than the unfair treatment of a man who did nothing wrong, today’s sentencing is another reminder that China has no intention of playing by international rules. It is also a warning that Beijing has cast a much wider net to silence critics and those, Chinese and not, who propose an alternative system of governance in China. J. Michael Cole looks at the significance of today’s ruling.

 

The Yueyang Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan Province today sentenced Taiwanese human rights activist Lee Ming-che to five years’ imprisonment for “subversion of state power” and suspended his political rights for two years, a ruling that Taiwan’s Presidential Office and rights organizations worldwide decried as “unacceptable.”

Lee was arrested in March upon entering China via Macau. After disappearing for several months, he resurfaced in court in Hunan Province in September, where he was accused of collaborating with others in China and on social media to “attack the Chinese government” and promote “Western-style democracy.”

Peng Yuhua, a Chinese citizen who was accused of working with Lee in “organizing, planning and taking action to subvert national authority and overthrow the socialist system,” was sentenced to seven years in prison.

After today’s ruling, Lee said he would not appeal.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other organizations have described the sentencing as “absolutely outrageous” and a “warning signal” to other activists. In a statement, Taiwan’s Presidential Office wrote that “it is regrettable that the Lee Ming-che case has seriously damaged cross-strait relations and especially challenged Taiwanese people’s persistence and ideals for democracy and freedom.”

Lee is the first Taiwanese national to be sentenced for such a “crime” in China under the new National Security Law which passed on July 1, 2015 and which stipulates that preserving the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China “is a shared obligation of all the Chinese people, including compatriots from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.”

The court’s suspension of Lee’s political rights is no doubt meant to underscore Beijing’s contention that the new National Security Law applies to Taiwanese nationals (whom it regards as PRC citizens) regardless of where the alleged crimes are committed. We should note here that the said crimes Lee is accused of having committed occurred primarily online.

The heavy sentence is also meant to send a loud signal to other activists in Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere that they, too, can now be apprehended and convicted for “crimes endangering national security” and the “people’s democratic dictatorship regime” as (loosely) defined in the Law, irrespective of where the said crimes have been committed, both physically and online.

The heavy sentence is also meant to send a loud signal to other activists in Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere that they, too, can now be apprehended and convicted for “crimes endangering national security” and the “people’s democratic dictatorship regime” as (loosely) defined in the Law, irrespective of where the said crimes have been committed, both physically and online. This development will no doubt have a chilling effect on activists, academics, journalists, officials and artists who may fear that they have, at some point, promoted through their work or personal discussions online notions of democracy or sovereignty that can be construed as criminal in China.

Moreover, the existence of the Law, and now the precedent set by Lee’s arrest and sentencing, provides the means and empowerment for local officials to act independently and to disappear a suspect into the Chinese legal system, out of which it has become increasingly difficult to emerge — even for foreign passport holders. In other words, and as likely was the case with Lee, the arrest and sentencing of non-PRC nationals can now occur without a directive from, or even the knowledge of, the central government.

By targeting Taiwanese nationals and others who are engaged in the promotion of human rights and democracy, Beijing hopes to deter their engagement with likeminded elements in China and limit their ability to cooperate with them in defying CCP authoritarian rule. Thus, besides scaring off outside forces, the move also seeks to further isolate human rights activists in China, who under new rules governing foreign NGOs have already been having a tougher time connecting with the outside world.

More than the unfair treatment of a man who did nothing wrong, today’s sentencing is yet another reminder that China has no intention of playing by international rules. It is also a warning that it has now cast a much wider — and extraterritorial — net in its attempt to silence critics and those, Chinese and not, who propose an alternative, more liberal and democratic system of governance in China.

Photo: Chuyện Việt Nam

TDB Vol. 1 No. 20: Democracy Under Pressure, but Undefeated

TDB Vol. 1 No. 20: Democracy Under Pressure, but Undefeated

Developments over the past two decades are forcing experts to reassess traditional models of the spreading of democracy. With the democratic ‘center’ encountering various difficulties, the ‘peripheries’ may now have a greater role to play to prevent a further global backsliding in democratic practices. This, and other issues, were the subject of a recent lecture in Taipei involving Professor Laurence Whitehead and other experts. Olivia Yang reports.

 

“I think we should celebrate not only that it happened, but that it happened then.”

Thus spoke Professor Laurence Whitehead of Oxford University on the lifting of Martial Law in Taiwan in 1987 during a conference at Academia Sinica on Monday.

“Delay would have changed the dynamics and the meaning of it, and changed the international reputation you have gained,” he said.

To commemorate the 30th anniversary of the lifting of Martial Law in Taiwan, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) collaborated with Academia Sinica, Taiwan’s top research institution, to host a lecture led by Whitehead on Nov. 20.

Professor Laurence Whitehead of Oxford University gives his talk, “Democracy Reassessed: A Twenty-First Century Project under Pressure,” during a conference at Academia Sinica in Taipei on Nov. 20 (Photo: Huang Chien-hsien 黃謙賢 / TFD)

In his speech, titled “Democracy Reassessed: A Twenty-First Century Project under Pressure,” the renowned British political scientist talked about democracy and democratization,and how developments in Taiwan’s democracy over the past 20 years are providing standards and examples that are “positive and encouraging” for the international community.

Whitehead opened his lecture by explaining the “diffusion model” of democratization, which went from “the center to the periphery.” Before the 1990s, he said, it was typical to assume that democratization originated with countries that had long-standing and advanced democratic systems. These democratic concepts would then gradually extend out to other societies at all levels of development.

“That was an unstated but quite influential idea 20, 25 years ago,” Whitehead said.

However, events in the past 20 years — such as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S. — have shifted Western priorities from liberalization to securitization, he said.

“After 2001, what we saw were such discouraging practices coming from the center,” Whitehead said. “Who would have thought in the 1990s that democracies would be willing to condone torture?”

Many of the older “central countries” that were supposed to serve as examples of democratic quality are also now facing new challenges, and in turn this highlights the faltering of the diffusion model.

“So in general, instead of the kind of diffusion that was hopeful or imagined in the 1990s, we started having a more aggressive or coercive democratization,” he said.“That is to say, the imposition of desired or recommended models of political government through force rather than constructed on the basis of consent from within.”

In addition to the loss of momentum, the community of democracies is also seeing pushback from authoritarian regimes. With the weakening in both international incentives and institutional disciplines of democracy, democracy is under pressure and incomplete democratizations are at a higher risk of “going off the rails,” Whitehead said.

Still, Whitehead maintained that although democracy is under pressure, it is not defeated. More attention should be directed to how democratic diffusion can flow from the peripheries to the center, he said, adding that it is also crucial to understand that diffusion effects are not the only — or even the most — important means by which to bring about democracy.

“If you want to promote democracy in the world, a fundamental essential starting point is to establish and maintain high levels of democratic practices at home to provide the sort of example that makes democracy attractive to your own people and also to other people,” he said. “This is what all genuine democrats should be arguing for in all countries where democracy exists.”

“If you want to promote democracy in the world, a fundamental essential starting point is to establish and maintain high levels of democratic practices at home to provide the sort of example that makes democracy attractive to your own people and also to other people. This is what all genuine democrats should be arguing for in all countries where democracy exists.”

While Taiwan has not been a primary focus of Whitehead’s research, he said his impression is that although the People’s Republic of China currently ejoys strong momentum, the island-nation’s foundation of resilience has also strengthened over the past 20 years. If Taiwan continues to maintain high standards of democracy, it could go on to provide leadership and expertise for other democracies in the long run, he said.

Professor Cheng Tun-jeng of the College of William and Mary in the U.S., one of the two commentators at the lecture, said he agreed with Whitehead’s conclusion that the diffusion model is not the sole means to spread democratization.

Turning to China’s influence, Cheng highlighted three reasons why the authoritarian challenge from Beijing is not as formidable as it seems.

First, luminaries like Daniel Bell who discuss “the beauty or comparative advantage” of the so-called “China model” tend to juxtapose the potential vices of democracies with the potential virtues of authoritarian regimes.

“That only gives a partial characterization of reality, and perhaps a distortion of it at its worst,” Cheng said.

Moreover, most comparative political theories argue that democracy as a form of government is imperfect but improvable, he said, adding that the advantages found in authoritarian regimes need to be “balanced by a number of acute problems inherited in this kind of regime,” including the legitimacy of the government and lack of press freedom.

The second commentator and moderator for the lecture was Wu Yu-shan, distinguished research fellow at the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica. Wu said he agreed with Whitehead that “the core is losing its steam” and asked whether the coupling of Western democracies with neo-liberal economic policies was the root of the ostensible erosion of democracy observed in recent years.

In response, Whitehead said the process of democracy building is “a bit separate from the question.”

“We should not go to the other extreme and say if you can’t get your economic performance model right, you can’t have a democracy,” he continued. In fact, “you can have successful democracies which are constructed against neo-liberalism.”

Wu Yu-shan, distinguished research fellow at the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica, weighs in (Photo: 黃謙賢 / TFD)

Calling Whitehead’s remarks on Taiwan “very encouraging,” TFD President Hsu Szu-chien said that the significance of holding the lecture was not only to commemorate the struggles that led to Taiwan’s democracy, but also to redefine and reposition democracy.

“When global democracy is backsliding, it is even more exceptional that Taiwan’s democracy is able to firmly persist,” Hsu said.

In his opening remarks for the lecture, Legislative Speaker Su Jia-chyuan, who doubles as chairman of TFD, said that since Martial Law was lifted in Taiwan 30 years ago, democratic appeals have been implemented one by one and there have since been three peaceful alternations of ruling parties.

“But Taiwan’s democratization and reformation is not over,” Su said. “Democratization is not a single event, but a process that continues to evolve. We need to continuously adjust our footsteps for the sustainable development of our country.”

Legislative Speaker and TFD Chairman Su Jia-chyuan makes opening remarks at the lecture (Photo: 黃謙賢 / TFD)

Dr. Hsu Szu-chien, president of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, delivers remarks during the lecture (Photo: 黃謙賢 / TFD)

 

TDB Vol. 1 No. 19: Kou Yanding — A Chinese Dissident’s Journey Through Taiwan

TDB Vol. 1 No. 19: Kou Yanding — A Chinese Dissident’s Journey Through Taiwan

After spending a year touring Taiwan and meeting people from all walks of life, Chinese ‘enemy of the state’ Kou Yanding shares her views on change, the power of civil society, and the challenges facing Taiwan as China flexes its muscles. Alison Hsiao reports.

 

Chinese activist Kou Yanding (寇延丁) identified herself as a “public interest advocate” and did not know she was a dissident until she was arrested by Chinese authorities on charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” the same “crime” that has led to the forced disappearance of Taiwanese citizen Lee Ming-che and the arrest of the late Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo.

After arriving in Taiwan last October as a 2017 Democracy and Human Rights Service Fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Kou embarked on a nation-wide tour with assistance from a civil society organization and local groups to exchange thoughts with local Taiwanese and to urge them to know and face up to China.

“Through my interactions with Taiwanese people over the past year, I have discovered that they hold two alternating images of China: either it’s ‘big,’ or it’s ‘bad,’” Kou said during a seminar concluding her tour on Nov. 11. “People either talk about China as a political superpower and a global economic powerhouse, or as a regime that is autocratic and cruel.”

“Lack of understanding of China puts Taiwanese people’s interests at risk,” she said.

‘Enemy of the State’

Kou’s trip to Taiwan began less than two years after she was freed on Feb. 14, 2015, following a 128-day stint in a Chinese jail.

Her detention came as a result of a sweep of arrests targeting Transition Institute, a non-governmental think-tank in Beijing founded in 2007, and the Liren Rural Libraries, also founded in 2007 to promote education in rural areas and shape the rural young into “modern citizens.” In September 2014, the Libraries were shut down and Transition Institute founder Guo Yushan was detained, followed by a wave of detentions of NGO workers, including Kou.

The year 2014 was a sensitive year for Beijing, with Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement and Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution erupting only months apart against, respectively, creeping Chinese influence in Taiwan and Beijing’s refusal to grant universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Kou’s detention resulted from her involvement in the two movements and a wave of arrests in response to the printing of material about the Umbrella Movement by a woman in Beijing.

Kou, left, Wu Jieh-min, associate research fellow at the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica, and NGO workers from Hong Kong (second from the right) and Taiwan (right), share their views on why Taiwanese should interact with Chinese civil society and cultivate a “Taiwanese viewpoint” of China during a seminar in Taipei on Nov. 11. (Photo courtesy of the Youth Synergy Taiwan Foundation)

In her book, How is an Enemy Made? — Chinese Who Have No Right to Remain Silent, Kou details her 128-day ordeal “through which enemies of the state are manufactured.” During her interrogation she was enlightened by her interrogators (one of whom she nicknamed “pig”), who informed her that she was part of a “subversion scheme” centered on a training camp involving activists from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. One of the trainers, a convenient fact highlighted by “pig,” was Chien Hsi-chieh, a non-violent resistance advocate, but more importantly, one of the founding members of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan.

Before her involvement in the alleged plot, Kou’s work had always focused more on public welfare. She founded organizations to support people with disabilities in China which today continue to play an active role in areas that were most affected by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. She focused on grassroots empowerment that even received approval by the Chinese authorities: her Operational Democracy — Bringing Robert’s Rules of Order to the Countryside, was published with permissions in China.

It was not unnatural for a civil society worker in China to eventually look to Hong Kong and Taiwan for precedents and opportunities to share experience. But in 2014, it was more risky than ever to associate with activists from the two places.

Petitions with Chinese characteristics

At every seminar that she held, Kou and the local team that supported her tour in Taiwan screened “Petition” (上訪), a documentary by Chinese director Zhao Liang. The film covers more than a decade and ends in 2008, the year of the Beijing Olympics. In the lead-up to the Games, a petition village — spontaneously built as petitioners stayed in Beijing for years hoping in vain that their cases involving local injustice and gross corruption could be heard by the state’s highest institutions — was torn down.

Almost 10 years have elapsed since the Beijing Olympics, and Chinese President Xi Jinping is said to be cracking down on corruption, one of the main grievances animating the petitioners. Have petitions, a form of appeal to higher ups in government seeking redress that harkens back to feudal China’s “imperial appeal” (gao yu zhuang, 告御狀), had any success in mitigating the longstanding problems with the Chinese system?

“No,” Kou says, emphatically.

“Xi’s anti-graft campaign is selective in that it targets only his opponents,” she said. “The petitions [to Beijing] continue and the most prominent one recently was that by veterans of the People’s Liberation Army.”

Asked if she apprehends returning to China after spending a year in Taiwan revealed the problems plaguing Chinese society, Kou was evasive, but stressed that the Chinese government has “done a successful job drumming up and spreading fear, even in Taiwan.”

“I’ve been very open about what I’ve been doing in Taiwan via my column [on Taiwanese online media Storm Media],” she added, suggesting that there is no need for Chinese law-enforcement authorities to be alarmed by possible “secret activities.”

Taiwanese apathy

Kou says she was stunned by how few people in Taiwan know who Lee Ming-che is, and worried that even fewer wish to know more about China aside from its apparent economic prowess.

“I was really depressed after a seminar [held earlier this year] with a group of young students at a college in central Taiwan, during which only two or three hands were raised after I asked them whether they’d heard of Lee,” Kou told her audience on Nov. 11.

In her column, Kou said she was perplexed by commentaries by Taiwanese describing Lee’s arrest as “his own doing” because he had engaged in activities that are forbidden by the Chinese government.

“It’s unbearable to see that [Taiwanese who enjoy freedom] would use [Beijing’s] logic to explain [the consequences of] your actions,” she wrote. “There are also those who choose not to look at China just because they ‘don’t like China,’ which I consider an extremely childish answer not fitting for an adult.”

“All the progress and reform in China started from the people, from peasants, petitioners and public interest advocates, whose demands got debated by scholars, spread by media and eventually recognized by the institutions.”

The last thing she needs is for Taiwanese to refer to history and politics and explain to her, as some friends and scholars have tried to do, why some Taiwanese behave that way, Kou says. “The point is not about convincing me in oral arguments. The question in the end comes down to how Taiwanese are to face up to their gigantic neighbor.”

But, indeed, how? Kou said she is here to ask the question, not to provide an answer. But an answer was nevertheless implied in her talk on how Chinese civil society is actually more vibrant and active than those who obsess about the omnipresence of the communist regime would think.

If one focuses only on the Chinese Communist Party’s size and might, it is natural that he or she would feel powerless, she says. “But from what I’ve seen from ‘among the people,’ people power is strong, as manifested in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, where thousands of civic groups mobilized.”

“All the progress and reform in China started from the people, from peasants, petitioners and public interest advocates, whose demands got debated by scholars, spread by media and eventually recognized by the institutions,” Kou said, firm in her belief that change comes from the bottom and through more substantial civil society-to-civil society exchanges with places with robust civil activities, such as Taiwan.

Top photo:  Kou Yanding speaks about China and why Taiwan should care (Photo courtesy of the Youth Synergy Taiwan Foundation).

TDB Vol. 1 No. 18: China’s Expanding Influence in Democracies Around the World

TDB Vol. 1 No. 18: China’s Expanding Influence in Democracies Around the World

China is using its power to undermine democratic institutions and free expression in democracies worldwide. From the harassment of journalists to the removal of thousands of articles in prestigious academic journals, the CCP is rapidly eroding freedoms that we have long taken for granted. Olivia Yang reports.

 

During his three-and-a-half-hour address to the 19th Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Congress on Oct. 18, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to make his party more responsive to calls for democracy and justice. But tight security around the congress — human rights lawyers, rights defenders, petitioners and dissidents were arrested nationwide — suggested otherwise. And increasingly, China watchers are warning of Beijing’s accelerating efforts to reinforce and export its anti-democracy beliefs abroad.

One day before the closely watched Party Congress, a press conference was held in Taipei to draw attention to China’s spreading influence in democracies around the world.

Titled “Made in China: Democracy Oscillated and Human Rights Wrecked,” the media event was convened by 17 Taiwanese non-government organizations, including the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, Covenants Watch, Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network, Human Rights Network for Tibet and Taiwan, International Tibet Network, and Tibetan Youth Congress.

Beijing has been increasing pressure on international events and organizers to either not extend an invitation to Taiwan or force the island-nation to attend under the name “Chinese Taipei.” Taiwan delegations, research teams, journalists and NGOs have also been barred from entering international meetings and assemblies despite having gained access in the past. These events have included the World Health Assembly (WHA), the Interpol general assembly, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Labor Organization conference, and others.

Other than interfering with Taiwan’s international affairs, China has been tampering with local events through more direct means. This includes the kidnapping of Taiwanese activist Lee Ming-che in March, influence in Taiwanese media, threats against journalists, and longstanding reliance on pro-unification groups to intimidate civilians, such as the violent assault on student protesters who rallied against the “Sing! China: Shanghai-Taipei Music Festival” which was scheduled to be held at National Taiwan University last month.

Growing international threat

China’s interference is not limited to Taiwan. In August, Chinese authorities demanded Cambridge University Press (CUP) remove 315 articles in China Quarterly, CUP’s China-focused journal, when accessed in China. Around 1,000 e-books were also asked to be taken off from CUP’s Chinese websites. The writings covered issues ranging from the Tiananmen Square protests and the Cultural Revolution to Taiwan and Tibet.

The U.S.-based Association for Asian Studies (AAS) also confirmed the same month that China had requested the censorship of around 100 articles in its Journal of Asian Studies — also published by CUP. It was also learned in early November that Germany-based Springer Nature, the world’s largest academic book publisher, had removed at least 1,000 articles in the Journal of Chinese Political Science and International Politics. The articles in question also contained the keywords “Taiwan,” “Tibet,” and “Cultural Revolution.”

U.K-based CUP reversed its decision to comply with Beijing’s request after receiving widespread criticism, while AAS refused to adhere to Chinese authorities.

Visa denial is an alternative approach China is taking to curb discussion of democracy and human rights.

Canadian Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen in August was denied a visa upon planning to raise questions on human rights on a Canada-China Legislative Association trip. Prominent British human rights activist Benedict Rogers this month was also barred from entering Hong Kong, despite Rogers saying he was making a private trip.

In a more extreme case, leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Berit Reiss-Andersen, was not even allowed to apply for a China visa when she sought to attend the funeral of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo in July.

China has long used visa denials to also rid itself of foreign journalists and academics who are too critical of its repressive policies. In recent years, several foreign journalists have also been denied access to certain sites or regions, and a number of them worldwide have been threatened with legal action for writing about sensitive issues in China. In August this year, Nathan Vanderklippe, the Beijing bureau chief for Canada’s Globe & Mail, was briefly detained by police and his computer was seized while reporting in Xinjiang. For updates on how China meddles and censors media worldwide, see Freedom House’s “China Media Bulletin.”

In recent years, several foreign journalists have also been denied access to certain sites or regions, and a number of them worldwide have been threatened with legal action for writing about sensitive issues in China.

While Beijing authorities had a direct hand in the above occurrences, the Chinese Communist Party is also infiltrating democratic countries through “soft power.”

In May, the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, which has chapters in universities across the U.S., condemned one university for inviting the Dalai Lama to deliver a speech. A few days later, it accused a Chinese student of “not loving China” because she praised U.S. freedom and liberty in her graduation speech.

The following month, Chinese students at Australian universities were reported to be monitoring fellow nationals and keeping the Chinese embassy informed of activities such as human rights protests. Political parties in Australia have also been accused of taking donations from Chinese property developers in recent years, while Chinese state-controlled media giants have sought to influence mainstream Australian media by pushing cooperation deals.

Interference by Chinese officials has also been reported in Canada, such as during a state visit by then-president Hu Jintao, when, according for a former Canadian intelligence officer, a Chinese diplomatic mission mobilized Chinese counter-protesters. Keen on securing a free-trade deal with China, the Liberal Trudeau government has been reluctant to openly criticize Beijing for its human rights violations or activities that undermine Canada’s democracy.

Dr. Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury, also a prominent expert on Chinese affairs, in September published a research paper examining how China’s soft power is becoming a growing concern for New Zealand and how its effects could be mitigated.

In the executive summary of her study, Brady writes, “The focus of media attention has been on Australia, but the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) attempts to guide, buy, or coerce political influence abroad are widespread. China’s foreign influence activities are part of a global strategy with almost identical, longstanding approaches, adapted to fit current government policies. They are a core task of China’s united front work; one of the CCP’s famed ‘magic weapons’ that helped bring it to power.”

China’s influence, and by default its nefarious influence on democratic institutions, is also growing through its “One Belt, One Road” initiative and in places like Africa, where it has been cooperating with local media organizations.

Safeguarding democracies

The Australian government is preparing to introduce next month a series of laws covering espionage and foreign political interference. The U.K.’s Foreign Office also summoned China’s ambassador to the U.K. after Rogers was denied entry in Hong Kong. The activist said on Oct. 17 that he will start an NGO to monitor the city’s democracy and human rights.

However, in Canadian MP Bergen’s case, she said Liberal MPs that were also traveling to China for the Canada-China Legislative Association trip did not reply when she asked what measures they would take in response to her visa denial. The group proceeded with the trip without her. Senator Joseph Day, co-chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association, said the group was told by Canadian and Chinese officials it had no choice if it still wanted to go.

When Montreal-based ICAO last year refused to invite Taiwan and blocked Taiwanese reporters from a triennial air safety assembly, Paraguay’s ambassador to Canada, Julio Cesar Arriola Ramirez, told reporters that the ICAO Secretary General, Fang Liu of China, had warned them their microphones would be muted if they tried to speak on behalf of Taiwan.

“The government must make the utmost effort to safeguard Taiwan’s values of democracy and freedom, as well as our way of life.”

In addition to his vow to respond to calls for democracy, Xi also mentioned cross-Strait relations during his report at the 19th CCP Congress, saying China has “a firm will, sufficient faith, and adequate capacity to defeat any intention of ‘Taiwan independence’ in any form.”

“[We will] never allow any person, organization or political party, at any time or in any form, to separate any part of Chinese territory from China,” he said.

In response to Xi’s remarks, Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council said in a statement that the unilateral construction of a “one China” on Taiwan was unlikely to gain support from the Taiwanese. Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen in her National Day address on Oct. 10 also dedicated a passage reminding that the island-nation’s democracy and freedom “only came following the joint efforts of all Taiwanese people.”

“As a result, the government must make the utmost effort to safeguard Taiwan’s values of democracy and freedom, as well as our way of life,” Tsai said.

The president also reiterated that she and Taiwan would not “bow to pressure” from China regarding cross-Strait relations.

TDB Vol. 1 No. 17: An Interview with AFAD Secretary General Mary Aileen Bacalso

TDB Vol. 1 No. 17: An Interview with AFAD Secretary General Mary Aileen Bacalso

As Taiwan marks the 30th anniversary of the lifting of Martial Law, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy’s Alison Hsiao sat down with Mary Aileen D. Bacalso, Secretary General of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, winner of the 2016 Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award, to talk about memory, justice, and government crimes against ordinary citizens. 

 

On Dec. 10, 2016, the eve of the 30th anniversary of the lifting of Martial Law in Taiwan, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy awarded the 2016 Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award, a prize established and sponsored by TFD to honor individuals and organizations that have demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing democracy and human rights through peaceful means across Asia, to the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD).

In her acceptance speech, AFAD Secretary General Mary Aileen D. Bacalso said that Taiwan is a country that “ha[d] a common experience of enforced disappearances during [its] authoritarian rule,” adding that receiving the award from such a place was a “noble expression of friendship and solidarity.”

For the Philippines, where AFAD is based and Ms. Bacalso is from, the award probably also came at a propitious time, as the country was marking the 20th anniversary of Ferdinand Marcos’ overthrow in the wake of the People’s Power Revolution in 1986. Marcos was accused of killing, abducting and torturing his opponents and activists under Martial Law, which he had declared in 1972 and did not lift until 1981.

Asked in a separate interview earlier this year what has changed since the lifting of Martial Law in her country and the dictator’s ouster, Bacalso responded with pessimism.

Besides the loss of “the best and the brightest,” who could have been the pillars of present-day Philippines had they not been killed or disappeared, it is also “unfortunate that not many people have been educated [about] what happened in the past,” she said.

While it was “encouraging that many young people took to the streets when [the incumbent Philippine government] moved Marcos’ remains to the country’s heroes’ resting place [last November], unfortunately the protest was not sustained” as it should have, she said.

“There can be no genuine reconciliation without justice. While there is monetary compensation, taken from the Marcos’ wealth, that does not give justice. No amount of money could compensate for the lives lost and disappeared.”

Honoring Marcos the dictator as a national hero by “burying him in the Heroes’ Cemetery causes a lot of shame in a country that underwent repressive rule and whose best and brightest men and women were disappeared, killed and executed,” Bacalso said.

Schools should have provided a platform where young people can obtain knowledge about the past, but “in some textbooks Marcos has continued to be portrayed as a hero,” she said. And the fact that Marcos was buried in the Heroes’ Cemetery also sent a misleading “message to the young people that we have forgiven him, that we should reconcile for the sake of the future.”

“There can be no genuine reconciliation without justice,” Bacalso emphasized. “While there is monetary compensation, taken from the Marcos’ wealth, that does not give justice. No amount of money could compensate for the lives lost and disappeared.”

“There must be admission of what happened in the past and public apology from the Marcoses and from those who were involved in human rights violations during the Martial Law period,” she continued.

Bacalso’s remarks had resonance with many people in Taiwan who have called for transitional justice, men and women for whom certain anachronistic — if not outrightly offensive — authoritarian-era icons are still featured prominently around the country. For them, such controversial figures should also be held accountable for what they did, and their crimes should not be whitewashed using superficial pretexts such as “other values” over justice.

Enforced Disappearances 

The award was AFAD’s first for its accomplishments, Bacalso said, adding that and it “recognizes the suffering of the victims of enforced disappearances” which at this very moment still occurs on the Asian continent.

And this strikes very close to home for Bacalso. The former AFAD chairperson, Munir Said, was allegedly assassinated during a flight from Indonesia to Amsterdam via Singapore in 2004; its present chairperson, Khurram Parvez, was arbitrarily detained for more than two months in India in 2016, while many others from AFAD’s partner organizations in the region have been arrested, attacked or threatened.

The era during which Taiwanese were arbitrarily arrested by the government has long ended, but democratization has not stopped the Chinese communist regime from kidnapping or arbitrarily detaining Taiwanese nationals such as Lee Ming-che in March this year (people from other nationalities have suffered a similar fate in China).

AFAD Secretary General Mary Aileen D. Bacalso, left, shares the organization’s stories and objectives at the 2017 Asia Young Leaders for Democracy program in Taipei in August (Photo: Taiwan Foundation for Democracy).

Bacalso’s organization is urging countries to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006 and entered into force in 2010. But the political conundrum in this case is evident: While China is not expected to be a signatory anytime soon — not to mention that China was, according to Bacalso, “one of the most difficult states during the Convention-drafting negotiation process, invoking national security” — Taiwan as a non-UN member is not in a position to sign the Convention.

Notwithstanding the dilemma, she encouraged Taiwan to incorporate the contents of the Convention into its domestic laws, as it has done for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

By doing so, Taiwan would be “a good example for those countries that are members of the UN, and I’m sure this will pressure China as well,” she said.

There is a reason why Taiwan has a role to play in advocating against the crime of enforced disappearance, Bacalso concluded. “It’s important for Taiwan to have a domestic laws against enforced disappearances because you had enforced disappearances during your four decades of Martial Law. It should be a lesson that could teach the present and future governments. It’s also an explicit admission that there were enforced disappearances in your [dark] period of history.”

The winner of the 2017 Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award will be announced on Nov 15.

TDB Vol. 1 No. 16: Taiwan’s LGBTQ Culture Thriving Despite Conservative Challenge

TDB Vol. 1 No. 16: Taiwan’s LGBTQ Culture Thriving Despite Conservative Challenge

Various NGOs and members of the artistic community are turning Taiwan into a leader on gender equality and gay rights, using activism, workshops and visual arts to raise awareness and reach out to a region where some backsliding has been observed. Olivia Yang reports.

 

Taiwan LGBT Pride, the largest gay pride parade in Asia, was held on Oct. 28, drawing a record 110,000 participants from around the region through the streets of Taipei for a day of concerts and festivities.

In its 15th year, the annual parade started out on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office in Taipei. Three groups — including one led by the representative offices of 19 countries — marched through northern, western and southern Taipei before returning to the popular plaza for an evening concert.

Thousands march down Zhongshan Road on their way to Ketagalan Boulevard. An estimated 110,000 people took part in this year’s LGBT Pride Parade in Taipei on Oct. 28 (Photo: J. Michael Cole)

Representatives from foreign diplomatic missions in Taiwan took part in the LGBT Pride Parade in Taipei on Oct. 28. Many of them distributed flags and paraphernalia celebrating their country’s embrace of gay rights (Photo: J. Michael Cole)

Everyday people, young and old, as well as extravagant floats and revellers in flamboyant costumes and rainbow accessories of all kinds paraded to this year’s theme, “Make Love, Not War — Sex Ed is the Way to Go.” The focus on gender equality education was chosen in response to anti-gay marriage groups ramping up the pressure after Taiwan’s Council of Grand Justices on May 24 ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

The landmark ruling has paved the way for Taiwan to become the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex unions. The Grand Justices said Taiwan’s Civil Code, which currently states that an agreement to marry can only be made between a man and a woman, “violates” the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of marriage and people’s equality. It ordered the Taiwanese government amend the law within two years, adding that should it fail to do so, same-sex couples could get married regardless.

While Taiwan positions itself as one of the most progressive countries on LGBTQ issues in Asia, the region has hardly made any headway on the subject, with some countries even regressing in recent years. Laws and taboos that inhibit people from expressing their sexual orientation continue to exist in various Asian countries: Indonesia has imposed a nationwide crackdown on the community, and many in countries like the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia still face discrimination, sometimes even violence.

Despite the progress, Taiwan has also experienced pushback, primarily from conservative Christian groups.

In response to this phenomenon, the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, a gay rights organization, held a workshop on Oct. 27 which brought together nearly 50 LGBTQ activists from Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to discuss the influence of conservative groups on LGBTQ movements in those countries. The three nations have met resistance from conservative powers in implementing laws and regulations related to LGBTQ rights.

 

A number of Evangelical Christian churches and other conservative groups are behind the anti-gay rights and anti-sex ed movement in Taiwan. Their recent attempt to unseat New Power Party (NPP) Executive Chairman and legislator Huang Kuo-chang — an active supporter of same-sex marriage — is an example of the group’s efforts to pressure the government against implementing marriage equality.

Answering with art

Despite the conservative influences, Taiwan’s LGBTQ culture continues to flourish and to lead the discussions on LGBTQ rights in Asia.

Besides the annual pride parade, the Taipei Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) is currently featuring the first major survey of LGBTQ art in Asia. The group exhibition, “Spectrosynthesis: Asian LGBTQ Issues and Art Now,” is exhibiting 22 artists from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and China, as well as Chinese-American artists based in North America.

The show features 51 works created over the past century. The pieces range from interactive light boxes and videos to photography and paintings. The exhibition aims to generate more discussion about the diversity of human social values and further advance human rights in Taiwan and other Asian societies.

“Man Hole,” by Hou Ching-Ming (Photo: Olivia Yang)

Jun-Jieh Wang’s “Passion” (Photo: Olivia Yang)

In the past, public museums in Taiwan have also held exhibitions exploring gender identity, such as the “Your Closed Eyes My Extinction” exhibition at the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts in 2015, and “SEE THROUGH, exhibition against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia” at the Huashan 1914 Creative Park earlier this year.

The local film industry has also been making waves on the international LGBTQ scene. In its fourth year, the Taiwan International Queer Film Festival (TIQFF) opened on Oct. 20, offering screenings of 53 films in Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung.

This year, Taiwanese film director Huang Hui-chen won Taiwan’s first Teddy Award at the Berlinale — an official award given by the Berlin-based festival for films with LGBTQ topics — for her documentary “Small Talk”; film director Wang Yu-lin just returned from the 30th Tokyo International Film Festival with his latest film “Alifu, The Prince/ss,” which explores the conflict between gender identity and local indigenous traditions; and film director Zero Chou is working on her latest project, Six Asian Cities Rainbow Project (亞洲六城彩虹計劃, unofficial English translation) — a series of six films about LGBTQ issues shot in six different cities across Asia.

TDB Vol. 1 No. 15: Taiwan Experiments with Participatory Budgeting for Migrant Workers

TDB Vol. 1 No. 15: Taiwan Experiments with Participatory Budgeting for Migrant Workers

As Taiwan gradually makes itself more hospitable to migrant workers, municipal governments are making it possible for new residents to have a say in how cities and counties spend their money. Chou Ya-wei and Alison Hsiao report on recent efforts.

 

In what is possibly the first participatory budgeting project in Asia involving migrant workers, people from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam last month and earlier this month were invited by the Department of Labor in Taoyuan, where one in six of the country’s 600,000 migrant workers is based, to help plan their own leisure activities using the local government’s budget.

Hailed as one of the key practices of participatory democracy, participatory budgeting ensures that people have equal participation in the making of decisions pertaining to the allocation of public funds that influence important aspects of their lives. Such efforts occur at a time when traditional representational democracy is carried out behind closed-doors and often has descended into irrelevance for the general public.

Despite the practice’s more than two-decades history since it was pioneered in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1989, Taiwan has not experimented with participatory budgeting, largely because, until 2014, it had little knowledge of its existence. This changed in the lead-up to the nine-in-one elections in November that year, when the campaign team of Ko Wen-je, the mayoral candidate for Taipei, introduced the idea, pledging to include the city’s residents in budget planning. That promise soon caught on around the nation, with the Ministry of Culture and the administrations in New Taipei City, Taichung and Kaohsiung taking experimental steps in carrying out this “new” model of democracy.

The Taoyuan City Government also joined the fray, and its department of labor went one step further by calling for the participation of non-citizens.

“It’s not that the government has never held leisure activities for foreign migrant workers, but in the past they passively took part as requested, sometimes by their employers or brokers,” said Lai Shih-zhe, senior executive officer of the Department of Labor and the brain behind the participatory budgeting event held in late September and early October.

What was lost in this passive participation was migrant workers’ agency and subjectivity, he said.

Lai Shih-zhe (right) with event staff at the second workshop on Oct. 1 (Photo courtesy of the Department of Labor, Taoyuan City Government)

The Participatory Budgeting for Migrant Workers in Taoyuan project was one of the key initiatives by the local government to turn things around. To this end, the department initially held two information sessions for potential participants, targeting both migrant workers and Taoyuan residents. The sessions were followed by a pair of workshops in which more than 120 participants took part.

The first workshop, held on Sept. 17, called on participants to make various proposal on how to spend municipal funds for leisure activities for migrant workers. In all, 21 proposals from more than 70 migrant workers were collected. The proposals were then discussed during a second workshop on Oct. 1, in which 47 representatives of different nationalities divided into six groups decided which ones were the most appealing.

The atmosphere during the discussions was encouraging and lively. “It is true that our implementation of participatory budgeting might not be perfect, but for this event, I would say the emphasis and the gains lie in participation,” Lai said.

The second workshop on Oct. 1 at the Yuyuan Plaza near Taoyuan Train Station

Norie Rosales, a liberal domestic caregiver from the Philippines who took part in the exercise, proposed a beauty pageant — a Filipino obsession — for members of the LGBTQI community.

Asked what motivated her to make such a proposal, she said the idea was in line with the free social environment enjoyed by her country. “In Philippines we have freedom to express our feelings about our gender. We don’t want discrimination,” she said.

Those efforts are what participatory democracy seeks to achieve: the exchange of values and the exchange of cultures, with participants thrashing out compromises to accommodate different, culturally imbued sports competitions, art exhibitions, culture tours, beauty pageants, cultural carnivals, and so on.

The 13 proposals that made the cut from the initial 21 will be put to a vote between Oct. 26 and early November. The voters will comprise residents of Taoyuan as well as migrant workers from around the nation, regardless of their place of work. They will be able to vote online or at ballot boxes set up at locations where migrant workers congregate during holidays, such as train stations, as well as in certain large factories in Taoyuan.

The three proposals that receive the highest number of votes will then each be allocated NT$500,000 (US$16,500) from the municipal budget for their implementation.

Building trust

But cultural exchanges should not — and are not — limited to those between migrant workers.

“The proposals have also highlighted the need and wish to make exchanges with the local Taiwanese people and culture,” Taoyuan Department of Labor Senior Executive Officer Lai Shih-che said.

“And what the [participatory budgeting] event has shown to the Taiwanese is that through transparency, mutual understanding, communication and participation, migrant workers — who have been ignored, to say the least, by the local people — can also create a common good,” he added.

Mutual trust can be built through exchanges, but also by making good on promises.

“Misgivings were expressed about the trustworthiness of the department which proclaimed that the migrant workers’ proposals would be carried out in accordance with their wishes,” Lai said. “But we’ve assured them that they will be invited to take part in the following preparatory meetings with the officials and the contractors for the events.”

Understandably, migrant workers were not the only ones who had concerns over the government’s role in funding the events.

“There were indeed doubts from local politicians about engaging non-citizens in deciding how to use public funds,” Lai acknowledged. “But I pointed out to them that the number of migrant workers in the city, which is 108,000, amounts to one-twentieth of the city’s dwellers and one-tenth of the city’s workforce, not to mention that they are also taxpayers.”

A role for NGOs

The Taoyuan participatory budgeting project was co-hosted by the Serve the People Association, Taoyuan with assistance from other NGOs across the nation, such as the SEA Migrant Inspired, which helped out on different fronts, from the provision of interpreting services to outreach among the local migrant worker population.

The Taiwan Reach-Out Association for Democracy (T-ROAD) and 1095 Studio are two Taichung-based organizations that played a critical role in the Taoyuan labor department’s project. (The number in the group’s name designates the days a migrant worker has to sign up for under a working visa contract, or the equivalent of three years. The story of the name does not stop there, as the official name is in fact “1095,” with a comma attached, which signifies that migrant workers would go on with their life journey after a short stint in Taiwan.)

At 1095 Studio, 1095, co-founder Annie Kuan (left) and T-ROAD member Hung Shih-yu

Composed of members who have worked closely with the Taichung City Government on the city’s participatory budgeting initiatives, T-ROAD was established on the understanding that PB-related training and assistance for government officials and citizen-proposers should be widely available.

“More often than not the proposers would find themselves at loss after tabling a proposal or having a proposal actually accepted — this is where we come in,” said Hong Shih-yu, a member of T-ROAD.

In Taoyuan’s case, the association trained those who were professionally equipped with Southeast Asian languages or familiar with Southeast Asian affairs, but had limited knowledge about PB, to be discussion facilitators.

1095 Studio was one of those that signed up for the task. Since its founding in 2015, the group has dedicated its efforts to “building a bridge between diverse cultures,” and has launched various proposals in Taichung, among them a weekly “mobile library” at the Taichung Railway Station that offers books in different Southeast Asian languages which migrant workers can borrow from (the mobile library is modeled on the Brilliant Time’s initiative at Taipei Main Station. More information is available here); cross-culture cuisine events; guided tours around what has come to be known was “ASEAN Square” (or “piramid” in Bahasa Indonesia); and outdoor movie screenings. The most recent ones are a legal counseling service and a ASEAN Square revitalization project. (In 2015 Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung said he believed that the rechristening would reposition the commercial square near the station as a driving force promoting exchanges with Southeast Asian cultures and people.)

The ASEAN Square, or the “piramid” for migrant workers in Taichung

1095 Studio member Chen Han-tang, who was also one of the participants in the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy’s 2017 Asian Young Leaders for Democracy program, volunteered as a discussion facilitator in the Taoyuan PB project.

“Too many times we saw local authorities presented measures and projects to hitch the wagon to the central government’s New Southbound Policy but achieved little due to perfunctory implementation, lack of understanding or implicit discrimination,” he lamented. “But the Taoyuan PB team and its project overcame those barriers, and their effort and enthusiasm should definitely be taken as an example for future migrant worker policy planners.”

1095 Studio co-founder Annie Kuan said that while Taiwan can lead as a vibrant and functioning democracy in the region, “we also see what we as Taiwanese lack when we work with people from Southeast Asia.”

“We rely on the government to make decisions, and comment on or criticize them later. Our Southeast Asian friends, however, are used to being actively involved in group discussion about local issues,” she said. “Their sense of identity of being part of a local community is stronger.”

“In a sense there is this ‘mutual admiration.’ We praise their willingness to participate, they find our ‘big government’ taking care of various aspects of our life great,” Kuan added.

And that is precisely the point of the exchanges, she stressed, “which is to learn from each other.”

Older Posts
Load More Articles