Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Jaw Shaw-kong/Facebook
TOMORROW IS THE date of the recalls set to take place in Taiwan. What should be self-apparent is that it was a sense of political crisis that led up to this point. For the recalls, as a self-initiated movement to recall all KMT legislators, to take place involved both domestic and international factors, as well as an interplay between social movement politics and electoral politics.
The current era in Taiwanese politics can be traced back to the 2014 Sunflower Movement. The Sunflower Movement was the youth-led occupation of the Taiwanese legislature. Lasting for 23 days, the movement was among the largest–if not the largest–social movement in Taiwanese history.
The movement was the outgrowth of anger against the KMT over moves seen as drawing Taiwan too close to China, starting from the 2008 Wild Strawberry Movement. The 2008 Wild Strawberry Movement was most directly a reaction to the Ma administration allowing Chinese officials such as Chen Yunlin to visit Taiwan, while taking harsh policing actions against displays of Taiwanese identity in Taipei–such as a store owner playing Taiwanese Hokkien songs as Chen’s delegation passed by, or houses displaying ROC flags–during Chen’s visit.
The Wild Strawberry Movement led to students returning to campuses and starting various student activist groups. This marked the genesis of the nationwide social movement networks that were mobilized during the Sunflower Movement. Furthermore, the Wild Strawberry Movement was followed up by movements such as the Anti-Media Monopoly Movement of 2011 and 2012, which was followed from backlash against Taiwanese entrepreneur Tsai Eng-meng buying up Taiwanese media outlets and censoring content critical of China. Such actions by Tsai were seen as another expansion of Chinese influence over Taiwan.
When the Sunflower Movement occurred, then, this was in response to the attempt by the KMT to circumvent oversight measures in the legislature, such as committee review, to ram the Cross-Strait Services Trade Agreement (CSSTA) into law. The CSSTA would have allowed for Chinese investment in Taiwan’s service sector industry, which is 65% of GDP. Fears were that this would have been deleterious to Taiwan’s political freedoms, leading to self-censorship by Taiwanese companies. Moreover, despite such concerns, the KMT circumvented committee review, declaring the CSSTA passed in less than 30 seconds–a move termed the “black box”, in that this lacked transparency.
In situating present events in the continuum of social movement politics in Taiwan, the current Great Recall Movement can be seen as a product of the Bluebird Movement last year. The Bluebird Movement broke out against efforts by the KMT to expand legislative powers, to allow for new powers of investigation.
Even after such powers were struck down by the Constitutional Court, the KMT has continued with efforts intended to shift powers from other branches of government to the legislature. The budget debacle, which led to the KMT cutting or freezing 34% of the government’s operational budget, proves an effort by the KMT-controlled legislature to claim powers over budgeting from the Executive Yuan, Taiwan’s executive branch of government. In response to the Constitutional Court striking down the powers it sought, the KMT also aimed to freeze the Constitutional Court through new legislation.
Anger against the KMT this time around is not about the “black box”, but moves perceived as a power grab in favor of a pro-China agenda. It is to be remembered that the Sunflower Movement in 2014 occurred only two years into the first term of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Xi had not yet paved the way for lifetime rule, nor had the political crackdown on Hong Kong and the mass imprisonment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang begun to take place.
In this sense, as compared to the Sunflower Movement eleven years ago, the China frame intrudes more strongly into the Great Recall Movement, even if anger is also directed against the KMT’s overturning of domestic institutions. This is how the Great Recall Movement proves part of the social movement trajectory of the past decade.
With the Bluebird Movement last year, efforts were made to wind down protests relatively quickly so as to channel energy into electoral mobilizations against the KMT. This was one of the lessons of the Sunflower Movement, in that the Sunflower Movement resulted in significant burnout after maintaining a monthlong occupation, uprooting many social movement networks. The recalls, then, will prove the testing ground of whether that was a successful strategy.
And yet, given the development of the Bluebird Movement last year as a spontaneous development, one notes that the Bluebird Movement is actually more akin to the 2008 Wild Strawberry Movement rather than the 2014 Sunflower Movement, as the start of an age of protest rather than the event that marked the end of a prolonged series of demonstrations. Should the outcome of the recalls not work out in favor of those targeting the KMT, it is probable Taiwan will see continued social movement organizing.