9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan

Democracy Movement
A collection of writings by Josh K on subjects including politics and history. Also a bit of fiction, just
for kicks

(https://joshkinh.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/228a.jpg)
Taiwan: Asian Context and Identity
The Island of Taiwan, lying some 180km off the southeast coast of Mainland China, has undergone
dramatic changes over the course of the last century. From its colonial history to independence, and
from relative economic backwardness to its current status as an Asian Tiger economy, the
development has been as complex as convulsive. As a small country in between much larger and
more powerful global and regional imperial interests, between whom the balance of power is rapidly
tipping, immediate issues of Taiwanese politics have been fought in the foreground of deeper and
more personal ones relating to ethnicity, culture and identity. These themes evoke reactions from
almost all Taiwanese and are played on time and time again in the political arena. The populist
momentum that the issue of a unique Taiwanese identity generates, in particular in the middle and
working class, owes greatly to the period of Kuomintang or KMT () rule over the Island and
https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

1/12

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

the brutal years of White Terror therein. So too, the identity issue has clouded the ideological
outlook of the labour movement and the left in Taiwan, which has been divided over it since martial
law was lifted in July 1987.
In the past, the uniquely Taiwanese identity had a very strong class content, given that the islands
ruling class was, until the last twenty years, perceived as alien to Taiwan. Occupied by Japan after
the first Sino-Japanese War ended in 1895, the islands industries and cities were rapidly developed
as part of Japans regional colonial project. Japanese social and cultural reforms were imposed on the
colony and Taiwanese-Chinese and Aboriginal Taiwanese resistance crushed. The ensuing years of
economic development enriched the local Sino-Taiwanese business and land-owning class,
particularly during the period of Japans expansionist war, where raw materials such as rice and
sugar were in high demand. This class formed a loyal appendage to the colonial government until
Japans defeat and departure from Taiwan in 1945.
The Kuomintang government immediately assumed control of Taiwan in 1945 and began
requisitioning all resources and enterprises it needed to continue its civil war against the Chinese
Communist Party on the mainland. Corruption and abuse of power were rife under the new regime
and, as unemployment and inflation rose, tensions did also. The once-successful business enterprises
in Taiwan were monopolised by KMT functionaries and control of the market enforced by
monopoly police. The Taiwanese elites and former colonial bureaucrats, whose primary languages
were Japanese and Taiwan Min Nan (a distinct dialect of Chinese) were dually humiliated by their
subordination to the Chinese from the mainland and the new foreign language imposed on them
Mandarin Chinese, which they could not speak. The tension between the Taiwanese and the
mainland Chinese came to a head in the infamous 2-28 Incident, whose legacy was to haunt the
island for generations to come.
The Legacy of 2-28 () and White Terror
On February 28th, 1947, a demonstration against KMT corruption and recurrent abuse by the
monopoly police graduated to a full-blown riot as Taiwanese protestors attacked police stations and
the offices of state-owned monopolies, in particular, the tobacco monopoly. For a week or more,
protests spread across the island and Taiwanese civilians had seized control of several cities and
towns by force. The KMT troops, stretched and disorganised, could not contain them. The KMT
governor of the island, Chen Yi, arranged for Chinese troops to be sent from the mainland to quell
the uprising and they arrived on March 8th. This date commenced the imposition of martial law in
Taiwan, which was not to be lifted until 1987. The period in between was to become known as
Taiwans White Terror. As the American journalist Peggy Durdin recounts:

2/12
On the afternoon and evening of March 8, without warning or provocation, the streets of Keelung

https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

On the afternoon and evening of March 8, without warning or provocation, the streets of Keelung
and Taipei were cleared with gunfire to cover the entry of mainland troops. These reinforcements
consisted mainly of the Twenty-first Division, a Szechuan outfit with a reputation for brutality. In
the next four or five days more than a thousand unarmed Taiwanese in the Taipei-Keelung area
alone were massacred. A year and a half earlier many of them had joyously welcomed the arrival of
the Chinese troops. Now truckloads of soldiers armed with machine guns and automatic rifles shot
their way through the streets. Soldiers demanded entry into homes, killed the first person who
appeared, and looted the premises. Bodies floated thick in Keelung harbor and in the river which
flows by Taipei. Twenty young men were castrated, their ears cut off, and their noses slashed. A
foreigner watched gendarmes cut off a young boys hands before bayoneting him because he had not
dismounted from his bicycle quickly enough. The radio advised students who had fled from the city
to return to their homes, but when they did so they were killed. Any prominent person was in grave
danger.
The Nation, May 24, 1947.
The sheer unrelenting brutality of the KMT authorities laid waste any misconception that the
government was going to rule democratically. Taiwanese nationalism, now tantamount to treason,
became radical. In the shadow of the KMT battle against the mainland Communists, all dissent in
Taiwan was claimed by the KMT as either Japanese or Communist intrigue and resulted in
immediate imprisonment or execution. Mass graves were filled across the island. People simply
disappeared. Over the White Terror period 140,000 people were imprisoned and up to 4,000
executed. In the climate of fear and tight social control, the KMT had the power to suppress
everything and anything it saw fit. From 1949 to 1987, it did so with the backing of the United
States. The prime targets of White Terror were Taiwanese nationalists, intellectuals and leftists from
the Japanese period claimed to be Communists or agitators. In 1949 the Chinese Communists
defeated the KMT on the mainland and the entire KMT state apparatus and its minions packed up
and fled to Taiwan, infamously taking everything of value with them. Having crushed any chance
of Taiwanese resistance to their rule, the KMT set up its government in Taipei, and proclaimed an
ambitious long-term vision to re-conquer the mainland.
The mainlander rulers constituted a minority of 15% of Taiwans population but monopolised
virtually all political power until the late 1970s. The vision of these invaders was to re-unite Taiwan
with Mainland China, using Taiwanese foot soldiers and American weapons. An overwhelming
majority of Taiwanese then and now are opposed to unification with China, which they see as a
separate country to their own. This issue, among others, that thrust forward the Democracy
Movement as the Taiwanese perceived an opposition party would declare independence and not a
catastrophic war. So too, an opposition would resist the US imperialism that sought Taiwan (and
South Korea) as an ally against the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).
The authoritarian regime backed by its army and secret police made any attempt at large-scale
organising of workers impossible. In addition, the workers movement had been deprived of any leftwing leadership as they were now imprisoned or executed. During the KMT reign in Taiwan,
workers unions existed as organs of the ruling party. Workers were at the mercy of what these
yellow employer-controlled unions demanded and the largest industries in Taiwan remained stateowned. The yellow union system was widely employed by the KMT after their crushing of the
workers uprisings on the mainland as early as 1928 (a victory which the Chinese Communist Party
no doubt assisted). As Harold Isaacs describes in The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution,
3/12
They [the workers] were scattered.and defeated. Most of them passed under the leadership of the

https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

They [the workers] were scattered.and defeated. Most of them passed under the leadership of the
yellow unions and the Kuomintang. The Communists, on their part, looked with contempt on the
yellow unions. As a result, the work and influence of the red unions shrank to almost nothing and
the masses were left under yellow union influence.
The KMT permitted the emergence of Tangwai (literally meaning outside the Party)
political figures in the 1950s and 60s. Though not initially members of the KMT, these people
became co-opted into the Kuomintang system of patronage and pay-off. They rose into popularity
in the back of public support for an opposition political force but betrayed the people they
represented once in power. Some, like Su Nan-Cheng rose to power only to join the KMT and attack
the Democracy Movement in later years. Most importantly, all these figures were individuals, not
cohered into any oppositional organisation or meaningful political force. As such, they posed no
threat to the hegemony of the KMT. Linda Arrigo, a veteran of the Taiwan Democracy Movement
writes:
Stability of the regime may also be attributed to some degree to the use of elections as venting
devices for the discontents of society, allowing small and illusory gains and continually promising
that Taiwanese need only be patient in order to eventually assume control
and,
Once elected, an opposition representative can turn the position to personal profit. His base of
personal support is the capital for manipulation. The Kuomintang will seek to pull him and his
constituents within its purview by pressuring him to enter the party, or at the very least will
immobilize his attacks by corrupting him
- The Social Origins of the Taiwan Democratic Movement, July 1981.
So too, the opportunist politicians did not represent an independent stream of the workers
movement, as no such stream existed at the time and no spontaneous upheaval in working class
struggle had raised the possibility of it.
The First Tremors

Nevertheless, as the global political climate began to shift come the late 1960s, so did Taiwans. In
this period the world was ablaze with revolution and revolt but more importantly for Taiwan, a
generation had passed since the trauma of 2-28. Coupled with the growing number of Taiwanese
now being educated in universities including the prestigious National Chengchih (Political)
University and National Taiwan University and entering the public service, a new milieu of liberal
intellectuals tentatively broached the KMT orthodoxy by publishing articles and essays. Many such
intellectuals, including Chan Chun-Hong, Hsu Hsin-Liang, Lu Hsiu-Lien and Chang Deh-ming
became severely frustrated with their efforts and, over the course of years, began looking for
alternative means to gain support.
It is certainly important to examine the different influences on different sections of Taiwanese society
at the time. In 1966, the Communist Party of China under Mao had initiated the Cultural
Revolution and with its revolutionary-sounding rhetoric and great waves of youthful demonstrators,
it inspired the rural and pro-PRC intellectuals across the Strait of Taiwan. Conversely, the middle
class Taiwanese students whod gone to America and the West to study returned from those
https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

4/12

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

university campuses with a radical flare. In 1971, the KMT government in Taipei lost its seat in the
United Nations to the PRC, emboldening those who saw the KMT as an illegitimate government.
Now, more than before, the Tangwai sought to run in the local elections. One Hsu Hsin-liang
typified the populist democratic politician who emerged from this period to play a leading role in
the Democracy Movement. As Linda Arrigo recounts:
In the countryside I heard even the families of KMT party members say, We vote for Hsu Hsinliang, hes for the farmers. KMT hate campaigns launched by the Chinese management in the
multinational factories in the industrial parks failed to stem his popularity with workers. His
philosophy was populist, but stopped short of socialist; Hsu was supported by medium and smallsized entrepreneurs, reflecting his background as a founder of the Taoyuan Junior Chamber of
Commerce.
- The Social Origins of the Taiwan Democratic Movement, July 1981.
The 1970s were a period of rapid growth in Taiwanese capitalism. The industrial workforce swelled
significantly. Professional roles were filled with newly educated Taiwanese from the post-228
generation. When the most outspoken figures in the Democracy Movement called on ordinary
Taiwanese to enforce election laws they did. The first mass demonstration of the Democracy
Movement came in response to allegations of election rigging by the KMT in the Chungli Incident
() of November 1977, when up to 10,000 people demonstrated then burned down the local
police station. By this point, the liberal intellectuals were beginning to change their approach.
Perhaps the most potent sense of urgency arrived when the United States established formal
relations with the PRC on December 16th 1978. Among the Taiwanese population, this news
aroused a nationalist sentiment and fear that the KMT would flee to America only to be replaced by
a new, more brutal, mainlander regime. The KMT regime lead by Chiang Ching-kuo (the son of
Chiang Kai-Shek) banned all elections as a result but already the Democracy Movements
momentum was too great to contain.
Look to the Masses!
In any case, the middle-class liberal democrats needed the protection of the masses to save their own
skins from the KMT. Many of the people who flocked to the Tangwai had served time in Taiwans
Green Island prison a gulag with a deceivingly pleasant name. A number of Tangwai had now
cohered around the publication of Formosa (Meilidao) Magazine, which was to serve as their written
organ and their groups name. The Formosa intellectuals spent the years following the Chungli
Incident building mass support, particularly amongst workers in the heavily industrialised port city
of Kaohsiung (), in southern Taiwan. One such attempt was the Seminar on Labor on October
31st, 1979 held in Formosas office. The events are quite instructive. Arrigo recounts that day:

5/12
By 1 pm the limited space of the second floor of the building was jammed full with at least two

https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

By 1 pm the limited space of the second floor of the building was jammed full with at least two
hundred workers, and the stairway was already impassable. Professor Huang Yueh-chin began a
long-winded speech about the theoretical functions of unions, but was interrupted by scattered
youths shouting Speak Taiwanese! We dont understand Mandarin, and then, after Huang
switched to Taiwanese, by the same youths loudly chewing betelnut and belching. At the end of
Huangs speech Chen Chung-hsin, the moderator, announced that those disturbing the meeting
would be allowed three minutes to leave or else. In a moment it was clear that the mass of
workers were sincerely and intensely interested in contact with the people of Formosa they
shoved out a dozen disrupters, quite obviously sent by the Kuomintang. Then the meeting
continued in complete order.
But the KMT need not have been so paranoid. The academic speakers droned on with their endless
definitions of things workers must already know, that Taiwan has no independent labor unions and
management and the security forces call the shots, as the room grew more and more stuffy. The
politician speakers spoke that there must be this, and must be that, without any guide to action
except to vote for them and everyone knows the political system of government assemblies is as
much a farce as the labor unions. Still, the workers listened intently. Wang Tuo, a leftist writer of
native literature with special concern for labor, issued a shrill and impassioned plea for workers to
unite and take their rightful place as the vanguard of social reform. To my ears, he sounded sincere
but like an ivory tower intellectual not yet experienced in dealing with the concrete situation he
was talking about. Only the last speaker, Yen Kun-chang, a KMT National Assemblyman and a
representative of the printers union since its struggles under the Japanese, brought a touch of
humor, real courage, and practical pointers for action.
It was 5 pm when the floor was finally opened for discussion. The statements of the workers
themselves expressed the direct problems of their lives and were much more meaningful than any of
the above. But everyone was nearly asphyxiated by now, and the meeting soon adjourned without a
call for further plans, except to publish the proceedings in Formosa. The sponsors then gave a
banquet for the speakers that cost about as much as the rest of the activity.
However superficial this may be, severe secret police and Kuomintang pressure forced the new
intellectuals to try to identify with the masses and seek active popular support, for their own
preservation as well as for their ideals. Their only effective means of response to recurring
government attack in the form of arrests and bannings was to call mass meetings and mobilize the
populace.
- The Social Origins of the Taiwan Democratic Movement, July 1981.
The snowballing Democracy movement sucked in students, workers, farmers, intellectuals and
writers, former political prisoners, artisans and small-business owners. One particularly interesting
group it also attracted was the Liberation Theologists. Like in South America, the Christians had
established a political position that broadly represented the congregation of their church. In Taiwan,
the Presbyterian Church was established among the oppressed native peoples of the highlands and
had called on the government to declare Taiwan independent since 1971. The Presbyterian Church
had a strong community service program for development of the social conscience of its young
ministers. The Catholic Mayknoller missionaries had also garnered much local support among
Taiwanese with their social-justice-oriented Peace and Justice Mission. The opposition
demonstrations were frequently attacked or disrupted by right-wing anti-communist heroes,
whom the police refused to restrain in every case. These violent provocateurs at one point stormed
the Formosa office and smashed everything they found.
https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

6/12

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

In politics we should learn from Kaohsiung.

The Kaohsiung Incident

Of the most enduring events of Taiwans history, the Kaohsiung Incident ranks equal to 2-28. Many
political figures in the non-KMT camp today would like to trace their political lineage to it but the
real legends of that day were the tens of thousands of Taiwanese who flocked to the streets in the
face of state repression. The Formosa/Meilidao group had organised the demonstration for
December 10th, 1979, to mark International Human Rights Day but had been harassed by police in
the days preceding it for attempting to get the word out. In response to the police harassment,
Tangwai with less involvement felt compelled to mobilise for the demonstration as did thousands of
others along with them.

The protestors poured through the broad avenues of Kaohsiung, stopping at one or another
intersection to hear from selected speakers. Each time the demonstration dwelled, the riot police
would fire tear gas and shove the crowd. An attempt by the police to surround the crowd ended
after the demonstrators pushed through them and marched to the Formosa Magazine Office
triumphantly. The Kaohsiung Incident (or the Formosa Incident) is what was later understood to be
the first major victory of the Democracy Movement; being the open confrontation between a large
number of Tangwai and the armed police of the KMT regime. More importantly, it was a
demonstration of some 30,000-40,000 organised by the Formosa or Meilidao Magazine group and its
contributors, finally rendering them the face of a mass movement running head-on into the
authoritarian rule of the Kuomintang. A partial transcript of the demonstration captured prominent
democracy activist and feminist Lu Hsiu-lien as she declared from the sound truck:
The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, . . . and publication. They have freedom of
assembly, and of association. But friends, today many newspapers reported that the [pro-KMT]
Chinese Association for Human Rights is able to celebrate Human Rights Day in Seh-jen Hall,
undisturbed. Why is it, then, that we Taiwanese are forbidden to hold a human rights meeting?
Such a great number of people have come together here! It is not that in politics one should learn
from Taipei. I think that it should be changed to read: In politics we should learn from Kaohsiung.
Lu Hsiu-lien, December 10th, 1979
At that moment she was right. But the political conservatism and opportunism of the Formosa
leaders would come to the fore in the following decades, as these middle-class intellectuals looked
less to the mass of working-class Taiwanese and more to the class they came to represent, the ruling
class.
Without a Marxist analysis of both the class origins and political outlooks of these early rabblerousing radical democrats, it might be disorienting to track their journey from the Kaohsiung
Incident to government in Taipei and the metamorphosis they underwent to get there. These figures
emerged from the liberal overseas-educated middle classes and then went on to become
spokespeople for populist (cross-class) aspirations for democratic freedoms in their home country.
The Taiwanese masses, especially those of Kaohsiung, were the muscle that defended them.
Though, without question, these politicians made great sacrifices for democracy. Many endured
https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

7/12

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

torture and imprisonment for years (some, decades) while in the prime of their lives. Vigilantes
murdered Hsu Hsin-liangs entire family while he languished in prison. For the great sacrifices they
made in the name of democracy, it would be fitting that they pursued an agenda that spoke to the
true interests of the most socially and economically vulnerable in Taiwanese society. Yet after a few
short years in the Legislative Yuan, their political party fell under the discipline of the established
order; an order they were no longer compelled to challenge the order of capitalism.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)

Sweet potato must not fight sweet potato

There were some in the Formosa group who employed the above phrase at the time when the
Democracy Movement came up against the repressive arm of the state. Sweet potato being the
Taiwanese slang for the lower-class Taiwanese. It was meant to reflect the fact that the police and the
army were, by 1979, composed not of mainlanders but of Taiwanese from the lower classes. The
men in riot gear who beat and fired tear gas into the demonstrations were supposed to have the
same origins and interests as those demonstrating. Of course they didnt in 1979 and they dont
today. In essence, the presence of a majority Taiwanese in the police force is merely symbolic of the
fact that Taiwanese have been absorbed into the ruling class circles of Taiwan since the 1970s in
ever-increasing numbers. Today, who is a mainlander by ancestry is less important than it was in
the past, evidenced by this generation of Taiwanese speaking mainly Mandarin.
The question of todays struggle in Taiwan is a question of social class and that question remains
unresolved. The Democracy Movement politicians were motivated by a profound sense of
nationalism and Taiwanese identity that negated a class analysis. Therefore, their alliance with the
working class was a temporary measure motivated by pragmatism rather than principles.
The Kaohsiung incident triggered a wave of protests that lasted until the early 1990s. During this
time the Tangwai forces still outside of prison organised the Democratic Progressive Party or DPP
(established on 28th September, 1986) that, though still illegal, commanded an enormous respect
amongst Taiwanese and posed an obvious organised threat to the KMT. The DPPs popularity
related greatly to its support and overlap with the protests that erupted in the years of 1986 to 1988
for indigenous rights, womens rights, anti-nuclear power and anti-pollution. Taiwanese labour
unions began to struggle around elementary concerns at this time also, which the DPP initially
supported. With the end of martial law in 1987, the DPP was finally legalised. Despite being
permitted to run in elections, the Party was unable to enter government until March 2000. Of
course, by this point, it had moderated its positions on all the activist issues that gave it a mass base,
in order to appease both the ruling class of Taiwan, the PRC and the USA. Taiwanese capitalists
with enterprises in China did not want their business damaged by brazen politicians declaring
independence from China (Beijing officially claims sovereignty over Taiwan). Thus, the seemingly
immortal line on independence was softened too. The DPP is not a party for the working class, as
evidenced by its approach to issues relating to workers:

8/12
Non-political social activists, such as those with the Catholic Church, have commented that the

https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

Non-political social activists, such as those with the Catholic Church, have commented that the
Taiwan workers do have serious grievances, but that they do not trust any of the political parties. A
common comment among social activists is that there is a wide gap between the opposition party
and the social movements, and the politicians rarely show evidence of any long-term concern. For
example, in 1991 the government has moved to turn back several of the provisions of the labour law
that are favourable to workers, but the DPP has remained silent.
From Democratic Movement to Bourgeois Democracy Linda Arrigo, 1991
and,
[Re] Hsu Hsin-liangs accession to the chairmanship of the DPP for a second time, in July 1996
(which he held till July 1998). The DPP had supported a large social movement department in the
early 1990s, with departments for women, labour, indigenous people, etc. In coming back to Taiwan
in 1990, Hsu had articulated an express policy of go West, i.e. the DPP should follow the wishes
of the Taiwanese capitalists in their growing use of Chinese labour and penetration of Chinese
markets.
-A Medium-Long History of Social Movements in Taiwan: Their Relationship with the Democratic
Progressive Party, Linda Arrigo, 2010
A response to the internal contradictions within the DPP was the formation of factions. The Meilidao
faction, as the name suggests, was composed mainly of the Old Guard of the democracy
movement. The intellectuals-cum-politicians and liberals whose primary concern was electoral
politics and controlling the party apparatus of the DPP. The second faction, New Tide (),
has its origins in a group of activists within the DPP who began publishing a social democratic
magazine in May 1984 when it became clear that Meilidao was already pandering to the desires of
the partys financial backers to avoid a principled stand on workers issues. The founding members
of New Tide included Ho Duan-fan, Lin Chuo-shui, Liu Shou-cheng and Hong Chi-chang. In its
early years, New Tide had a great deal of youth and internal democracy. It served as a drawing
point for a younger generation of social-issue activists. However, under the internal discipline of the
DPP and over the course of the 15 years after its formation, the faction was eventually absorbed into
the DPP apparatus. By 2006, it ceased to exist.
The Lefts Capitulation to a pro-PRC position
Who and what is the official Left in Taiwan? This question is a complex one considering there are
left-leaning individuals in many different political organisations and parties. The obvious legacy of
White Terror was the total decimation of any Left-wing political force and though the struggle for
democracy opened the door for a regrouping of the Left, this regrouping has been slow, painful, and
plagued by sectarianism. To further complicate issues, the question of Taiwan independence has left
its mark on the Left.
Broadly speaking, Taiwanese politics is split on the issue of independence into two camps: the PanGreen Coalition (including the DPP) that is for independence and the Pan-Blue coalition (including
the KMT) that is for one China albeit with two systems. As the years pass, these two camps
appear to be converging into one ambivalent camp!

9/12
In 1987, the Taiwan Labour Party () was formed and soon after the Taiwan Workers

https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

9/2/2015

In Memory of 228: Mass Politics and the Taiwan Democracy Movement | joshkinh

In 1987, the Taiwan Labour Party () was formed and soon after the Taiwan Workers
Party () came into existence. Once again, these parties came into being not on the
groundswell of support from workers but the ambitions of a handful of pro-PRC intellectuals and
writers. Nevertheless, they have some practical impact on labour organising but a pathetically small
voter response in elections and no official links to Taiwans union federations. The one-China
position of these two political parties fits very comfortably with the goals of Taiwans capitalist class,
who relish the opportunity to operate in the unbridled business arena of Mainland China.
Taiwans largest union federation is the China Federation of Labour (
(http://www.cfl.org.tw/)) that was set up by the KMT in 1948 and remains strongly linked to it
today. A rival union federation named the Taiwan Confederation of Trade Unions was legalised by
the DPP in 2000. The combined paper membership of the two federations stands at approximately
1.2 million. Though the CFL is larger and more established, it is also more conservative whereas the
TCTU has a broad project of fighting for reversal of anti-worker laws and privatisations and
tangibly more links to the left in the DPP.

New Generation of Taiwanese Activists

Taiwan, a country of population parity to Australia, has protests and demonstrations that make
Australia look tame. Many young Taiwanese are motivated into action by a sense of injustice and
government corruption. The inspiring struggle of the Democracy Movement remains largely
unfinished as Taiwanese battle the plethora of repressive laws that the KMT left in place since 1987,
but has been more cautious in putting into effect. Stories circulate about activists being abducted by
plain-clothes police and intimidated. Environment and anti-nuclear demonstrations consistently
mobilise tens of thousands of Taiwanese. May Day 2013 in Taipei saw over 10,000 workers march
for demands around pensions and workplace conditions and tear down a police roadblock. Taipeis
Gay Pride march on October 26th 2013 saw 65,000 demonstrators take to the streets. The list goes
on. There is an added impetus for Taiwanese to mobilise given many feel that their country will soon
be sold to the Peoples Republic of China, as many in the ruling class have advocated. The
Kuomintang has shifted its one-China policy from reconquer to unify, demonstrating that the
ruling class on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have more in common than the Taiwanese
bourgeoisie and the Taiwanese workers. This situation is more advanced in Hong Kong, over which
China is slowly tightening its control. Similarly, Hong Kong is ablaze with political protest. Its huge
student movement mobilised some 90,000 demonstrators in 2012 to call on the government to scrap
a brainwashing school curriculum promoted by the PRC. Protests there are frequent and are met
with more and more police repression.
References

1. Arrigo, L. G. (2010) A Medium-Long History of Social Movements in Taiwan: Their Relationship

with the Democratic Progressive Party. Prepared for the Conference (19902010) (A Retrospective on Taiwan Social Movements of the Last Twenty Years)
1. Arrigo, L. G. (1992) FROM DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT TO BOURGEOIS
DEMOCRACY: THE INTERNAL POLITICS OF THE TAIWAN DEMOCRATIC
PROGRESSIVE PARTY IN 1991
https://joshkinh.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/in-memory-of-228-mass-politics-and-the-taiwan-democracy-movement/

10/12