Shiow-Duan Hawang Soochow University (Taiwan)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Shiow-duan Hawang Soochow University (Taiwan) The Influence of the Sunflower Movement on the Civic Movement in Taiwan Abstract The paper aims to discuss the reasons, and the dynamics of the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan. The Author looks for answers to the questions why the students occupied the Legislative Yuan, why their actions got so many people’s support as well as what reasons can explain these developments and what kind of impact such actions would bring about, particularly the impact on the citizens’ movement. Keywords: Sunflower Movement, the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement, Legislative Yuan, Taiwan Preface On March 17, when the Internal Affairs Committee at the Legislative Yuan re- viewed the case of the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA), legislator Jang Ching-jung utilised the conflict between the government and the people, announced within 30 seconds’ disarray with a hidden wireless microphone to “have a session and send the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) to the Executive Yuan conference for file to reference. Then he “adjourned the session”, that caused an uproar. In the evening on March 18, civic groups held a night party for defending democracy and protesting against the slapdash review procedure of the CSSTA. Lin Fei-fan, Chen Wei-ting and other students took advantage of the unprepared police and at about half past nine rushed into the Legislative Yuan and occupied the Parliament. Spread over the Internet, many students heard the news and immediately arrived at the Legislative Yuan for support. Students occupied the Legislative Yuan for a total of 24 days and retreated on April 10, after the President of the Legislative Yuan’s had promised “the law-making before review”. nr 4(12)2016 104 Shiow-duan Hawang During the process, which had made everyone shocked, students were dissatisfied with the President and the President of the Executive Yuan did not accept the request of returning back the CSSTA, so a group of students occupied the Executive Yuan. Finally, the National Police Agency, the Ministry of the Interior got an instruction of forced eviction, so that the riot police with shields and batons carried away the students and used water cannons to expel the other people. With the use of both batons and water cannons the police drove out the people, and the Executive Yuan returned to work the following morning. Although there were different views on the occupation of the Executive Yuan, but for the expelled students and the public, it was a shocking and unforgettable lesson. The word “state violence” which was once a term heard in the book became reality. On March 30, under the students’ call, about 50,000 people not mobilized by the political parties assembled in front of the Katagalan Boulevard. In the past, the large-scale events joined by more than 50,000 people were mainly mobilized by political parties, but this Katagalan Boulevard gathering was not mobilized by the political parties. Furthermore, from the moment the representative of the students, Chen Wei-ting, had announced the expansion of protest on March 27 to rally there were just three days, but on that day the supporters flew in from all sides. The main demands of that very day action were: vetting the law before its enactment, supervising cross-strait legalization, civil constitutional conference and hope that the legislators from the ruling and opposition parties would return to the Congress, standing with the people and supporting appeals of the people. The people who were present there had eyes filled with tears and some of them even wiped away their tears, affected by the atmosphere that everyone was the host of the country. Eventually, the president of the Legislative Yuan came forward and promised that “Before the Cross-Strait Agreement Supervision Regulations legislation draft was not completed, there would not be held the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement consultative conference between the related parties”. Students could occupy that place for so many days, because of others’ support and help. After the Sunflower Student Movement formally retreated, according to the Liberty Times poll, 69.9% of people believed that the student movement had had a positive impact on Taiwan’s long-term development of democracy, while there were up to 82.96% of respondents who expressed their dissatisfaction with Presi- dent Ma Ying-jeou’s dealing with the Sunflower Student Movement. Only 10.64% of people expressed their satisfaction [Li Shin-fang, 2014]. Another survey made by “the Apple Daily” pointed out that 69.8% of people agreed with students’ proposal of legislation of the Cross-Strait Agreement Supervision Regulations first, and then negotiations on the Service Trade Agreement [Chen Liang-yu, 2014]. “Business Today Taiwan Indicators Survey Research company conducted the index poll on Studia z Polityki Publicznej The Influence of the Sunflower Movement on the Civic Movement in Taiwan 105 the CSSTA, showing that 53.6% of respondents did not support the signing of the service trade agreement with the Mainland, while 23.3% of respondents supported it. With regard to the students’ occupation of the Legislative Yuan, 64.9% of them agreed, 26.5% disagreed and 8.6% were undecided [TISR, 2014]. The vast majority of people (83.9%) thought that the explanation of the government to the people was not enough. According to the survey made by the TVBS poll center, 63% of respondents thought that the signed Service Trade Agreement should be removed, only 18% of people thought it should not be and 19% of people had no opinion. As for the measures the police took to expel the people from of the Executive Yuan, 35% of people agreed, 56% of people disagreed and 9% had no opinion [TVBS, 2014]. No matter whether the poll made by the media supported the KMT Party or the DDP Party is subject to analysis, it showed that people did not support the signing of the Service Trade Agreement with the Mainland, and they recognized the students’ way of occupying the Legislative Yuan. This paper aims to discuss why the students occupied the Legislative Yuan, why their actions got so many people’s support as well as what reasons can explain this development. It also aims to answer the question what kind of impact such actions would bring about, particularly the impact on the citizens’ movement. Theory of Social Movements Many theories have attempted to explain why people participate in social move- ments. Ted Gurr thought that the primary psychological state of people’s participating in social movements or political violence and revolution is a relative deprivation. It means that members of the society feel the gap between value expectation and reality [Gurr, 1970]. In other words, the source of a relative deprivation is the gap between expectations and reality. Davies pointed out that when the gap is intolerable, a revo- lution arises. For the same reason, the mental frustration is the main cause of action. The link between the frustration-aggression sufficiently explained the motivation of behavior [Davies, 1962, pp. 5–19; Davies, 1969, pp. 547–576]. The unequal division of land, income inequality and dissatisfaction are all based on the same logic. These frustrations and dissatisfactions have aroused by comparison to some groups of the society but relative deprivation is a rational comparison and a psychological feeling. The theory was particularly popular in 1960 and 1970. The resource mobilization theory emphasizes that there is an inequality in any society, accumulating enough grievances which at any time can trigger social move- ments. However, the disadvantaged groups that have most grievances usually have nr 4(12)2016 106 Shiow-duan Hawang limited resources or organizational capacity, and therefore, the injection of external resources or forces is an important factor of the motivation of the disadvantaged groups in order to initiate the opposition movement and challenge the government. In contrast to the relative deprivation, they do not think that the movement supporters’ “psychological discontent” is a determining factor which causes movement, because the dissatisfaction exists at all times. The oppressed cannot usually protect their own interests and a lack of implementation right. They need external resources, the elite’s support and operation, in order to mobilize [McCarthy, Zald, 1976, pp. 1212–1241]. Therefore, the resources mobilization theory emphasizes the importance of external resources and the elite. The so-called resources may include the involvement of money, interest groups, mass media, intellectuals, professionals, and so on. The resource mobilization theory emphasizes the mobilization and organization of social move- ment resources. They believe that at any time, there is enough dissatisfaction in the society which can initiate a grassroots movement. As long as the social movement can be organized because of the injection of external resources, “resentment and dissatisfaction can arise over the movement organization and the leaders’ definition, creation and manipulation [McCarthy, Zald, 1976, pp. 12–15]. The gap between the expectations and reality of the relative deprivation empha- sizes social and psychological factors, but what extent of personal frustration and imbalance may cause collective action and then the outbreak of social movements? The documents of relative deprivation have not described subjective circumstances and cognition [Gurney, Tierney, 1982, pp. 33–47]. The resource mobilization theory emphasizes structural factors, acknowledging the feasibility of the raised collected resources and personal status in the social network, and also emphasizing that rational participation in a social movement has nothing to do with social and psychological factors [Klandermans, 1984, pp. 583–600]. The consensus mobilization theory is an attempt to reconcile the relative deprivation theory and the resource mobilization theory. Klandermans has pointed out that having the feeling of relative deprivation will not necessary cause some actions to be taken.