Occupy the Legislative Yuan 佔領立法院

[gato]

Lu: There are serious problems with a multi-party parliamentary system, too. For example, a minority party may gain disproportionate power if its votes are required to form a governing coalition. You see that in Israel.

Do you have friends who voted for KMT in 2012 but are supporting this? That'd be more indicative of the public mood.

Skylee: HK doesn't (yet) have a democracy, so I'd be more sympathetic of something like this happening in HK or Beijing.

The issue is how do you run a democracy if people won't respect the results of elections.

[mouse]

 

The issue is how do you run a democracy if people won't respect the results of elections.

 

Those pesky demos always meddling with the smooth running of a rational bureaucracy...

[Lu]

The issue is how do you run a democracy if people won't respect the results of elections.

'You voted us into office so now for the next four years we can do whatever we want without listening to anyone' is not democratic either. My friends are not a representation of the Taiwanese people as a whole of course, but an approval rating of 9% does seem to indicate that the majority of the people who voted for Ma are now not happy with him, on top of the people who already didn't like him.

[imron]

The issue is how do you run a democracy if people won't respect the results of elections.

You have a series of checks and balances that allow the people some chance of recourse if the elected government appears to be going greatly against their wishes.  See for example in 1975, when the Governor General sacked the then Prime Minister of Australia and called a general election.  The previously ruling party was then trounced at that election.

 

In a democracy, the government governs with the consent of the governed.  Elections are the main way to give/remove consent, but if there is widespread dissatisfaction with what the government is doing and the public feel they have been misled, there should be a recourse for that outside of the main election cycle.  I'm not saying that what is going on in Taiwan is valid, but I do agree that you can't just say 'well, they've won the election, we'll just let them do whatever they want and there's nothing we can do until the next election'.

[Guest realmayo]

Given we're talking about representative democracy there's obviously no legal space for the mob/will of the people (delete according to who wins).

 

People in Kiev ousting their president was mob rule/will of the people.

People in Crimea choosing to leave Ukraine was mob rule/will of the people.

 

But then, there's no legal space for the army to step in and seize power either.

 

However sometimes either of these would be attractive. If, say, the elected party voted to postpone the next elections for 20 years.

[Nathan Mao]

 

'You voted us into office so now for the next four years we can do whatever we want without listening to anyone' is not democratic either.

Actually, it is.

 

The checks on "do whatever we want" include:

- you can get voted out of office

- you can get thrown in jail for the things you did while in office

 

In a good system (not saying Taiwan's reaches that level), you have co-equal branches of govt that can block each other, so people can, say, vote for a President from one party and then one or both houses in the legislature from another party to block either side from extreme actions.

 

But if you don't like what people do with the power you give them, the lesson is not to throw a temper tantrum to get what you want even though you lost the election, but to be more careful about listening to empty promises.

 

It is harder to determine integrity in a public figure, but not impossible. Vote for low-integrity people who promise you everything you want at no cost, and you tend to get disappointed.

 

So from my point of view, the only govt activity worth getting violent about is an active attempt to prevent their opponents from voting or organizing, i.e., setting up a 1-party permanent rule.

 

From what I've seen, this trade agreement situation doesn't do that.

 

If the Pan-Blue really has 9% approval, they should get tossed out on their ear in the next election cycle.  The most effort should be spent in making sure the Pan-Blue doesn't bribe or cheat their way to avoiding the consequences of a 9% approval.

Not that the Pan-Green is any less dirty in electoral politics.

 

But I'm guessing the 9% isn't really an accurate representation of Pan-Blue support in general.  Or maybe they can and will do other things to make up for it.

 

 

The biggest problems in democracy occur when someone only accepts majority rule when they are in the majority, and then does their best to undermine democratic institutions when they are in the minority.

 

In my opinion (and my relatively uninformed opinion only), that's what these protests are: an undermining of democratic institutions because they can't get majority support for what they want.  For that to be true, of course, it means that the public opinion polls are being manipulated to get specific results.  Which is pretty much the norm for Taiwan politics.

[OneEye]

I have to say I'm impressed with how they've conducted themselves through this whole thing, despite how the Taiwanese media has tried to portray them in their smear campaign. I've been paying pretty close attention to the live video feeds as well as their written feeds, parts of which I translated into English for them before they had enough people working on it (though unfortunately a lot of their translations are very difficult to understand). They've been peaceful and organized. They've worked with the police (and vice-versa) to ensure a safe, non-violent protest. Some people, including 黑道 apparently, have come by to try to stir up trouble but they've been dealt with properly. They've repeatedly insisted that people read a pamphlet called 《非暴力抗爭小手冊》, which seems to be an excerpt of Gene Sharp's The Methods of Nonviolent Action. They've repeatedly emphasized not to hit or swear at the police. Clean up your trash. Only smoke in designated areas. Don't give the media any ammunition. I've heard this quite a few times: "警察先生辛苦了，謝謝警察先生!" They're behaving in a very civil way overall.

 

Apparently, Ma Ying-jeou has refused to talk to them and has now barricaded himself in at the presidential office building, and he asked Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) to go instead. Wang refused and has publicly called out to Ma in his role as Chairman of the KMT to "observe the current situation and listen to the people's voice so as to reach a consensus on this issue." The protesters are giving them until midnight to respond (which is in about 10 minutes), and they've called on people to surround KMT party offices nationwide and protest. I'm going to bed, but we'll see what happens.

[Lu]

Actually, it is.

The checks on "do whatever we want" include:

- you can get voted out of office

- you can get thrown in jail for the things you did while in office

No. In a democratic system, the people in charge still need to take the people who didn't vote for them into account. Otherwise oppressing minorities could be fully democratic, which it isn't. Checks in a democracy are not limited to just voting and jailing, thank god. Additional measures are protests, articles in the media, writing letters, calling for this or that person to 下台, etc etc etc. Granted this protest is extreme, but it is just that: a protest. Protests in a democracy are not 'temper tantrums' from sore losers (well, sometimes they probably are, but not necessarily). From what I heard, nobody has gotten violent, unless you count the action of getting into the Legislative Yuan itself as violence.

In addition, as you mentioned, Taiwan does not at this point have a good system. (Not to mention that any country where you only have two options for president is not very democratic. Really, what the hell. For the most stupid things we have 3, 4, 10, 100 options, but for president it's either this guy I don't like or this other guy I don't like.) Corruption, vote-buying, unfair division of assets, and other problems mean that the system overall is not fair. Which means that yes people should protest, to let the people in charge know that this is a democracy and the minority, or the people who didn't vote for them, should be taken into account.

The 9% approval rating is not for the pan-blues, but for Ma as a president. Opinion polls in Taiwan, as elsewhere, are usually not objective, so it's usually good to consult a few from both sides. If you have different numbers, please share them.

[Guest realmayo]

No. In a democratic system, the people in charge still need to take the people who didn't vote for them into account.

Maybe they should, but if 500 people want the right to walk naked through the streets and the government disagrees, it's hardly right to say it's legal for them to break into a legislative building and hold up political business. 

 

Now, if it right for 5,000 nudists? 500,000? What about when it's 5,000,000?

 

It might be 'right' for these people to occupy the building, but it's not legal.

[gato]

At an abstract level (since no one wants to talk about the specifics of the trade agreement ), there is nothing necessarily right or admirable about the minority protesting against the majority. In the US, we have the Republicans in the US protesting against Obama day in, day out, though not resorting to occupying the White House yet, probably because defeating White House security would be no easy task.

Protesting through illegal acts (such as taking over the White House) should be limited to times when the democratic process is broken, or cases where one needs to stop some irreversible harm (such as to save lives, to stop a war, for instance). If we don't set some principled limits on when the minority can break the law to block the majority, then democracy would be unworkable.

Is Taiwan's democratic process broken? Some imply that it is, but haven't offered evidence on how it is broken. I see vigorous debates of issues in the media and online and in the streets, and very competitive elections that have been own by both sides. This trade agreement was vigorously debated by the public for 9 months before it was ratified. Though the KMT used speed-up procedure to get around DPP protests for the ratification, you can't say there has not been sufficient public debate.

Neither is the trade agreement something that is irreversible or would cause irreversible harm. If the opponents of the trade agreement can win enough votes at the next election in 2016, then they can repeal it. It can be reversed.

I don't see the threshold being met, by the criteria above, that warrant breaking the law to protest here. If you believe that the threshold has been met, can you explain your criteria for deciding when breaking the law is legitimate?

[mouse]

 

 

I don't see the threshold being met, by the criteria above, that warrant breaking the law to protest here. If you believe that the threshold has been met, can you explain your criteria for deciding when breaking the law is legitimate?

 

This is entirely circular logic. You yourself have defined the threshold and criteria, so the answer is moot. These things are decided collectively through debate and struggle. Taking an abstract lawyerly approach is entirely idealistic and ignores the real world. In this instance, if there is a definitive threshold or whatever then what it is and whether it shall be breached or not should be decided by the people of Taiwan, not by you.

 

By now I should be used to seeing people who profess to subscribe to democracy taking thoroughly undemocratic positions, but nevertheless it's still a little bit shocking to watch it in practice.

[Guest realmayo]

Yes, this makes sense. I think it's important to look at the system as a whole -- including tolerance for illegal protests. A representative democracy isn't any kind of Platonic ideal, it's a system that uses democracy. And might have, to a greater or lesser extent, 'room' for illegal (and non-democratic) protests that cause short term problems but keep the overall system intact.

 

I read somewhere that the collar bone is designed to break, to stop the shock from a fall either busting the wrist or travelling up to the vertebrae, not sure which and not sure if it's true, but it's a good analogy.

 

So I think any 'threshold' for illegal acts will be different for each system, for each country. If this works for Taiwan, at this moment, with accountability to an electorate still very new, so be it.

[gato]

This is entirely circular logic. You yourself have defined the threshold and criteria, so the answer is moot. These things are decided collectively through debate and struggle.

The very paragraph you quoted asked you to offer your views. Of course, the Taiwanese get to decide their own affairs. I am just an observer like everyone else here. But I have the freedom the have my own views, just as you do. It's easier to have a discussion when we explain our standards for making judgment openly. You can let us know your own standards. Since you support the protests, maybe you could explain why, instead of trying to shut down the debate by calling views you don't like "shocking" and "lawyerly".

So I think any 'threshold' for illegal acts will be different for each system, for each country. If this works for Taiwan, at this moment, with accountability to an electorate still very new, so be it

If accountability is low in Taiwan, then democracy in Taiwan is broken and the illegal acts could be justified. But could you elaborate how accountability in Taiwan is low? Low or high is relative, of course. Is it lower than in the UK or US, for example?

I suggest the problem here is that the issue is a very emotional one, with strong emotions on both sides, not that system is broken. One way to deal with the such emotional issue is to require a consensus before making any change. For instance, there could be a constitutional amendment to require a supermajority vote (60% or 2/3) before any new laws can be enacted on "matters related to mainland China" (which would include increasing ties and declaring independence). Such a supermajority requirement would favor the status quo unless there is a major change in public opinion.

[simplet]

This might be my frenchness coming through here, but aren't you supposed to encourage people to participate in the public process as much as possible? This might be on the more spectacular side, but it just looks like part of a healthy democratic process to me (but again, I'm french, we consider protesting everything a way of life), not even necessarily the sign of a broken system.

 

When it comes to political matters, you can do a lot of things that you wouldn't be able to do as an individual, what's important is to have the numbers behind you. If you don't, then you'll quickly find out and might suffer the consequences. If you do, then a legitimacy struggle ensues to see if the government on the whole can still do what he wants to do, or if there is a need to trigger one of the emergency responses provided by the constitution (giving up an unpopular law, resignation/dismissal of the president, new elections etc...)

 

In the present case, it looks like they have the numbers, both in the streets and in the polls. If they have the numbers, they have the legitimacy, same as the government. Now the question is who has more. The government's legitimacy only comes from the people, it doesn't have some kind of magical transcendent legitimacy. 

[Guest realmayo]

Edit: actually this is all rather off topic

[OneEye]

As for the legality of the protests, the mayor of Taipei has announced that it is indeed legal and that they may occupy the Legislative Yuan and even the Presidential Office, with no limit as to how long they may do so.

 

Speaking of mayors, Ma Ying-jeou was apparently supposed to attend a ceremony in Tainan this weekend. The mayor of Tainan told him he was not welcome, that he ought to stay in Taipei and face the situation.

[Meng Lelan]

but again, I'm french, we consider protesting everything a way of life

 

 

I totally understand. 

[OneEye]

As anyone following this knows, Ma Ying-jeou answered today, and it was essentially the opposite of what they were hoping (no surprise there). They said that they would escalate protests, and that's exactly what has happened.

 

A separate group has now occupied the Executive Yuan (行政院). At first it seemed like it was going to turn violent, but I've been watching the video feed from there and things are calming down. They seem to be quickly settling in, asking for supplies (food, computer & video equipment, etc.) and getting organized. Police trucks with water cannons are apparently onsite or nearby.

 

Just a few minutes ago, I found out that there is another group of students occupying the Control Yuan (監察院). There seems to be some confusion as to whether they've actually gotten inside or whether they're just protesting outside. A friend of mine posted photos to Facebook about 45 minutes ago, and they weren't inside yet.

 

They've called for a nationwide student strike. Who knows if they'll be successful. We'll see if my 書法研究 class meets tomorrow.

 

Anyway, things are definitely tense right now.

 

PS: Premier Jiang Yi-huah has just given orders to reinforce protection around the Presidential Office.

[Lu]

From my facebook I understand that the police is forcebly removing them from the LY at the moment. Apparently the students are being peaceful but the police is using water canons, shields and batons.

Granted that the occupation is illegal, at what point is it reasonable for a government to use violence against non-violent citizens? I still haven't followed all of this closely enough, and the complete lack of coverage in international media is not helping, but this seems very wrong.

[Nathan Mao]

In my opinion...

 

There are many things that are legal, but not necessarily smart.

There are things that are illegal, but are morally correct.

 

There are things that society permits, but are still morally incorrect.

 

 

In my opinion, elections have consequences.  The reason a nation holds elections is to select the people who will decide the course for the next few years.  The nation and the system entrusts them and empowers them.

 

No matter how much the minority might not like it, the winners won.

 

Different nations have different systems, so obviously we can't compare the US directly to Taiwan, but there are ways for the minority to still be a part of the process.  If the majority goes too far, moderates will fear for the future and the minority can peel off votes.  Often some legislatures have some votes under certain circumstances that you need more than a mere majority to pass something.

 

So political cooperation is necessary.  If the winning side chooses an extreme position they didn't campaign on, they should expect no cooperation from the minority.  If the majority wants to ensure they aren't blamed solely for the failure of a policy, they must compromise to get some of the minority to agree.

 

But for the system to really work, the minority has to accept that they are in the minority. They shouldn't use force, or blackmail tactics, or violence, or even causing inconvenience to large numbers of people (really, a form of blackmail, no?) to influence or control politics beyond their numbers.  To me, that is a betrayal of democratic principles. To me, that is extreme immaturity, that you can't be patient until the end of the term to win an election and impose your will.  To me, that is a lack of confidence in your own political views and ability, if you think that you can't use the extremely unpopular majority actions to win a majority in the next election.

 

A winner-take-all system will almost always default to a two-party system.  The system starts to break down when the two parties assume it is a completely bipolar, zero sum system.  Even if Ma Ying-jeou only has 9% approval, as some polls indicate, it doesn't mean that a majority of the public supports Pan Green's preferred policies.

 

There are times to rise up: if a party is using force, law, or govt institutions to eliminate basic rights of free speech and voting.  If the govt uses violence against a non-resisting, non-violent, peaceful assembly, then the people should fight back. Tyranny needs to be met with uprisings and violence.

 

But unpopular political moves are not tyranny. 

 

In my opinion, if Ma Ying-jeou is responsible for breaking his promises, his party should pay the price in the next election.  Pan Greens should never let people forget how the Pan Blues betrayed their constituencies this way.

 

Of course, if the Pan Green betrays the majority of voters as badly, or worse, then it will be hard to win trust.

 

That's kind of what I think has happened in Taiwan： both sides have behaved so badly that this broken promise really can't move the political election/re-election needle, because both sides can point to the other side have done as bad or worse.

 

Which is why I don't support these occupations, whether peaceful or not.

 

But that's just my opinion. I don't live in Taiwan, I don't really have any contact anymore with a few casual friends who are Taiwan.

 

This is a political intellectual exercise for me, so my opinion doesn't matter one way or the other. To anyone. Still, it is mine.

 

 

Regarding force against citizens:

As I understand it, there is reasonable force and unreasonable force.

If citizens are engaged in a crime, the police are justified in removing or detaining the citizens. Because a police officer can never be certain when an apparently peaceful stance is just a ruse to get the officer within effective attack distance, police are justified in taking the citizen to the ground somewhat roughly.  In the same manner, if a citizen is engaged in illegal behavior, the citizen should listen to the police officer (the person hired by all citizens to maintain peace and order) and desist in the illegal behavior.  If the citizen does not cooperate or comply, the police are justified in using non-lethal methods to ensure compliance.

So in this case, if the citizens are told to disperse because they are illegally occupying a location, and they refuse, the police can and will use beanbag rounds, water cannons, billy clubs, etc to ensure they do disperse/depart.

 

I can understand the reasoning behind that.  On the other hand, I'm sure in many nations (in dictatorships, or in nations otherwise not respectful of human rights of peaceful assembly), the police go far beyond that, are more violent than necessary, and inflict violence even on those attempting to comply.

 

That's one of the reasons I think protests should only be for egregious violations of human rights.  You might get injured, you might have bones fractured: it should be for something worse than, say, a 1% cut to welfare payments.

 

Maybe this situation is bad enough to justify illegal occupations.  I don't yet see anything I understand as worth this much hullaballoo.  But I absolutely allow I could be wrong.