Taiwan’s pro-China opposition in Congress pass undemocratic laws that trigger mass protest

WRITTEN BY FANG-YU CHEN AND YA-HAN CHEN

23 July 2024

Taiwan’s general election in January 2024 kicked off the global election year. President Lai Ching-te, who was vice president in former President Tsai Ing-wen's administration, led the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to a third consecutive presidential term, but his party lost its majority in the Legislative Yuan (LY).

The pro-China opposition parties, Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), won 52 seats (plus two independents) and 8 seats respectively, while the DPP won 51. Although no party secured a majority, the TPP, a relatively young populist-style party led by former Taipei City Mayor Ko Wen-je and caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang, works closely with KMT, the former ruling party of the authoritarian era and which has since long-maintained strength at the local level. During the campaign, TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je’ s always emphasised that the two sides of the strait are family (兩岸一家親), and support a policy of equidistance between China and the US. He also blames Taiwan for “provoking” China by strengthening military readiness, and is calling for the country to re-sign the Service trade deal with China (rejected by the civil society in the 2014 Sunflower Movement). By any measure, he and his party are pro-China.

In short, this reform makes the LY a super-powerful institution that raises concerns about undermining the separation of power and thus checks and “imbalances”.

In Taiwan’s semi-presidential system, the executive and legislature both have mandates from the public, and the current situation recalls the memory of the divided government in the first DPP administration in 2000-2008. This outbreak of controversies this time, at the very beginning of the new legislature, was unexpected. The size of the mass protest and the reassembling of civil groups is even more surprising. People are concerned about preserving due process in the legislature because the opposition has bypassed regular discussion sessions in each stage of passing the proposed bills. The bills are also full of problematic clauses that will lead to a legislative overreach. While there is a long-term social cleavage on national identity, some worry that pro-China opposition groups may deepen the polarisation of party politics, and China may take advantage of the dispute.

‘Blue Bird Movement’ as a re-assemble of social movements

On 28 May, the KMT and TPP passed a series of legislative amendments aimed at enhancing the investigative powers of LY. Under the rhetoric of “congressional reform”, KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi — known as the “King of Hualien” and a powerful figure from the grassroots of Eastern Taiwan — said that the purpose of the law is to make it difficult for the DPP to find people who can serve in the cabinet because officials will be under scrutiny and could be criminally charged by the new law easily. KMT lawmakers emphasised the ability of legislators to conduct “a thorough investigation of scandals”.

This legislative “reform” has sparked widespread discontent among the Taiwanese public. During the process of passing the law, civil society groups quickly assembled outside the LY and organised mass protests across the island. The movement has generated a nickname — “Blue Bird” — because the Mandarin character is close to the name of the street outside the LY where people gathered. On the evening of 17 May, when the bill was in its second reading, thousands gathered outside the LY calling for the restoration of due process and a substantive review of the bill. In the following days, with the LY meeting on 17 May, 24 May, and 28 May, more than 100,000 protesters showed up outside the LY alongside island-wide activities.

Some key points emerged about the movement. First, the main channel for mobilisation was on Threads and Instagram, and the overwhelming majority of participants were young people. Many high school students delivered outstanding soapbox speeches that went viral online. The youth appearance of this movement highlighted that the protests are not the result of party mobilisation, and it reflects an increasing trend of political awareness among Taiwanese students.

Second, many people recall the memory of the 2014 Sunflower Movement 10 years ago, when civil groups stormed the LY and occupied it for 24 days, preventing the legislature from passing the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement which then-president Ma Ying-jeou had signed with China. This time, the main organising groups are drawn mostly from previous protest movements and they have utilised their experiences and networks from these protests and applied them to the Blue Bird Movement.

Third, there were two main stages for the movements, alongside an extremely effective hub to deliver supplies for the protestors with volunteers at the Chi-Nan Church neighbouring the LY. However, the movement was multi-centred with a variety of street deliberative discussions. There were also activities across Taiwan, not just in front of the LY. Furthermore, overseas Taiwanese organised similar activities worldwide. In short, the supporters of the movement are not partisan and were drawn from across different regions and age cohorts. Like the Sunflower Movement, the impact on party politics, especially on the image of each party, might be long-lasting.

The “reform” that may infringe on the balance of power

Why did the “reform” bills trigger such mass protests? People protested against the opposition parties because they perceived the reforms to be an overexpansion of the LY’s power and carried out by questionable processes.

First, people think the opposition parties did not follow due legislative process. In each stage of the process, the “Blue-White” coalition (KMT and TPP) not only limited the time and frequency of DPP lawmakers’ right to deliver their concerns, but they also “reserved” all opposing ideas to the later stages of the general assembly, refusing to review any of the articles in the law. There were indeed public hearings on the bill, but again all different opinions were stalled by the KMT chair of the Judiciary Committee, Wu Tsung-hsien. Later, in the general assembly, there was no discussion either. On 16 May, one day before the second reading, the KMT and TPP even drafted a new version of the bill and in a live-streaming that night, TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang said that the draft was “top secret”. The full version of the bills for a vote was not available to all lawmakers until the evening of 17 May, the date scheduled for the second reading. This was also the first night that thousands of people gathered in protest outside the LY, which successfully pressured the LY to delay the voting.

Second, people perceived the bill to be full of problematic clauses. The bill added a criminal charge of “contempt of Congress” and an expansion of the investigative power of the LY. Under the new law, the legislators can investigate almost everything, including individuals, private companies, ongoing judicial cases, and even classified national security documents. As a “witness”, one has no right to remain silent or to refuse to answer (even on classified information or private information, including business secrets), and even the help of a lawyer is not guaranteed because it requires agreements by the LY committee. The main purpose of the opposition, according to KMT and TPP lawmakers, is to investigate all the scandals and corruption. That is, they seemingly plan to treat the officials and individuals called to the investigation as potential suspects, not witnesses.

Furthermore, by the regulation on contempt of congress, the LY committee can determine whether the officials’ response “matches the question of lawmakers” or else one can be put in jail or fined between NTD 20,000 and NTD 200,000 (USD 615 to 6150) each time. There is no clear definition of what constitutes a “false response” or “reverse interpellation”, which is a globally unique rule in which officials cannot challenge the statements of lawmakers, or even ask questions about the query.

The bills contain too many terms that are not explicitly defined, such as how lawmakers form an investigation session, while everything will be determined by the committee and the general assembly. According to the new law, lawmakers become prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement agencies for criminal charges and discipline for civil servants. In short, this reform makes the LY a super-powerful institution that raises concerns about undermining the separation of power and thus checks and “imbalances”.

What’s next: The China factor?

Many Taiwanese citizens support legislative reform, but they perceive there to be a violation of due process and an overreach of the legislature’s power. What makes the situation complicated is the China factor.

While China uses various coercive tools against Taiwan’s democratically elected government, the legislative controversies coincide with the Chinese Communist Party’s objective of disrupting Taiwan’s political situation. In April, Fu led a group of 17 pro-China lawmakers on a visit to Beijing. His history of multi-million investment plans in China and close ties with Chinese officials only enhances the suspicion that he is a threat to Taiwan’s democracy. Many are concerned that the KMT-TPP coalition will boycott the defence budget and much-needed military reforms, especially through using the legislator’s new investigative powers and the law of contempt of Congress.

While Taiwan’s role in the Indo-Pacific region is critical, the gridlock in the LY may further influence the balance of the strategic competition between the US and China. This may be the reason why so many international media organisations have covered the Blue Bird Movement in the context of the China factor. Overall, the “Congressional reform” marks the beginning of a polarised party politics scene in Taiwan’s new administration amidst a divided government era.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Fang-Yu Chen, assistant professor of Political Science at Soochow University in Taiwan and Chief Editor of US Taiwan Watch.

Ya-Han Chen, undergraduate student of Political Science at Soochow University in Taiwan and Research Assistant of US Taiwan Watch. Image credit: Wikimedia commons/「富」家子弟攝影日常.