CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF THE MOVEMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS
4.1 D IFFERENCES AND S IMILARITIES
4.1.1 Differences
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 4 Comparison of the Movements and Questionnaire analysis
The present chapter will be dedicated to the comparison of both social movements to clarify their differences and similarities. First, it will be presented the differences between the groups. Second, the similarities will be provided so the reader can understand what the common ground between the social movements is. Third, the study will present the results of the questionnaire and the information will be analyzed to draw conclusions on the findings. Through this method the study will state clearly to the reader what were the key points making feasible the collaboration between sides. Without further due let us proceed to the analysis.
4.1 Differences and Similarities
As seen so far in the current study, there are different political opportunities structures that led to the creation of the social movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. When analyzing each movement in their respective contexts it may seem that both are different from each other, without having a vast array of elements connecting them. Nevertheless, despite their particularities, collaboration has taken place. To be able to understand this cooperation more clearly firstly the present section will expose the contrasting areas marked between groups and secondly the common grounds.
4.1.1 Differences
The areas of discrepancy found between each social movement ranges from the political to the social realms. As the context plays a crucial role in the creation of the political opportunities structure, it is important to consider it. In Figure 1 it can be observed the differences lived in the context of each case.
Figure 1. Context differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The political government “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong has created very particular challenges. As previously mentioned, people in Hong Kong were depicted as
“economic animals”, which meant they were not interested in politics as long as the economy was working. This was true all along the British rule that with the aid of polls and the common law (which granted civil rights), the people remained under control.
Nevertheless, the change of regimes provoked the rejection of the maintenance of this system.
Looking at Taiwan, its political process had followed a very different trend. Taiwan emerged as a democracy almost two decades ago. Moreover, democracy in Taiwan has been characterized by a strong activism. Social movements in Taiwan achieved political changes and continue to be key to obtain them. Therefore, both societies had different political experiences and different perspectives regarding activism.
Sovereignty is another key element differentiating both. Hong Kong has never experience sovereignty until its recent reunification with the PRC came and the “one country, two system” formula was offered. This opened an opportunity for people in Hong Kong to seek exploit the idea and obtain a real degree of sovereignty.
In the case of Taiwan, the fact that the KMT regime maintained a control over the island since 1949, created a real sense of territorial independence and sovereignty. As years passed by it was clear that Taiwan was sovereign from any influence from the PRC and the construction of independent island nation was possible too. Therefore, Taiwanese youth do
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
acknowledge Taiwan as independent and sovereign country. Thus, sovereignty process in both cases originated from very particular processes.
Furthermore, the governments’ relation with the PRC is one of the most important elements. In the case of Hong Kong, the status in which Hong Kong and Beijing deal with each other can be framed as an inter-state fashion, similar to a federation (tending more to centralization). Thence, Hong Kong is subject to the mandate in Beijing, because it was never independent since the beginning. Bluntly it was the dangers of an economic destabilization due to a social confrontation in this powerhouse, which led the PRC to decide not to affect it by pushing forward a frontal political harmonization with the rest of the China.
In contrast, Taiwan and PRC relations are hold between different independent regimes. The civil war in China that witness the clashes between the Communist and Nationalists, led to the demise of the KMT rule in almost all of China. The KMT redoubt was Taiwan. From that moment onwards, as seen in the preamble dedicate to cross-strait relations, the negotiation in both sides was intended to reach a possible peace or an agreement. Time made the situation evolve from two regimes seeking control of a unique territory, into two regimes exercising a de facto power in two different territories. Thus changing the nature of their societies. The international recognition of the PRC and the loss of the ROC, made situation even more complicated. Although since Lee Teng-hui Taiwan policy was to reassure its stance as a country, nowadays, the KMT regime has a posture of harmony and possible reunification. Nonetheless, the clear independence between both regimes is clear.
The relationship with the PRC has generated a very different evolution of identity in both cases. As stated in previous chapters, people in Hong Kong were trapped between two realities: never truly belonging PRC and a “New Chinese men” with western values.
Nevertheless, the fear of going back to the PRC allowed people to start identifying themselves better the rising identity of “Hong Konger”. In essence to be a “Hong Konger”
means to be a born Cantonese-speaking citizen of Hong Kong, according to the definition provided by the of the Hong Kong University polls (University of Hong Kong, 2014). In
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
reality, it has a different status from the one held by the PRC citizenship. Thus, the Hong Konger identity, determines a separation between the citizens there and the rest of China.
In Taiwan, identity has a strong stronger sense of separation with the PRC. Nowadays, Taiwanese identity has a strong connotation of independence and self-determination attached to it. At times the Taiwanese identity transcends ethnicity and links more with the civic aspect of belonging to the ROC. Clearly Taiwanese identity comes as an element that counterpoises any idea of attachment to the PRC. Therefore, the difference in identity between Taiwan and Hong Kong is that in Taiwan identity has a deterministic sense of complete independence from the PRC, and in Hong Kong tends to mark a difference.
Now that contextual differences have been enunciated, the study can proceed to show the differences between the movements. In Figure 2 it can be appreciated what are the particularities of each movement.
Figure 2. Differences between the Social Movements
All claims in each movement are subject of their particular reality and each has their level of complexity. In the case of Hong Kong the first three points are very explicit on what their goals are. Nevertheless, from the fourth to the fifth point the claims become more and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
more complex. Self-determination within the realm of “one country, two systems” it is a goal that is pointed out by the present author based on the guidelines issued by the OCLP movement’s official site. The determination of this goal in this manner is due to the fact that the movement does not seek revolution but rather a democratic claim. Although it can be argued that within the movement there are several radical advocates that would prefer seek a revolution or independence.
Finally, by “related of claims” it must be understood that in Hong Kong the democratic movement has been evolving since 2003. Although the movement of 2003 was largely focused on the claim of freedom of assembly, seeking the direct election of the Chief Executive, democracy and self-determination have been the ones constantly demanded.
This would be the most contrasting difference with the movement in Taiwan.
In the particular case of Taiwan demands attend other needs. Until recently the society has raised the voice to be upfront in the discussion of cross-strait agreements and empowering the Legislative Yuan’s position in these deals. Thus, the first and second points only apply to the Taiwanese reality.
Moreover, the third point, “improve the economic equality while avoiding dependence of the PRC”, refers to fear that Taiwanese sovereignty is at stake. The interdependence between Taiwan and China poses a big question for the Taiwanese society if whether or not this will provoke Taiwan to succumb to the PRC83. This can be argued, only interests the Taiwanese society.
The fourth point makes refers to the fact that a large percentage of the Taiwanese society sees Taiwan’s government as a complete sovereign entity capable to rule the territory.
Therefore, the fifth point must not come as a surprise when it proposes that the independence of Taiwan has to be defended. Again, this is a matter of inner discussion that largely appeals to Taiwanese. Finally, the sixth point marks the last and one of the most important differences between the movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. In Taiwan the
83 More details about this fact will be shown and discussed in the questionnaire’s results.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
collective action of the Sunflower movement managed to consolidate all the claims in Taiwan (ranging from anti-nuclear protests to the rejection of media monopolization and ECFA) into a big and organize protest with clear objectives. That has yet not seen in Hong Kong.