Protest, Speech and Democratic Principles

The news of a protest against National Taiwan University (NTU) is both hopeful and heartbreaking. The hope comes from seeing students stand up against a strong institution that has the ability to make a very impressive response. These kids are brave and highly principled. The disappointment stems from the conservative reaction that followed this experience of democratic principles in action.

The protest took place on Tuesday, November 15 (2011), during the university's anniversary celebration ceremony. As NTU president Lee Si-chen was offering his opening address, some 30 students rushed the stage to raise banners protesting the school's decision to force the removal of a residential community (Shao-hsing Community: 紹興社區) based on land owned by the school. The school has the right to remove the residents, but the students were protesting the university's unilateral decision to do so without the courtesy of first negotiating with the residents. The news report suggests that students had been protesting what they see as a the heavy-handedness of yet another bureaucracy supported by tax payer funds.

Disappointing is the NTU president's response, which may be entirely necessary to satisfy the bureaucratic culture's sense of self-importance, but nevertheless suggests a lack of respect for the principles of free speech and civil disobedience in a mature democracy. The university president called the protest "disrespectful" to the university and inappropriately timed. But when can a protest be more effective if not at an important public event? (I remember the English-language China Post which in an editorial and other reportage gleefully encouraged heckling at then-President Chen Shui-bian's public speeches.) The president did have the good grace to note that the student protesters had "good intentions." Perhaps he should praise the protesters for demonstrating a mature understanding of democratic ideals.

It is heartening to see that the protest had some effect, for it brought to public attention an issue that would otherwise have remained private. Three cynical cheers to the NTU bureaucrat (quoted in the China Post report) who managed to blame the government for the school's ruthlessness in sending out eviction notices, while simultaneously making a call for more money from the government. Does this kind of "mei ban fa" (沒辦法) reaction suggest that the student protesters really would have had no option other than to stage a protest that would have the potential of embarrassing the bureaucratic machine into human action?

We in the academic community need to learn a deep respect for protest, knowing that if a large number of intelligent and rational individuals are willing to undertake such a major public action they must be doing so for reasons that far outweigh the ceremonial, symbolic and personal significations of the disrupted public events. Only in a democratic society can David take on Goliath through the exercise of free political speech. How sad that civil society is still so uncivilly skewered that anybody would be forced to resort to these measures.
Source: The China Post (read the full article at The China Post)