The student-led movements of 2014 and public opinion
| Author | Po-San Wan,Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891117728341 |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
The student-led movements
of 2014 and public opinion:
A comparison of Taiwan
and Hong Kong
Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao
Academia Sinica, Taiwan
Po-San Wan
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Abstract
This article, which is based on a comparative survey conducted in late 2014, explores public
opinion in Taiwan and Hong Kong on the Sunflower and Umbrella movements. We find that public
support for the local movement in each place was almost equally divided. As for the other
movement, the supporters outnumbered opponents. The basic patterns of the relationship
between socio-demographic attributes, political attitudes, as well as the evaluation of the “China
impact”, and public support for the two movements were consistent in both societies. Those most
likely to support the Sunflower and Umbrella movements were: the young; Minnanese, Hakka, or
Hong Kong-born people; those who support the “Pan-Green” or “Pan-democracy” camps; those
who agreed that democracy is the best political system; those who had a negative view of the
“China impact”, especially its harmful influence on local democracy. Notwithstanding these simi-
larities, in Taiwan, support for the Sunflower Movement was mainly divided by ethnic group and for
the Umbrella Movement by gender; while in Hong Kong, support for both movements was largely
divided by age, and the perceived “China impact” on local economic growth had no independent
effects.
Keywords
“China impact”, Hong Kong, public opinion, student-led movement, Taiwan
Corresponding author:
Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao, Academia Sinica, 128, Section 2, Academia Road, Taipei, 115, Nangang District, Taipei City,
Taiwan.
Email: michael@gate.sinica.edu.tw
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2018, Vol. 3(1) 61–80
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2057891117728341
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
Introduction
Student-led movements for social reform and democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong can both be
traced back to the 1960s, the decade that saw a global peak in student movements. In retrospect,
however, the student-led movements in these two societies differed in impetus and course. In
Taiwan, after martial law came to an end and the bans on political parties and newspaper publi-
cations were lifted and elections for a fully elected parliament were held, the resulting surge in
civic activism led to a social paradigm shift towards civil society, democracy, ethnic diversity,
Taiwan-centered national identity, and sustainable development (Hsiao et al., 2006). In this con-
text, students became an active social force in sustaining the political transition. Student-led
movements such as the 1990 Wild Lily Movement and the 2008 Wild Strawberries Movement
then played an indispensable role in promoting socio-political reforms in Taiwan (Fell, 2017).
In Hong Kong, the 1970s was the apex of the student-led movements, with the launching of
the 1971 Protect Diaoyutai Movement, the 1973 “Fight Corruption, Arrest Godber” Movement,
and others. Student organizations adopted the guiding principles of “anti-capitalism” and “anti-
colonialism”, bringing about an upsurge of nationalism. Later, with the fall of the “Gang of
Four” in China, many students lost their spiritual pillar and then their fervor to reform local
society. Recent social events in which students have participated, for example the opposition to
the high-speed rail project and other development projects, cannot be characterized as student-
led movements because “their actions are not campus centered with student participants” (Hong
Kong Economic Journal Forum, 2012).
Students in Taiwan and Hong Kong each led a social movement in 2014 that not only garnered
popular support and international attention, but also demonstrated the power of civil disobedience
(Jones, 2017). Although people from all walks of life participated in Taiwan’s Sunflower Move-
ment and Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement, these movements can be classified as student-led
movements when judged by the following criteria: student organizations promoted or led the core
events in the movement, and young people (mostly students) were the major participants.
The Sunflower Movement lasted for 24 days, from March 18 to April 10, 2014. The majority of
the core participants were university students who were protesting the ruling party’s breaking of its
promise to condu ct a clause-by-cla use review of a land mark trade agreeme nt with mainland Ch ina,
viewing it as a violation of democratic processes. Many popular and active middle class-based civic
organizations also became deeply involved in the protests, and supported and protected the students
who were occupying the Legislative Yuan (Hsiao, 2016: 507). Although the movement focused on
economic issues, it in fact reflected discontent with local and cross-straits political developments.
The students demanded the consolidation of democratic processes in the Taiwan parliament.
In Hong Kong, the Umbrella Movement, also known as the Occupy Movement, lasted for 79
days, from September 26 to December 15, 2014, with students also comprising the majority of
participants. Young people occupied main roads in key areas in opposition to the Chief Executive
election framework stipulated by the central government in Beijing, commonly known as the
“August 31st Decision” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s
Republic of China, 2014). The focus of the movement was the political conflict betwe en the
governments in Beijing and Hong Kong and the supporters of the democracy movement. Students
demanded a democratic devolution from an authoritarian regime. The Sunflower Movement could
be viewed as “successful”, because the protesters had achieved the demands that they had put
forward at the start of their occupation, while the Umbrella Movement was doomed to “failure”
(Chan, 2014: 578).
62 Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 3(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial