Since demonstrators took to the streets following the March 20 election, media commentaries have tried to categorize the protesters, while, at the same time, political figures have employed the media to carry out their political propaganda and manipulate events to their advantage.
The protesters on Ketagalan Boulevard have been described as rational, non-violent and middle class by the media. Such categorizations may have two purposes. First, the media are attempting to cast a bad light on the image of protesters mobilized by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) during the tangwai (outside the party) period and to justify the moral legitimacy of this demonstration. Second, the media mean well by praising the demonstrators so that they may make the street movement develop in a positive direction, as the media have wished for all along.
Yet these efforts proved futile on the night of April 3 when the protesters started to act irrationally, just like their former counterparts, by attacking the police. It would be useless to hold that these people did not represent the majority of the protesters.
Street protesters are all the same. From the tangwai period to today, they are all dissatisfied people. The causes for their dissatisfaction may vary but street demonstrations work as an outlet for their dissatisfaction. It is unlikely that every demonstrator would behave rationally and take to the streets with a noble motive.
The anti-globalization protest in Seattle, for example, was violent as well as significant for progress. This is the nature of mass action.
People's power can be either constructive or destructive. It is not enough to simply ask them to be calm and exercise self-control.
It is more important for the leaders of the movement, intellectuals and the public to provide mechanisms with which to alter the direction in which the movement is heading than it is for them to categorize the movement.
Protesters are a bunch of dissatisfied and anxious people asking for specific answers. However, leaders are the ones that have visions, insight and abilities that surpass those of ordinary people. This is what makes them leaders. If they are unable to direct anger in a direction conducive to a positive historic development but instead only chime in with the crowds, they fail in their social and political responsibility.
Similarly, if intellectuals and the elite only blindly and subjectively wish the crowds to behave in a certain way without offering them mechanisms to realize their expectations, it becomes nothing but a placebo for putting their social conscience at ease.
The even lower kind of politicians are those who dare not lead the masses, nor answer the protesters, but manipulate them for their own political ends. This, unfortunately, is what we have seen in the recent development of demonstrations.
The pan-blue politicians claimed that they did not mobilize these demonstrators so they did not need to take care of them. To one's surprise, the Taipei City Government and the Ministry of the Interior in this incident thought it appropriate to criticize each other in press conferences. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
At this point, Interior Minister Yu Cheng-hsien's (
Of course, nobody would be naive enough to think that Yu really wanted to help Ma disperse the crowds. He did so simply to force Ma to state clearly his attitude towards the demonstration.
Ma's performance in this demonstration is not as good as it was four years ago. After all, who would participate in a protest as a campaign chief during the day and suppress the same protest as a mayor at night? What he did was no different from inciting the crowds during the day and trying to calm them down at night. It may make legal sense, but he is a total loser as far as his political logic is concerned.
The DPP's intention to embarrass Ma could not be more obvious in Yu's rough handling of the situation. Faced with an unknown crisis during the mass action, the political elite still feel the need to censure and blame each other. If their actions were not for their personal political interests, I do not know what they could have been for.
If the politicians continue to manipulate the protesters with the narrow mindset of political struggles, maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy could come true. That is, these protesters will become truly self-motivated crowds, a social force that cannot be controlled by anybody.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath