On Oct. 19, the Taipei District Court sentenced "rice bomber" Yang Ju-men (楊儒門) to seven-and-a-half years in prison for placing homemade bombs in many public places to protest against the government's policy on rice imports.
The heavy punishment was not a surprise, but it caused much controversy in Taiwan.
There were protests in front of the court on the day sentence was passed, and some legislators launched a petition to call on President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to grant Yang a special pardon.
Yang's supporters believe that he was speaking for Taiwan's farmers, and was a hero who resisted the oppression of capitalism.
Therefore, in their eyes, the ruling was an example of collusion between government and business against them.
By this logic, Yang was a victim of a ridiculous political system, and a "prisoner of conscience." Affected by globalization, farmers are undoubtedly facing a more and more difficult situation, while numerous variables are influencing their most basic right to survive.
We cannot deny the problem. Nor can we ignore it.
Still, viewed from a different angle, can Yang's method of placing bombs to challenge the system really focus people's attention on the problem?
The popular documentary film Let It Be (無米樂) -- the story of Taiwan's rice farmers struggling in the face of hardship -- perhaps had a even greater impact on the public.
It also allows those who are unfamiliar with or have forgotten about rural villages and people to renew their humility, respect, and affection for this land.
As for the rice bomber, he may have aroused the passion of idealists eager to protect farmers, but he has also frightened many others.
If we want to educate the next generation to respect the land, to teach them the traditional spirit of "every single grain is the fruit" of farmers' hard work, I believe that examples such as that movie can create a space for positive thinking, while Yang's negative behavior will only cause more problems.
Besides, we have to know that Yang was given a severe sentence not because he protested on behalf of the public and fellow townspeople from Changhua County, but because he endangered innocent people's lives.
Since the rice bomber incident, there has been an increase in the number of anonymous, indiscriminate attacks in Taiwan.
Take the recent damage to train tracks directed against the Taiwan Railway Administration. This may be seen as a protest against the railway company's corruption, but in fact, innocent passengers completely unrelated to the issue were injured.
From this perspective, Yang may have opened a Pandora's box in Taiwan.
In pursuing justice, we must not lose our focus. Nor should terrorist methods be pursued.
It is hoped that those who care for Taiwan's farmers, and those with ideals of social justice can reconsider their methods of pursuing their goals.
The lawmakers who launched the petition to save Yang should use their time to find ways of protecting farmers' rights and improving their lives -- instead of launching a petition to catch the media's attention and attract votes.
The people of Taiwan are already sick of seeing them holding press conferences or condemning and pushing one another everyday.
Teddy Chen is a research assistant in the Institute of History and Philology at the Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS