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
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