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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS