For the past few weeks I have been been watching the scenes of the student protest movement unfold on my television, filled with a sense of frustration and helplessness. My frustration comes not only from the unreasonable conduct of the governing party, it is also born of the opposition party’s inability to respond to the situation.
The same party that led Taiwan onto the path of democratic reform now seems hobbled and rudderless. My fear is that, as it stands, it is ill-equipped to deal with the challenges that Taiwan will face in the future.
There are those who, like me, have never been involved in a mass movement before, but feel there are many things that adults, and in particular the opposition, can still do.
For example, the students’ courage and resolve has obliged the governing party to return the cross-strait service trade pact to a clause-by-clause review and to vote on it.
However, as everyone who cares about the pact — thanks to the students — is aware, this gesture by the governing party does not really constitute a genuine compromise. The party enjoys a majority in the legislature, and so the agreement is likely to pass the review unchanged. Unless they conduct a thorough and substantive review of each and every line of the service trade agreement, and do not simply take it to the vote, it will be impossible to root out or amend the clauses that contain the details — where, don’t forget, the devil resides — about which everyone is so concerned.
Hardly any of the political affairs shows on television have addressed the issue of how to proceed with the review, or how to set a bottom line — with, for example, a referendum — before the agreement is put to a show of hands. Neither have they subjected this issue to a clear and comprehensive discussion.
While it would have been welcome for TV shows to discuss the issue, it is absolutely incumbent upon the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — as the main opposition and the last line of defense in the legislative review — and its legislators to address it. All we saw, however, were DPP figures posted at the Legislative Yuan like so many guardian deities protecting the student protesters. Their show of rudderless solidarity hardly inspired confidence.
With the proposal “legislate first, review later,” the first order of importance is given to national security — regarding potential data breaches involving finance and all that entails; official government data; information regarding engineering at the national level; personal data such as medical records and any other information that exists in the public domain. Clearly, we must implement a rigorous oversight mechanism and maintain our bottom line when it comes to national security. We cannot, as Ma would have us do, first implement a law and then, several years down the line, revisit and revise it.
For these regulations governing oversight for cross-strait agreements, the DPP must not only be clear where it stands, it must also explain its stance to the people of the nation who are concerned about the issue.
The challenge for the DPP now is that the student movement has created an unprecedented amount of room for public discourse. Never before have there been so many people engaged in public debate and rarely before has so much information been passed around, or read, as with this issue.
What exactly is the DPP nowadays anyway? Is it a party that will safeguard Taiwan’s values and democracy, or is it just an election machine, lying around and hoping to reap the fruits of green electoral support? It is not enough for the party leadership to harp on about how back in the day it proposed a bill on monitoring cross-strait negotiations that was blocked by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) 108 times. This attitude falls far short of expectations, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of what is happening now.
There have been many ways in which DPP conduct during these student demonstrations has been troubling. In it’s handling of the matter and reaction to the pressure and ministrations of the ruling party (for example, the international press conferences and the announcements it has made) the opposition party has shown precious little authority or ability to react to developments. They have not called anything resembling a press conference.
Compared with the students, who have been organized, nimble and focused, the opposition have been found terribly wanting.
Perhaps the DPP is most concerned about the KMT branding it as the force orchestrating the protests behind the scenes, but when the very values the students are trying to protect coincide so well with the ideals the party purports to hold, the party should, regardless of whether the occupiers are rejecting the involvement of political parties, still have brought to bear its own policies and powers, demonstrating that it would undertake to proceed with the important task of reviewing the pact and legislating regulations governing the oversight of cross-strait agreements.
If the DPP really wanted to protect the students, this would have been a practical way to have done so, and if it wants to get back into power, this would have been the perfect opportunity for it to demonstrate its credentials and ability.
A capable governing party and opposition are essential for a healthy, robust society. The success of the Sunflower movement reflects the failings of both the government and the opposition. When it comes to Taiwan’s future, this is the most worrying and disconcerting aspect of the whole affair.
Lin Chang-shou is a member of the Academia Sinica and a professor in the Department of Mathematics at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS