Sunflower reflections
The students have vacated the Legislative Yuan and headed back to class to wide acclaim for having taken the government to task for its apparent bungled handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement. This is the time not only for clean-up, but for sobering societal self-reflection.
As a foreign observer, I have a few questions. Forgive me if the answers have been clearly stated already.
First, does Taiwan, like other democracies, put the rule of law first? Were not President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawfully elected to run the country? Did they not, by legal authority, create and present the agreement for fair discussion? Notwithstanding any perception of trickery or deception, did they actually break any laws by passing the agreement onto the next phase after 30 seconds?
If indeed they broke no laws, or could not be constrained by existing laws, then this process followed the rule of law, no matter how disagreeable or unseemly this may be to a number of citizens.
The passage of the pact, no matter how objectionable, displeasing, or unwise its contents, needs to be respected, followed and only challenged by an equal application of the law and legal procedure (assuming we still view the rule of law as paramount) — which may include a judicial review or waiting until the next election and voting out the ruling party, amending or repealing the offending agreement and putting in the appropriate procedural safeguards so that this does not happen again.
On the contrary, as laudable as the Sunflower movement was in its earnest pursuit of justice and transparency, did the occupation of the Legislative Yuan not violate the rule of law? By not lawfully evicting the protesters from the Legislative Yuan, and instead caving in to their demands under pressure from an unlawful act, did Ma and the KMT not also seriously undermine the rule of law?
If laws are disrespected willy-nilly, do not we then return to the law of the jungle where personal feelings, fears and sentiment dominate? Would the students not have learned a better lesson about democracy and the rule of law had they understood that Taiwanese need to take responsibility for those they elect and the consequences of voting in a leadership that may take the country in a different direction (lawfully) than they might want?
Rather than point the finger at corrupt or devious politicians, should the citizenry of any society not take responsibility for safeguarding the rule of law and democracy by having their elected constituents carefully craft the appropriate laws and procedures?
I wonder in this regard whether the Sunflower movement, despite its pleasing and inspiring aspects, was too much too late and instead of creating a new way forward, has taken respect for the Taiwanese democratic system and the rule of law in a backward direction.
I take no political stance on this matter, but invite the academics and experts among your readership to help educate me and others by considering these questions.
Gerry Johnson
Wugu, New Taipei City
At times during my nearly two decades in Taiwan, I have despaired for the state of democracy. None of the three democratically elected presidents have been true friends of democracy.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) engaged in gangsterism, vote-buying and general election fraud. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is imprisoned for embezzlement. Worse, he enacted laws to hobble the Legislative Yuan’s power, the institution meant to directly represent the people’s voice. President Ma has tried to govern as a warlord, with Taiwan as his fiefdom. In his effort to deal with China from a position of parity, dictator to dictator, he has ridden roughshod over Taiwan’s embryonic democratic institutions.
In reality, Taiwanese elect a new dictator every four years and the necessary democratic checks and balances either never existed or have been bypassed.
Into this bleak landscape an unexpected savior arrived — the Strawberry Generation. Denigrated as apathetic and weak-willed, the Sunflower movement has allowed them to show the steel in their spines. As the first generation of Taiwanese born into democracy, they have a firm understanding of its ideals. They are untainted by fears born from repression during the Martial Law era which ran from 1949 to 1987 and the White Terror.
Criticisms of the Sunflower movement have given telling insights into the psyches of those that came of age during that era. Most express deep concern over the need to uphold “public order.” This is a catchphrase of totalitarianism more suited to China than Taiwan.
The first concern of a democratic country is not public order, but insuring the voices of its citizens are heard and incorporated into government policy. Democracy is an inherently messy and unseemly process.
I also sometimes hear the more pedestrian complaint: “Why do we have to listen to the students?” Because Taiwan is a democracy, the students are stakeholders in this society and have a democratic right to express their concerns.
Or, Ma’s own plea: “Is this really the type of democracy we want for Taiwan?” Presumably he dislikes democracy if it includes freedom of speech, the right of assembly or the chance elected leaders might find themselves held accountable by the very people that elected them.
The past three weeks have given me renewed hope. This new generation has proven itself courageous enough to insist that the nation’s leaders respect the democratic process.
To quote former US president Thomas Jefferson: “The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.” It is nice to know Taiwan now has a generation up to the task.
Thank you.
Darren Haughn
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95