It has been almost one year since the Sunflower movement began on March 18 last year. The movement has spawned numerous viewpoints and analyses regarding its significance and influence. These discussions are certain to continue for some time.
Among the many aspects of the Sunflower movement up for debate, one question frequently raised is: Who was the chief architect of the movement? To explore this issue, most lines of inquiry center on how the Sunflower movement was planned, organized and carried out. However, a more meaningful and perceptive approach is: Who lit the flame that kindled the movement?
The most straightforward answer is, of course, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠). Had he not attempted to ram the cross-strait service trade agreement through the legislature in 30 seconds, the Sunflower movement activists would never have occupied the legislative chamber. So, Chang surely played a very important role in the genesis of the movement.
However, from the perspective of the nation’s socioeconomic elite, there is no doubt that Chang was merely a puppet, while his controller watched from behind the scenes, pulling the strings.
This puppeteer initiated the political disruption of September 2013 in order to gain complete control of the legislature, with the aim of forcing through the cross-strait service trade agreement and furthering China’s cross-strait unification agenda.
To achieve these goals, the puppeteer relentlessly overrode the basic principles of constitutional democracy, prevented the legislature from fulfilling its function of counterbalancing the executive branch and instructed KMT legislators to support Chang when he unilaterally declared the cross-strait service trade agreement had passed the legislature, even though it had not been subjected to the proper review.
This chief architect, the puppeteer in question, is none other than President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Ma’s attempt to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) failed and Ma resigned as KMT chairman because of the party’s rout in the Nov. 29 nine-in-one elections last year.
However, Ma retains his hold over the nation’s executive power. Meanwhile, not only does his puppet in the legislature, Chang, still hold the position of Internal Administration Committee convener in the legislature, but Chang’s cronies — the KMT legislators who assisted Chang in violating the Constitution — also enjoy a majority in the legislature, and continue to obstruct the much anticipated establishment of the cross-strait agreement oversight mechanism and refuse to respond to proposals for constitutional reform.
These people have yet to take any responsibility or pay any price for what they have done; justice has yet to be served. Although this is frustrating, glimpses of hope are evident in the Taiwanese struggle for true representative democracy.
Academia Sinica research fellow Wu Nai-teh (吳乃德) said in his book One Hundred Years of Pursuit (百年追求) that when looking into the impetus for democratization, most academics usually focus on the “common structural elements,” but neglect “a person’s will and action.”
He also said that “if a society believes a person’s free will is incapable of effecting historical changes, the society becomes morally apathetic and its ability to exercise moral judgement and volition is paralyzed. The public might even lose the will to strive for a better society.”
Fortunately, in the course of the development of Taiwanese democratic movements, we continue to see admirable intentions and actions, while progressive values have also continued to gain traction.
These actions have not only put a stop to the inequities of Ma and and his cronies, but also encourage the hope that Taiwan might be able to achieve true democracy.
These achievements are not only due to the work of activists, but, more importantly, to the passionate activities of many unsung heroes from all walks of life. The support of these heroes led to the success of the Sunflower movement, and these voices are providing the real momentum to the pursuit of true democracy in Taiwan.
Huang Kuo-chang is an Academia Sinica researcher.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
RSS