Tue, Apr 04, 2017 page8

• EDITORIAL: DPP and the Sunflower legacy

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  With a commemorative event last month marking the three-year anniversary of the Sunflower movement and the decision on Friday by the Taipei District Court that the movement’s leaders were not guilty of inciting others to commit a crime, obstructing official business or any related crime, Taiwanese were again reminded of the participants in the student-led protests’ remarkably adamant and uncompromising attitude toward upholding democratic values and social justice.

  The movement against the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s opaque handling of a proposed cross-strait service trade agreement not only forced the administration to readjust its attitudes toward cross-strait affairs and increased social and political awareness among Taiwanese — particularly young people — but also helped alter the nation’s political map, leading to the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) victories in both the legislative and presidential elections last year.

  Three years have passed since the Sunflower movement erupted, but in view of the performance of the DPP administration and its legislative caucus, many are wondering whether the former opposition party which three years ago echoed the calls of the Sunflower movement is now wavering in its stance and shy of taking bold steps to manifest Taiwan’s standing as a sovereign and independent nation.

  The DPP has previously stressed that it “is not the KMT and will not become the KMT.” Both President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Premier Lin Chuan (林全) have also pledged that the DPP government would safeguard Taiwan’s national interests and uphold its dignity, all the while noting the importance of a proposed bill on monitoring cross-strait agreements.

  However, their actions suggest a different story.

  In 2014, the then-DPP caucus’ proposed bill on monitoring cross-strait agreements was titled “Regulations for Handling Agreements Between Taiwan and China” (台灣與中國締結協議監督處理條例), but in its latest version, the words “Taiwan” and “China” have been changed to the “Taiwan area” and the “Mainland area.”

  While the DPP caucus explained that the change was made in accordance with the Constitution, the truth is that such a change degrades Taiwan’s national sovereignty and is essentially no different from the KMT’s “one country, two areas” concept.

  If the DPP-controlled legislature is to eventually pass the caucus’ version, it would fall right into the “one China” trap, as legislation bearing such a name would be tantamount to proclaiming to the world that Taiwan’s government also harbors the stance that Taiwan is part of China — playing right into Beijing’s hands by providing it with one more munition for promoting its “one China” principle among members of the international community.

  Considering the Tsai administration’s other decisions including using “Chinese Taipei” rather than “Taiwan” at the WHO’s World Health Assembly in May last year, not lobbying for UN membership and public comments from Cabinet ministers that failed to reinforce the nation’s sovereignty, Tsai has so far proven to be no different from her predecessor, who had long been criticized for his lack of determination to uphold the nation’s interests and dignity.

  Tsai and her party, who benefited from the Sunflower movement three years ago, should engage in some soul-searching to better understand the meaning of the Sunflower movement and how they can back their words with concrete action to continue the movement’s ideals.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    First person arrested as Danjiang Bridge opens

  • 2

    TSMC shares stumble on report, but losses minor

  • 3

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park

  • 4

    TSMC expects global chip revenue to hit US$1.5tn

  • 5

    Trump weighs Taiwan arms package