In 1990, Taiwanese society was shaken by the magnificent Wild Lily Student Movement (
Looking at the current student movement at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial in Taipei, only a few students are participating. Some of the leading students in the campaign are members of the pan-blue camp. But they did not make clear their political status at the beginning in order to present to the public an idea of their "neutrality." Some of their statements were quite similar to those of the pan-blue camp after the presidential election. Who would believe that these protesters are not pro-blue?
In particular, one of the campaign conveners, Chen Cheng-feng (
Today, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) are unwilling to accept but can do nothing about the election failure. So they use the students as an "amulet" while initiating the hunger strike in order to fulfill Lien's wish of regaining power.
Only a small number of students have taken part in the demonstrations and not many teachers have showed their support for the students either. The scale of the campaign is much smaller than that of the Wild Lily campaign. The differences between the two student movements are vast.
In fact, what interests us is why some local media have run page after page of reports about the campaign.
Both the United Daily News and the China Times have done so, with relatively more praise and less criticism. The manipulation behind their reports is clear: Their purpose is to infuse the pan-blue camp with the spirit of the Wild Lily Student Movement. The question is: Is it really necessary to cause a sensation like this over such a tiny group of people? Besides, the United Daily News has always emphasized the "proportional principle." Why has it ignored its principle this time?
Do the pan-blue camp and the pro-blue media really think that they can destroy Taiwan by initiating a student movement like this? They are pitiful and pathetic.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,