Naysaying Social Movement Cannot Help Taiwan
United Daily News editorial
2014.05.05 02:46 am

The Economist magazine
observed that Taiwan's future "may well be decided in the streets."
Its implications were twofold.
One. It implied that the political system's decision-making power has increasingly weakened.
Two. It implied that street protests are not an effective means by which to lead a country.

The Economist's observations were not without grounds.
In an April 29 editorial, this newspaper
asked, "Will Taiwan be reduced to obeying the command of mobs in the streets?"
This expressed The Economist's concern over this phenomenon.
The Sunflower Student Movement
delayed the STA.
Perhaps that was due to unavoidable circumstances.
But Lin Yi-hsiung fasted to protest the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The ruling administration, under internal and external pressure, took it upon itself to cave in and "mothball" the plant
In effect, it turned a "Referendum on Whether to Halt Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant" into a more difficult to pass "Referendum on Whether to Restart Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant."
That said
the government is still unable to quell the controversy over the referendum law threshold.
The DPP continues its ongoing struggle.

The Ma administration policy made policy concession to the street protesters.
Was this really necessary?
Either way, it has done enormous damage to the image of public authority.
The government was unable to convert the masses on the streets.
It was unable to persuade its own officials that its decisions were sound.
It revealed that the government was cowardly and timid.
Even more seriously,
it is paying the price for undermining the rule of law. 
It sacrificed the will of the silent majority.
This is the most frustratingly aspect of all.
Over the past two years,
the Ma adminstration has repeatedly retreated in the face of street mobs.
The only thing it has gotten in return is shriking public authority.

The perverse phenomenon of "street mobs determining public policy" is now the norm on Taiwan. 
The opposition Green Camp parties bear considerable responsibility.
The Legislative Yuan is one of the important sectors of the government.
Yet the opposition Green Camp parties, who occupy over 40% of the seats in the legislature, have never seen themselves as members of the government,
They never attempt to contribute to the nation.
Instead, they constantly enage in obstructionism,
inciting divisions,,
obstructing the progress of the nation and society.
If not for 20 years of internal confrontation between Blue and Green,
how could Taiwan have declined
so precipitously, 
such that the new generation no longer holds out any hope for the future?
Taiwan's low growth, high unemployment,
flip-floppng policy decisions,
make any consensus difficult to achieve.
Was this really all the doing of President Ma alone?

When politics fails,
street movements emerge.
Protesters vent their dissatisfaction.
That is understandable.
It is also an important means of forcing the government to address problems.
But taking to the streets too often,
especially when one lacks a positive agenda,
becomes agitation merely for the sake of agitation,
They can never solve Taiwan's economic stagnation or ensure its future.
The reason is clear. 
Recent protests
have all flown banners in opposition to this, that, or the other.
They have all been to prevent the government from achieving its goals.
In fact,
The Ma Chiang government has not done enough.
This will only lead to greater government wheel-spinning.
It will lead to greater stagnation, making Taiwan ever weaker.

Frankly, today, the government is still talking horse " free economic demonstration zone "
Regain the year due to political turmoil in Taiwan and unable to do the "Asia-Pacific operations center " dream
In fact, more than 20 years has been adversely affected by time .
When the global earth-shaking changes have taken place ,
Mainland China will soon become the world's largest economy,
Spatial and temporal variability ,
Taiwan is able to stage a comeback ,
Obviously numerous questions .
However , if you do not promote the " free economic demonstration zone "
Taiwan still has many roads to choose from,
But it is a greater survival strategy.
This problem
DPP can provide any answer?
The answer is no.
Street demonstrations and mass student can point in any direction it?
We do not see any signs .
So, just victory in the Battle of antinuclear four of Lin Yi-hsiung ,
Threatened to appeal to the people to boycott legislation " free economic demonstration zone regulations " , the
If he re- roses ,
I ask, what his alternative is ?
What is Taiwan 's next ?

Observe the demands of the student movement of sunflowers ,
Interspersed with "anti- horse "
" Anti- China" , "anti- globalization "
"Anti- free trade" and other different levels of demand.
"Anti- Ma ", " anti- China" is easier to understand,
But how and "anti- globalization "
"Anti- free trade" equate
How Taiwan's pursuit of self-realization through these slogans
Is the most difficult ,
The most suspenseful part .
Will : Students and mentors the student movement have to meet the new generation of "little indeed fortunate " easy answer?
Students and people who had asked Xiang DPP answer?
If the counter- suit trade,
After four anti-nuclear ,
Masses continue anti- demonstration zone,
Anti- referendum law ,
Antinuclear a nuclear III
Take even the police, legislators ,
MRT and passers outlet ,
This makes Taiwan become better strange.

May wish to take a look at Ukraine.
People even months of street protests ,
Get rid of the president,
The results has led to greater foreign aggression and civil unrest ;
After losing the Crimea ,
Populations everywhere in Ukraine ,
People of different ethnic groups hate each other ,
Carnage . Street fashion movement is by no means democratic activities
When the " evil " to be awakened ,
Nobody had to pack ;
Taiwan 's streets ,
It seems there moving around .

Taiwan Shen malady are profound political, economic ,
This requires positive thinking solutions,
Not just to the streets to say "no ."
Google 翻譯企業版：譯者工具包網站翻譯工具全球商機搜尋器


  
網站總覽│會員∣繁體簡體∣RSS服務
  

只會說「不」的社運，對台灣並無助益
【聯合報╱社論】
  
2014.05.05 02:46 am


《經濟學人》雜誌評論，台灣的前途恐將演成「由街頭決定」時，其言下之意有二：一是政治體制的決策力將愈來愈弱，二是街頭抗議活動並非導引國家的有效力量。

《經濟學人》之言並非無的放矢，本報四月廿九日社論《台灣能淪落到聽命街頭群眾指揮？》，已表達了對此一現象的憂心。在太陽花學運中，服貿協議的審議遭到延擱，或許是形勢所逼不得不然；但在以林義雄禁食為核心的反核四運動中，執政者在內外壓力下主動作出「封存」的退讓，形同將「核四停建公投」變成了難上加難的「核四重啟公投」。而即使如此，政府仍無法平息《公投法》的門檻爭議，民進黨依然持續鏖戰。

馬政府在政策上對街頭示威者作出退讓，無論是必要或非必要，對公權力形象都造成極大損傷：顯示政府對外無力說服群眾，對內無力證明決策的理性與必要性，也暴露了政府的怯弱、怕事。更嚴重的，是付出了法治脫序的代價，犧牲了沉默大眾的意見，這才是最令人扼腕之處。近兩年，馬政府對街頭群眾一步步退讓，換得的只是公權力愈發萎縮。

進一步說，台灣政治演出「街頭領導決策」的倒錯現象，在野黨也要負很大的責任。立法院是整個政府的重要部門之一，但是，占了四成以上席次的在野黨卻從未將自己視為政府部門之一員，設法為國家貢獻心力；反而是無時無刻不在杯葛施政、製造分歧，阻撓國家社會進步。如果不是因為藍綠廿年的內耗對峙，台灣怎麼會江河日下，節節倒退，而至新世代看不到未來願景？台灣的低成長、高失業、決策反覆、共識難以凝聚，又豈是馬總統一手造成？

在政治無法正常運作下，街頭運動興起、抗議群眾宣洩不滿，當然是可以理解的事，這也是迫使政府正視問題的重要手段之一。但必須提醒的是，過於頻繁的街頭活動，尤其是缺乏積極訴求、只是一味以製造騷亂為目的示威，對於解決台灣目前的停滯及尋求未來的出路，其實都難有什麼實質助益。原因很清楚：近來的抗議行動，都是打著「反」的旗號，以阻止政府施為為目的；而事實上，在馬江政府已經缺乏作為空間的情況下，這只會愈發使政府機器陷於空轉，並導致台灣更陷於停滯和萎弱。

坦白說，今天馬政府還在談「自由經濟示範區」，重拾當年台灣因政治紛擾而未能如願的「亞太營運中心」夢想，其實已貽誤了廿多年的時光。當全球已發生翻天覆地的變化，中國大陸即將成為世界第一大經濟體，時空變異，台灣能否再捲土重來，顯然疑問重重。然而，如果不推動「自由經濟示範區」，台灣還有多少道路可以選擇，卻是一個更大的生存戰略問題。這個問題，民進黨能提供任何解答嗎？答案是否定的。街頭示威的學生和群眾能指出任何方向嗎？我們看不到任何跡象。那麼，剛剛在反核四之役大獲全勝的林義雄，揚言要號召群眾杯葛《自由經濟示範區條例》的立法，萬一他再度稱心如意，請問，他的替代方案是什麼？台灣的下一步又是什麼？

觀察太陽花學運的訴求，穿插著「反馬」、「抗中」、「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」等不同層次的訴求。「反馬」、「反中」是比較容易理解的部分，但這如何和「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」畫上等號，又如何透過這些口號追求台灣的自我實現，才是最難、最懸疑的部分。請問：學生和學運導師們有滿足新世代「小確幸」的便捷答案嗎？學生和群眾們又向民進黨追問過答案嗎？如果在反服貿、反核四之後，群眾繼續反示範區、反公投法、反核一到核三，甚至拿警察、立委、捷運和路人出氣，這能使台灣變得更好才怪。

不妨再看看烏克蘭。人民連數月的街頭抗議，趕走了總統，結果卻引來更大的外患與內亂；在失去克里米亞之後，烏克蘭境內烽煙四起，不同族裔的人民互相憎恨、殘殺。街頭運動絕不是民主的時髦活動，當「惡」被喚醒之後，沒人收拾得了；而台灣的街頭，卻似乎正朝那裡走去。

台灣政經皆沉痾甚深，這需要積極思考解決之道，而不只是上街說「不」。