Debunk the Myth of the Sunflower Student Movement: Allow the New Generation to Be Heard

Debunk the Myth of the Sunflower Student Movement: Allow the New Generation to Be Heard
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2014

Executive Summary: Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.

Full Text Below:

Once his record of sexual molestation surfaced, Chen Wei-ting announced his withdrawal from the Miaoli legislative election. This was lamentable not because it shattered Chen Wei-ting's image. It was lamentable because it tarnished the halo of the Sunflower Student Movement. It may even weaken the enthusiasm young people have shown for politics. The public must use this opportunity to re-examine the spirit of the Sunflower Student Movement. Perhaps it is not too late.

Chen Wei-ting's record as a serial sex offender will tarnish the image of the Sunflower Student Movement. Why? Because his halo shone too brightly before. He became an icon of the student movement. During social movements, the media often focuses on a small number of leaders. This makes it easier for them to frame the issues. But it also sidetracks the issues. Have Chen Wei-ting's sexual offenses tarnished the Sunflower Student Movement's halo? If they have, were we right to equate Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting with the student movement as a whole?

We must first dissociate student movement leaders from the student movement itself. We must clear away the smoke. Only then will we be able to see the true nature of the Sunflower Student Movement. Put simply, the Sunflower Student Movement actually consisted of three different layers. At the very core was the group that occupied the legislative chambers itself. Basically they were pro-green, anti-Ma students. Their political coloration however was overshadowed by their status as students. The second layer was those who waited outside the Legislative Yuan. They were youth who responded to the "anti-STA" and "anti-China" clarion calls. The third and outermost layer consisted of those who responded to the call for a public demonstration on Ketegelan Road on March 30. Their participation reflected dissatisfaction with the status quo. They were a new generation that demanded sound reforms. Each of these three layers was different. But they were incorrectly equate with one another.

In other words, the Sunflower Student Movement as a whole is anxious about the future of the younger generation. It is worried about Taiwan's stagnation. It is worried about a powerful Mainland China. It is angry because its generation has been deprived of its birthright. It doubts the Ma government's ability to protect Taiwan's interests. Amidst the chaos, calls for generational justice issued by the outermost layer of the student movement were lost. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were the only ones on stage and enjoying the spotlight. When time came to reap real world political benefits, the green camp was only too happy to partake. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant was sealed. The STA was frozen. The nine in one elections were manna from heaven. Wave upon wave of benefits fell into the green camp's lap.

The Sunflower Student Movement was too hastily deified. As a result its downfall was a case of “easy come, easy go.” In fact, another group organized a "da cang hua” (large intestine) forum. Their motive was to break the Sunflower Student Movement's monopoly on the movement agenda, and the deification of Lin Fei-fan (sail god) and Chen Yen-ting (yen god). But they were ants attacking an elephant. Furthermore, female protestors at the sit-in even gave Lin Fei-fan massages. This revealed the classism, sexism, and male Chauvinism in the student movement. All of these call for serious soul-searching. This was why when the Chen Wei-ting sexual molestation scandal came to light, he showed scant remorse. It is likely that he felt his unique status warranted even more special privileges.

Suppose Chen Wei-ting had been able to participate in the election? Suppose he was even elected to the legislature? Suppose he had used the opportunity to move off the streets and become part of the system? For the Sunflower Student Movement and other social movements, a successful candidacy could have provided powerful inspiration. It could have shown them they can reform the system from within. Alas, Chen Wei-ting's egregious record of sex offenses could not be ignored. He showed little if any remorse. For one, he waited until two days before the DPP nomination before copping to to sex offenses. He knew the truth had to come out, so he "vaccinated" himself against it in advance. Such devious behavior shows that he is hardly the naive idealist he is imagined to be. For another, even his admission was selective in nature. Earlier sex offenses soon came to light, revealing his deceit.

Chen Wei-ting's declaration of withdrawal was long-winded and full of hot air. One could see how he was struggling to cover all bases. He used a lot of pretty words. But he had already lost all credibility. His words had already lost their power to impress. Step back and think about it. A young student shouted slogans, threw shoes, and delivered speeches. He swiftly became a celebrity and a political star. But the flame that burns twice as bright, lasts half as long. He turned out to be a flash in the pan. His rise to fame was swift. His fall from grace was even swifter. The standards one applies to others, are also the standards that others will apply to oneself. This was Chen Wei-ting's inescapable fate.

Once Chen Wei-ting withdrew from the election, rumors emerged that the Miaoli DPP candidate wuold be DPP Youth Director Fu Wei-tse. Fu Wei-tse was Chen Wei-ting's predecessor at National Tsing Hua University Community Center. He too was one a key figure in the Sunflower Student Movement. He joined the DPP earlier. He also joined Tsai Ing-wen's Party Central Committee in mid-year. Therefore, he probably has more experience and maturity than Chen Wei-ting. Unfortunately, the "ting god" is dead. The DPP's self-interested attempt to bask in the glow of "civic groups" has been frustrated. Does the DPP really think it use the same strategy again?

Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.

去神化的太陽花 才能重現新世代原音
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.27 02:16 am

在連爆襲胸事件後，陳為廷宣布退出苗栗立委補選。此一事件令人惋惜的，其實不是陳為廷的形象，而是太陽花的光環因學運領袖個人的墜落而失色，乃至可能打擊方興未艾的青年問政熱情。但趁著這樣的機會，重新檢視一下太陽花的精神，或許時猶未晚。

陳為廷的性騷擾慣犯紀錄，當然會損及太陽花學運的風光，因為他在那段時間被添加了太多光環，乃至成為學運的代表人物。在一場社會運動中，媒體焦點往往容易集中在少數領袖身上，這是為了取景方便，但有時難免偏失主題。也因此，如果覺得今天陳為廷的性騷擾行為破壞了太陽花的光環，那麼我們就必須問：當初大家認定林飛帆和陳為廷代表了整個學運是不是正確？

只有在解構「學運領袖等於學運」的等式後，大家才能撥開空氣中的浪漫風花，直視太陽花學運的本質。簡單地說，太陽花學運其實包含了三個不同的層次：在最核心的部分，也就是當初占據國會議場內部的一群，基本上是以「親綠」、「反馬」的學生為主，但他們的政治立場被學生身分所掩蓋；再往外一層，守在立法院外面的一群，則是呼應「反服貿」號召而來的「反中」青年；最外面一層，則是其間來來去去響應並參與三三○凱道示威的群眾，這反映的是對現狀不滿並要求改革的新世代聲音。這三層不同訴求，最後被混為一談了。

亦即，整個太陽花學運反映的是年輕世代對未來的焦慮，其中包括了對台灣停滯的不安，對中國強大的恐懼，對世代剝奪的憤怒，和對馬政府無力維護台灣利益的疑慮。然而，濃縮在學運的光影中，最外面這一層要求世代正義的呼聲卻模糊了，舞台上只剩下林飛帆和陳為廷兩個清晰身影；而落實在現實政治的場域裡，則演變成綠營的快樂收割，從核四封存、服貿卡關、到九合一選舉大勝，一波接一波。

當初太陽花的「造神」來得太容易，它的破滅也因此不顯得費力。事實上，當時有一批人另組「大腸花」論壇，目的就是要打破太陽花的「一言堂」現象以及「帆神」和「廷神」的雙人神話，結果卻如螞蟻撼象。此外，諸如女性成員在占領現場為林飛帆按摩服務等，也暴露出學運的「階級化」及「男性中心主義」等問題，卻未獲認真檢討。也因此，陳為廷性騷擾事件曝光，其態度卻不見太多悔意，恐怕也是認為自己的特殊光環值得享有更多特權吧！

持平而論，這次陳為廷若能參加補選並當選立委，其實是他從街頭抗議走向體制的一個轉進機會；對太陽花或其他社運人士而言，都是一種躍進式的啟發，可在體制內找到新的改革位置。遺憾的是，陳為廷的性騷擾紀錄畢竟多到不可忽略，而且他的態度亦不真誠：其一，他選在民進黨即將禮讓他參選的前兩天自曝「襲胸」，主要是自知將遭爆料而先「打預防針」，這樣精明老練的操作手法，證明他不似想像中清純；其二，他選擇性的自曝，馬上就被揭發出更早的性騷擾紀錄，說明他不誠實。

從陳為廷發表退選聲明時的長篇大論，可以看出他面面俱到，把話說得很漂亮；但既已失去誠信，其言詞也就失去打動人的力量。退一步想，我們也看到一個青年學生如何靠著嗆聲、叫罵、丟鞋和演說，急速成為新的社會英雄及政治明星；但新星的驟逝，也不過是幾日夜的事。造神的速度有多快，毀神的速度就有多快；用什麼樣的標準檢驗別人，也要受到同樣標準的檢驗。這是陳為廷無法遁逃的命運。

陳為廷退選後，民進黨的苗栗補選傳出要由民進黨青年部主任傅偉哲擔任備胎。傅偉哲是陳為廷的清大社會所學長，也是太陽花學運要角之一，他不僅早一步加入民進黨，更在年中加入了蔡英文的中央黨部團隊，因此政治歷練上應較陳為廷更成熟些。問題是，在「廷神」殞落後，民進黨企圖藉「公民團體」的光環自利的戰略，還能同樣得心應手嗎？

陳為廷若能沉潛一段時日，對他未必不是好事。對社會而言，能藉此重新思考「去神化」的太陽花，也許更能還原新世代的真實聲音。至於誰在剝削太陽花學運的果實，也就一目了然了。