Wouldn’t Lai Ching-te Have Issued Orders of Dispel Had He Confronted Sunflower Students’ Invasion of the Cabinet House?

 Wouldn’t Lai Ching-te Have Issued Orders of Dispel Had He Confronted Sunflower Students’ Invasion of the Cabinet House?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

December 21, 2018

 Translation of an Excerpt

The strongest forte of political figures in Taiwan is their aptness in one-sided rhetoric, while evading basic values; this is precisely the main reason why we have endless chaotic scenes in our democracy. Take the Sunflower incident as an example. Recently, there were still students employing a crashing and ramming approach by demanding Jiang Yi-huan, Premier at the time of the Sunflower Movement, who was delivering a lecture at National Taiwan University, to "beat it," denouncing him as a "murderous premier." To this, some condemned the students as "Red Guards," some criticized them for "harming freedom of speech," and some lauded the students as "courageous." Only the DPP, which benefited the most from the Sunflower incident, opted, however, for silence, evading making any comments. We would like to ask: If Lai Ching-te encountered an invasion of the Cabinet House, wouldn’t he issue orders to dispel them?

That year, the DPP, riding on the powerful wings of the Sunflower Movement, secured control of the government, of course, only singing praises for the student movement, having no intention to make any distinction between "legality" and "appropriateness." Ironically, Huang Kuo-chang, a legislator of the New Power Party (NPP) defended, with full force, the protesting students this time: he is seemingly unaware that Taiwan's democracy and rule of law are being hurt. Huang Kuo-chang is in fact another great beneficiary of the Sunflower Movement. He became NPP chairman and was elected to the Legislative Yuan, but over a dozen inciters during the occupation of the Cabinet House are still being entangled in the agony of prosecution on charges of “obstructing the exercise of public functions.” Huang Kuo-chang chose to stir up emotions on the side, keeping those excited to remain excited, and those with anxiety to remain with anxiety; after all, "plague on you the faithful followers, not on me the humble monk,” as the Chinese saying goes.

Let’s go back to the accountability on Jiang Yi-huah’s handling of the "incident of occupying the Cabinet House" in that year, as Premier, he ordered the protection of the executive building he led, what is wrong with that? Strictly speaking, both the Executive Yuan (Cabinet) and the Legislative Yuan are government offices, having constitutional seriousness, they should not be invaded at will, much less occupied.

The Sunflower Movement, which has received too much praise and connivance, after four and a half years of sedimentation, shouldn’t it stop and ponder on the boundaries of its own "rights" and "obligations"? And think about the relationship between "democracy" and "rule of law"? The DPP, which harvested the fruits of the Sunflower Movement, should also do soul-searching and ask itself: If Lai Ching-te should face a crowd crashing into the Cabinet House, wouldn’t he issue orders to dispel them?

Attachment : none