Sunflower Student Movement: Tale of a Green Frankenstein

Sunflower Student Movement: Tale of a Green Frankenstein
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 14, 2014

Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement has become a political asset and a political liability for the DPP. In the asset column: Hardcore Sunflower Student Movement members are a new generation of Taiwan independence elements who advocate a Closed Door Policy. As such, they have become an important bargaining chip in DPP realpolitik. In the liability column: This force appeared at a critical juncture, just when the DPP was embarking on reform. In fact, it has become a major obstacle in the DPP's path toward reform.

Full Text Below:

The novel "Frankenstein" and its film adaptations depict mad scientist Viktor Frankenstein in his laboratory struggling to create a "perfect man." Instead he created a runaway monster known as "Frankenstein's monster" and incited a riot.

The Sunflower Student Movement has become a political asset and a political liability for the DPP. In the asset column: Hardcore Sunflower Student Movement members are a new generation of Taiwan independence elements who advocate a Closed Door Policy. As such, they have become an important bargaining chip in DPP realpolitik. In the liability column: This force appeared at a critical juncture, just when the DPP was embarking on reform. In fact, it has become a major obstacle in the DPP's path toward reform.

The Sunflower Student Movement took place exactly six months ago. Now that the dust has settled, we may wish to reassemble some the pieces in this jigsaw puzzle. On the night of March 18, a number of important events took place. One. A group of green camp professional students assumed leadership of a number of social movements and protesters. Two. Taiwan independence elements organized and led the movement. Three. The Legislative Yuan underestimated the situation and failed to respond adequately. Four. DPP legislators monitored the doors. Five. Wang Jin-pyng forbade police to touch the legislators who were monitoring the doors. Six. The administration tripped over its own feet in all the confusion. The result was the occupation of the Legislative Yuan. But the occupation was not initially perceived as a "student movement." It was perceived as merely another green camp political incident.

Once the leaders occupied the Legislative Yuan premises they immediately spun their protest as part of a "student movement." Their main agenda was: One. They do not trust cross-Strait political exchanges. They guard against "China," i.e., Mainland China. They resist "China." They fear "China." They worry about globalization and liberalization. In short, they remain an integral part of the green axis. Two. They hope to inculcate a "deprived generation" political consciousness. For students late to the game this is especially compelling. It smacks of a "student wave" or "student movement." In the beginning, the occupiers' chief demand was to "review the STA line by line." But by the time the protests drew to a close, the demands had become "first legislate, then review," amend the referendum law, and convene a "Citizens Constitutional Conference." The occupiers' quickly changed their tune, and obstructed passage of STA and FEPZ Regulations. In other words, the occupiers' agenda changed from "review of the STA line by line" to forcing Taiwan to adopt the path of Taiwan independence, politically as well as economically. By this time, the green innards of the entire political struggle were clear for all to see.

The Sunflower Student Movement impacted campuses, students, the community, and the political scene. But its Taiwan independence and anti-globalization agenda was clear for all to see. This ensured that it would not become the ROC's strategy for national survival. In fact, these are all core DPP policies. The DPP knows it has failed to reform its cross-Strait policy path. Today the Sunflower Student Movement's inner party members have taken up the banner of Taiwan independence. But advocacy of Taiwan independence and opposition to globalization can never become the mainstream solution to Taiwan's survival.

Six months after the protests, the result has been just as predicted. The Sunflower Student Movement "stars" have not become standard bearers of the mainstream solution to Taiwan's survival. What they have become is stumbling blocks standing in the way of DPP cross-Strait policy reform. Some participants in the 1990 Wild Lily Student Movement are DPP supporters and followers. But Sunflower Student Movement leaders consider themselves DPP competitors. They have expressed solidarity with Hong Kong. They have visited the United States. They have established their own organization. They have proclaimed themselves the new standard bearers for Taiwan independence. Sunflower Student Movement inner circle leaders have affirmed their green political colors. They also consider themselves "new green" as opposed to "old green." Given current developments, the Sunflower Student Movement could become another green party allied with the DPP, such as the Taiwan Independence Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union. Anyone who imagines that the Sunflower Student Movement offers a new solution for Taiwan's survival acceptable to the mainstream, is sorely mistaken. Why? Because Taiwan independence is not new. It is old. Sunflower Student Movement inner circle leaders occupied the Legislative Yuan. Do they think their successful occupation means that young people or society as a whole endorses Taiwan independence, they are badly deluded. The Sunflower Student Movement had only one significant impact. It emerged as a competitor with the DPP for green camp standard bearer status. This has made DPP cross-Strait policy reform even more difficult.

In recent years, the DPP has boasted that that "Taiwan independence poll ratings continue to rise." The Sunflower Student Movement was even seen as evidence that "Taiwan independence has a new generation of supporters." But how many people in fact support Taiwan independence? Can Taiwan independence become a viable strategy for national survival? These are two different things. How does the DPP intend to perceive the Sunflower Student Movement's "belated Taiwan independence?" Is it an asset or a liability? That is the DPP's political dilemma.

The Sunflower Student Movement "celebrities" were either mentored by the DPP or have green camp pedigrees.  DPP "big shots" now realize they must forsake their Taiwan independence path. Meanwhile, the Sunflower Student Movement has become the new Taiwan independence standard bearer. A handful of Sunflower Student Movement leaders have hijacked the DPP. If they fail to change the Sunflower Student Movement, the DPP will not be able to undertake cross-Strait policy reform. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders are no longer vassals of the DPP. They have their own flag. Are they likely to yield to the DPP?

The Sunflower Student Movement is the result of long-term DPP indoctrination. Now however, it has become a massive barrier standing in the way of DPP policy reform. If the DPP cannot break through the Sunflower Student Movement barrier, it cannot meet the test of global challenges and cross-Strait policy. The stalled STA is a clear illustration.

The DPP must cope with its own creation, a Frankenstein's monster. Should it be glad or sad?



回看太陽花：綠色法蘭肯斯坦的故事
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.14 02:04 am

小說及電影《科學怪人》有一版本：瘋狂科學家法蘭肯斯坦想要在實驗室裡用盡辦法打造出一個「完美的人」，最後卻製造出一個作亂、失控的怪物，稱作「法蘭肯斯坦的怪物」。

太陽花事件已成為民進黨的政治資產與負債。說資產，是太陽花的核心分子是主張台獨鎖國的綠色新世代，成為民進黨現實政治博弈上的重要籌碼；說負債，是這股勢力在民進黨嘗試轉型的關鍵時刻登上舞台，其實也成為民進黨轉型的擋路巨石。

太陽花事件發生至今正好六個月，激盪的氛圍沉澱後，不妨回過頭來重組這一幅散亂的拼圖。三一八事發當晚的重要元素是：一、一群以社運及抗議為常業的綠色背景學生主導；二、獨派的衝組帶頭；三、輕估情勢的立院警衛配置及肆應；四、民進黨立委把門；五、王金平不准警察碰把門立委；六、當局的回應相互牽制及錯亂……。這些元素造成了占領立院的情勢，但當時尚未視其為「學運」，而以為是又一次的綠色街頭政治事件。

帶頭者占領立院議場後，立即有了「學運」的形式。其主要號召是：一、對兩岸政務的不信任，防中、抗中、恐中及對全球化開放路線的憂慮，這仍是一條綠色軸線。二、激發「世代剝奪」的思考，這對後來進入事件的學生更具挑唆力，遂有了「學潮」或「學運」的態勢。一開始，占領行動的主訴求是：「逐條審議服貿協議」，但至事情收尾時，訴求已變成「先立法／後審查」、補正公投法、召開公民憲政會議，並又迅速變成全力杯葛服貿協議及自由經濟示範區條例。也就是說，事件主軸已由「逐條審查服貿協議」，轉變為逼迫台灣採行台獨的政經路線。至此，整個事件又回復其骨子裡的綠色政治鬥爭的面貌。

太陽花事件雖對校園、學生及社會與政局發生了一定的衝擊，但可以確定的是，其暴露的台獨立場及反全球化之主張，絕無可能成為救台灣的國家生存戰略。事實上，這些皆是民進黨的核心政策，但民進黨已自知失敗而在尋求轉型之道，如今即使換成了太陽花核心圈人物來持旗，亦無可能使台獨及反全球化成為救台灣的主流方案。

在事件發生六個月後，已可預言：太陽花的鋒頭核心圈不可能成為救台主流方案的擎旗者，卻儼然成了民進黨兩岸政策轉型的擋路巨石。一九九○年野百合學運的一些參與者，是民進黨的支持者與追隨者；但太陽花檯面人物卻是以民進黨的引領者及競爭者自居。這段時間，他們聲援香港、訪問美國，已然是另樹一幟，自命為台獨路線的新旗手。太陽花核心圈不但回復了綠色的本貌，而且自認是有別於老綠的新綠，看如今之發展，也可能如建國黨、台聯黨一般成為民進黨的綠色友黨。因而，若認為太陽花事件可以帶出新的救台主流方案，那是誤解，因為台獨是舊案不是新案；太陽花核心人物若將占領立法院視為台獨路線受到青年或社會的背書，這將是十分離譜的自我感覺良好。其實，太陽花事件留下的最重大的政治效應卻是：民進黨在綠營的旗手地位出現了新的競爭者，已使民進黨的兩岸政策轉型工程更形進退維谷。

民進黨近年頗以「民調的台獨支持率不斷上升」為榮，更認為太陽花事件證實了「台獨世代交替」的現象，以此傲人。但是，就理智上說，有多少人支持台獨，與台獨是否能成為可行的國家生存戰略，卻是兩回事。因而，民進黨究竟應將太陽花這股「遲來的台獨」視為資產或負債，誠為一政治弔詭。

太陽花鋒頭人物皆直接出自民進黨的培育或有綠色淵源，但當民進黨內的「大人們」警覺台獨路線必須調整之時，太陽花卻已成了台獨鎖國的新旗手。民進黨如今已被少數太陽花領袖挾持，若不改變太陽花，民進黨走不出轉型之路；但太陽花已不再是民進黨的附庸而有了自己的旗幟，豈會輕易讓路給民進黨？

太陽花的出現是民進黨長期洗腦的成果，但如今太陽花已成了民進黨轉型的巨大障礙。民進黨若衝不過太陽花這一關，就沒有能力迎對兩岸及全球化難題的考驗，服貿協議卡住即是共見的例證。

民進黨這位法蘭肯斯坦，面對自己的作品，是該喜悅或憂愁？