第三社會成員 周奕成
2007/07/05 載於蘋果日報
在政治人物不熟悉的網路世界裡，成千上萬的新世代台灣愛國者正進行著一場沉默的戰爭。沒有砲火聲震天，只有滑鼠鍵喀哩喀哩和電腦嗡嗡響著。
這是點點點的比賽（www.clickclickclick.com），此時已進行到第八戰。點點點的比賽其實是蠻無厘頭的遊戲。全世界的網友到這個網站上不停地敲擊滑鼠鍵，把點擊數累積到國家的總數裡。由於網站發布各國排名，激起了某幾個國家網友的愛國心，於是激烈的競爭就啟動了。
台灣網友從第四戰起開始總動員，在第五戰衝到第三名，到第六戰衝到第二名，在第七戰終於獲得冠軍。台灣有這樣的成績，是「十萬青年十萬軍」的網路「鄉民」互相號召，用徒手肉搏（手點滑鼠點擊）和高科技武器（持續開發的連點程式）對「敵」作戰的結果。
這整個的網路愛國行動，只能用「不可思議」來形容。不計其數的網友投入這網路的戰爭，在這幾場戰事裡，年輕網友們創作了許多短片與卡通圖畫來鼓舞士氣（www35.atwiki.jp/clicktaiwan）。
紅藍白國旗註明台灣
這些卡通圖畫，絕大部分是把國家擬人化為美少女，來表現國家之間的競爭。吸引我注意的是，代表台灣的美少女，所穿著的竟然都是紅藍白的國旗裝！而每一幅青天白日滿地紅國旗，卻都註明為TAIWAN（而不是ROC）！
看這群源源不絕、開往點點點戰場上的青年志願軍！為了國家的名聲被傳揚，他們的鬥志多高昂！為了讓台灣被看見，他們的情感多熱烈！他們是台灣的愛國者，毫無疑問！他們所表現的是虛擬世界裡的國族主義情感，無比真實！
然而，在他們的心目中，台灣的象徵竟然是中華民國的紅藍白國旗？這對於在台灣內部熱中內鬥的、獨佔愛台灣資格的「第一社會」好戰派（所謂深綠）及認為愛台灣就是消滅中華民國的「第二社會」死硬派（所謂深藍），難道不是一件很奇怪的事嗎？愛台灣的人，用中華民國的旗幟在對外宣揚？把青天白日滿地紅推向國際（網路世界）的人，卻不是統派？
事實上，這就是一種新的台灣認同！愛國者點點點所說明的，就是一種新的、包容的、以現狀為基礎的台灣認同！在新的台灣認同裡，我們每個人天經地義地都是台灣人！不必辯論，不必驗證，台灣人就是台灣人，當然不等同於對岸的中國人！在新的台灣認同裡，現行體制被肯認，紅藍白國旗被發揚，沒有哪一段歷史要被消去，沒有哪一種人要被排除，我們全部人都屬於這個共同體！
新世代的台灣愛國者，已經展現了務實、包容、開闊、有自信、有行動力的新台灣認同、新的台灣愛國主義。認識現狀、認識歷史；接受他人、肯定自我；包容團結、一致對外。如同網友所說：「愛台灣，簡單點！」
新的台灣認同是台灣的新主流，也將改變台灣的認同政治，打破台灣戰後歷史兩個社會分立的狀態。「第一社會」與「第二社會」的對抗，亦即所謂的「民主內戰」，將被興起的「第三社會」所遏止。新的、包容的、以現狀為基礎的台灣認同，就是「第三社會」的國家認同！
2007年6月11日 星期一
外交出路不是追求數字
第三社會成員 林致真
2007/06/09 載於蘋果日報
哥斯大黎加與我斷交後，台灣再度失去了一個重要的盟邦。毫無意外地，媒體關注的焦點落在我國所剩的邦交國數目與未來斷交的可能性，而外交部門也將哥國斷交視為一大挫敗，部長甚至因此遞出辭呈以示負責。
回顧台灣這幾年來的外交工作，似乎將三個領域的工作放在最高順位，一個是邦交國的數目，一個是元首的過境外交，另一就是國際組織的加入，而我們也將絕大部分的外交資源花費在這些工作上面。
外交思維應有所改變
這些工作有成功有失敗，但是外交事件如諾魯的斷交與建交、陳總統過境美國與否、過境待遇如何、台灣第幾次被聯合國拒絕加入等，到底對台灣的外交與國家利益有何影響，似乎也沒有人能夠回答，也因此台灣社會對於外交工作的成功與否反應越來越冷淡。
台灣有迫切的期待能夠在國際舞台擁有「正常國家」的身分，但是這個期待卻讓我們的外交工作出現了盲點，那就是將大部分資源放在與國際上所謂「正常國家」的機關打交道，或參與「正常國家」的機關俱樂部，卻往往輕忽了許多非「國家」機關所組成的國際領域，導致我們或許會花數千萬美金與北京展開叫價戰去爭取一個在國際上毫無影響力的小國，卻僅肯花費些許的精力與國際性的非政府組織（NGO，Non-Government Organization） 往來。而我們給與「國家」機關的資源往往落入少數人的口袋，而無法幫助到弱勢的民眾。
台灣的國際地位特殊，我們的國際空間並不是由一般傳統外交儀式所拓展出來的，也因此我們的外交思維應不同於一般國家的外交。台灣的國際聲望與國人在外的實際利益才應被視為重點，而不是一味的追求儀式性的數字跟形式。
資源轉到非政府團體
因此，與其去爭取或維持小國邦交，不如將更多資源用在無償的國際協助，如農耕技術輸出或是擴大已有的人道醫療救濟計劃；與其花大錢製作形象廣告，不如實質的改變形象，如廢止地雷使用且與非政府組織（NGO）合作地雷廢止運動；與其持續毫無成效的聯合國加入行動，不如將資源投入該負起的國際責任(就算沒有被要求)，例如遵守京都協議的規定（放行大煉鋼廠與台塑石化的興建自然不可能讓台灣合格）；與其花費大量精力執行元首過境，不如為國人爭取更多實質利益，如免簽證待遇及對旅外國人更完善的援助。
因為我們的特殊情況，台灣不被國際社會以正常國家的身分接受，常常讓我們覺得沒有國格及尊嚴，但是如果我們能夠盡到國際社會成員應盡的責任，將資源從「國家」機關轉移到國際非政府團體，更直接的幫助國際人民，讓台灣成為一個比「正常」國際成員更盡責的「超正常」成員，國際間對台灣的尊重將會自然產生，台灣的國際生存空間也才會更加廣闊。
2007/06/09 載於蘋果日報
哥斯大黎加與我斷交後，台灣再度失去了一個重要的盟邦。毫無意外地，媒體關注的焦點落在我國所剩的邦交國數目與未來斷交的可能性，而外交部門也將哥國斷交視為一大挫敗，部長甚至因此遞出辭呈以示負責。
回顧台灣這幾年來的外交工作，似乎將三個領域的工作放在最高順位，一個是邦交國的數目，一個是元首的過境外交，另一就是國際組織的加入，而我們也將絕大部分的外交資源花費在這些工作上面。
外交思維應有所改變
這些工作有成功有失敗，但是外交事件如諾魯的斷交與建交、陳總統過境美國與否、過境待遇如何、台灣第幾次被聯合國拒絕加入等，到底對台灣的外交與國家利益有何影響，似乎也沒有人能夠回答，也因此台灣社會對於外交工作的成功與否反應越來越冷淡。
台灣有迫切的期待能夠在國際舞台擁有「正常國家」的身分，但是這個期待卻讓我們的外交工作出現了盲點，那就是將大部分資源放在與國際上所謂「正常國家」的機關打交道，或參與「正常國家」的機關俱樂部，卻往往輕忽了許多非「國家」機關所組成的國際領域，導致我們或許會花數千萬美金與北京展開叫價戰去爭取一個在國際上毫無影響力的小國，卻僅肯花費些許的精力與國際性的非政府組織（NGO，Non-Government Organization） 往來。而我們給與「國家」機關的資源往往落入少數人的口袋，而無法幫助到弱勢的民眾。
台灣的國際地位特殊，我們的國際空間並不是由一般傳統外交儀式所拓展出來的，也因此我們的外交思維應不同於一般國家的外交。台灣的國際聲望與國人在外的實際利益才應被視為重點，而不是一味的追求儀式性的數字跟形式。
資源轉到非政府團體
因此，與其去爭取或維持小國邦交，不如將更多資源用在無償的國際協助，如農耕技術輸出或是擴大已有的人道醫療救濟計劃；與其花大錢製作形象廣告，不如實質的改變形象，如廢止地雷使用且與非政府組織（NGO）合作地雷廢止運動；與其持續毫無成效的聯合國加入行動，不如將資源投入該負起的國際責任(就算沒有被要求)，例如遵守京都協議的規定（放行大煉鋼廠與台塑石化的興建自然不可能讓台灣合格）；與其花費大量精力執行元首過境，不如為國人爭取更多實質利益，如免簽證待遇及對旅外國人更完善的援助。
因為我們的特殊情況，台灣不被國際社會以正常國家的身分接受，常常讓我們覺得沒有國格及尊嚴，但是如果我們能夠盡到國際社會成員應盡的責任，將資源從「國家」機關轉移到國際非政府團體，更直接的幫助國際人民，讓台灣成為一個比「正常」國際成員更盡責的「超正常」成員，國際間對台灣的尊重將會自然產生，台灣的國際生存空間也才會更加廣闊。
2007年6月9日 星期六
＜第三社會系列四之一＞第三社會 終結民主內戰
第三社會成員 郭凱迪
2007/05/30 載於蘋果日報
現今世界上戰火頻傳的地方，我們總可以看見一支戴著藍色頭盔、被稱為「聯合國維和部隊」的軍隊，在秉持「以武力作為規勸力量」精神下，負責協助化解敵對各方的武裝衝突。儘管維和部隊只能在自衛時使用武力，維和部隊對確保區域和平與重建遭戰爭破壞地區，仍擁有非常重要的地位及意義。
目前的台灣社會，正進行著在台灣史上最漫長、範圍最廣的一次戰爭：「民主內戰」。這場內戰雖然沒有立即的人員傷亡，但其造成的惡果卻和真正的戰爭一樣慘重。在這個時候，充滿仇恨與激情的政治語言，掩蓋台灣民主所應帶來的理性與相互尊重；台灣人民也因為這場民主內戰，而得不到任何有意義的政策選擇。
政爭不斷人民不堪
民主內戰的起因，除了因為制度的不健全所導致的僵局外，根本的因素在於台灣原本存有的兩個社會，即1945年以前的第一社會（本土社會）、1945年以後的第二社會（新住民社會）。雖然這兩個社會之間曾經有過衝突，對於一些人物的評價或歷史的詮釋也有不同之處，但是這兩個社會的共通及共同之處遠多於不同，而它們也有密不可分的共同利益，例如追求經濟的成長、舒適的生活環境等。甚至在最敏感的國家認同議題上，兩個社會也有極大的共識，例如台灣的未來應該只由台灣兩千三百萬人決定。
然而，現在代表第一社會的民進黨和代表第二社會的國民黨，為了搶奪政治利益，不僅刻意隱藏兩者的共通性，甚至放大兩個社會間其實不大的差距。沒有提供任何願景、承諾或作法讓台灣人民能做有意義的選擇，讓台灣人民只能默默的承受民主內戰的惡果。在這場民主內戰中，檯面上兩股主要的政治勢力就像戰爭中的兩個敵對軍隊，而且正在與對方進行割喉肉搏戰。夾在兩軍對戰的人民痛苦不堪，有的被迫選邊，有的則直接逃離戰場，成為民主內戰難民，從此不在關心政治。過去，曾有不少學界、社運界的前輩嘗試終止這場內戰，但是在不參選的原則下，他們的角色反而像是戰爭中的紅十字會，所提供的是給民主內戰難民的精神安慰，但是卻也無法停止戰爭。
第三勢力台灣新路
對於厭倦兩個社會內戰的人民們，參與第三社會的形成將是阻戰的第一步。第三社會也必須組織新的政治勢力，就是因為充分了解要停止戰爭，只有組織另一支部隊，一支「維和部隊」來介入這場民主內戰，因為維和部隊參戰不是為了要打贏戰爭，而是要停止戰爭。這也就是為什麼這個新的政治勢力將堅持參選，讓台灣回歸理性，讓人民得以選擇。
2007/05/30 載於蘋果日報
現今世界上戰火頻傳的地方，我們總可以看見一支戴著藍色頭盔、被稱為「聯合國維和部隊」的軍隊，在秉持「以武力作為規勸力量」精神下，負責協助化解敵對各方的武裝衝突。儘管維和部隊只能在自衛時使用武力，維和部隊對確保區域和平與重建遭戰爭破壞地區，仍擁有非常重要的地位及意義。
目前的台灣社會，正進行著在台灣史上最漫長、範圍最廣的一次戰爭：「民主內戰」。這場內戰雖然沒有立即的人員傷亡，但其造成的惡果卻和真正的戰爭一樣慘重。在這個時候，充滿仇恨與激情的政治語言，掩蓋台灣民主所應帶來的理性與相互尊重；台灣人民也因為這場民主內戰，而得不到任何有意義的政策選擇。
政爭不斷人民不堪
民主內戰的起因，除了因為制度的不健全所導致的僵局外，根本的因素在於台灣原本存有的兩個社會，即1945年以前的第一社會（本土社會）、1945年以後的第二社會（新住民社會）。雖然這兩個社會之間曾經有過衝突，對於一些人物的評價或歷史的詮釋也有不同之處，但是這兩個社會的共通及共同之處遠多於不同，而它們也有密不可分的共同利益，例如追求經濟的成長、舒適的生活環境等。甚至在最敏感的國家認同議題上，兩個社會也有極大的共識，例如台灣的未來應該只由台灣兩千三百萬人決定。
然而，現在代表第一社會的民進黨和代表第二社會的國民黨，為了搶奪政治利益，不僅刻意隱藏兩者的共通性，甚至放大兩個社會間其實不大的差距。沒有提供任何願景、承諾或作法讓台灣人民能做有意義的選擇，讓台灣人民只能默默的承受民主內戰的惡果。在這場民主內戰中，檯面上兩股主要的政治勢力就像戰爭中的兩個敵對軍隊，而且正在與對方進行割喉肉搏戰。夾在兩軍對戰的人民痛苦不堪，有的被迫選邊，有的則直接逃離戰場，成為民主內戰難民，從此不在關心政治。過去，曾有不少學界、社運界的前輩嘗試終止這場內戰，但是在不參選的原則下，他們的角色反而像是戰爭中的紅十字會，所提供的是給民主內戰難民的精神安慰，但是卻也無法停止戰爭。
第三勢力台灣新路
對於厭倦兩個社會內戰的人民們，參與第三社會的形成將是阻戰的第一步。第三社會也必須組織新的政治勢力，就是因為充分了解要停止戰爭，只有組織另一支部隊，一支「維和部隊」來介入這場民主內戰，因為維和部隊參戰不是為了要打贏戰爭，而是要停止戰爭。這也就是為什麼這個新的政治勢力將堅持參選，讓台灣回歸理性，讓人民得以選擇。
＜第三社會系列四之二＞當夢想被逼進死巷時
第三社會七年級成員 廖珪如
2007/05/31 載於蘋果日報
當上個世代的成員還在為了究竟自己是台灣人或是中國人吵得不可開交之時，究竟有誰在意，下個世代如何活得像個「人」？新的世代，活在高污染的環境底下，背負龐大的國債，夢想被逼入死巷，沒有選擇的空間。
一直以來，新世代的命運被兩大陣營所決定。然而，我們不記得威權統治的壓迫，並非第一社會的成員。我們亦不是曾打過仗，流浪到異鄉，所以也不是第二社會的人。對我們而言，台灣這塊土地、這個國家就是我們生活的地方，也是我們的未來所在。過去的紛爭、仇恨，導致現在的長期內耗，為了這些無關新世代未來的無聊東西，一切都可以被犧牲、被忽略，真的讓我們覺得無力與厭倦。
缺少對人民長遠規劃
在兩大陣營的戰火下，這個看似富饒的國家，正在向未來舉債。身為新世代的年輕人，我不時對自己的未來感到憂心，兩大政營都曾掌握政權，看似敵對的他們在制定政策時，卻一致的缺少對人民長遠幸福的規劃。拿經濟來說，台灣已經十多年未調漲基本工資，大學生起薪僅兩萬六千元，相較於香港及韓國，少了一萬六千元以上！日前，勞委會決定提高基本工資，卻在大老闆們的反彈聲浪下，宣布部分由國家補貼，這種借花獻佛的作為，也反映在稅制上，老闆們不用繳稅，還能獲得政府退稅，苦的都是納稅人的錢包。這也就是為什麼，當大亨的女兒在五星級飯店舉行世紀婚禮時，我卻只能眼巴巴的站在7-11的冷櫃前，考慮要不要買剛漲價的便當，而最後從還銀行助學貸款利息和房租後所剩幾張鈔票的薪資袋中，默默的買包泡麵回家。龐大的國家債務看似與我們遙遠無關，但是事實上債務已經落在年輕人的肩膀上，除了每天望著薪資袋斤斤計較，我們還要看到兩大黨繼續從我們的口袋中掏錢去做買票的政策。
除了這些看得見算得出的數字外，新世代的我們更擔憂未來居住的環境。自然及文化資產正在快速的流失，全球暖化議題嚴重，各國無不紛紛祭出環保政策，以求人類的永續發展。但是在台灣社會發展的歷程中，環保議題長期的受到忽略，政治依舊只為某些老闆服務。我的家鄉──雲林，在六輕進駐後，蚵農們的生計便陷入困頓，原本溫馨的小漁村變得荒涼不堪，而六輕造成的污染滲入這個農業大縣的寸土，對大半居民的健康都是隱憂，六輕的大老闆看透了這個商機，便在附近開了醫院，不知情的人，還在心裡默默的感謝他，等待著八輕和大煉鋼廠的到來。等到大煉鋼廠跟石化廠蓋好時，多產生的二氧化碳跟可以預期的國際經濟制裁，是不是又要我們這個世代來負擔呢？世代的接力棒即將交到我們手上，但是在每天的紛爭中我們看不到未來，我們被迫接受這個爛掉的局，連玩不出新把戲的政治手法及包袱也想丟給我們，就是要我們漆藍塗綠，誓死效忠上級，不然就被打成叛徒。然而就算是誓死效忠，沒有家世，沒有錢，自然也就沒有參與政治的可能。
藍綠內耗看不到未來
對我們而言，兩個舊社會的紛爭無聊至極，但是卻被兩大黨炒作成台灣最重要的事情。這樣的內耗讓我們看不到未來，已在的兩個社會也都不代表我，唯一能做的就是開創新的第三社會，成立自我的政治代表，大概也只有這樣，我們所真正關心的才會得到反應。
2007/05/31 載於蘋果日報
當上個世代的成員還在為了究竟自己是台灣人或是中國人吵得不可開交之時，究竟有誰在意，下個世代如何活得像個「人」？新的世代，活在高污染的環境底下，背負龐大的國債，夢想被逼入死巷，沒有選擇的空間。
一直以來，新世代的命運被兩大陣營所決定。然而，我們不記得威權統治的壓迫，並非第一社會的成員。我們亦不是曾打過仗，流浪到異鄉，所以也不是第二社會的人。對我們而言，台灣這塊土地、這個國家就是我們生活的地方，也是我們的未來所在。過去的紛爭、仇恨，導致現在的長期內耗，為了這些無關新世代未來的無聊東西，一切都可以被犧牲、被忽略，真的讓我們覺得無力與厭倦。
缺少對人民長遠規劃
在兩大陣營的戰火下，這個看似富饒的國家，正在向未來舉債。身為新世代的年輕人，我不時對自己的未來感到憂心，兩大政營都曾掌握政權，看似敵對的他們在制定政策時，卻一致的缺少對人民長遠幸福的規劃。拿經濟來說，台灣已經十多年未調漲基本工資，大學生起薪僅兩萬六千元，相較於香港及韓國，少了一萬六千元以上！日前，勞委會決定提高基本工資，卻在大老闆們的反彈聲浪下，宣布部分由國家補貼，這種借花獻佛的作為，也反映在稅制上，老闆們不用繳稅，還能獲得政府退稅，苦的都是納稅人的錢包。這也就是為什麼，當大亨的女兒在五星級飯店舉行世紀婚禮時，我卻只能眼巴巴的站在7-11的冷櫃前，考慮要不要買剛漲價的便當，而最後從還銀行助學貸款利息和房租後所剩幾張鈔票的薪資袋中，默默的買包泡麵回家。龐大的國家債務看似與我們遙遠無關，但是事實上債務已經落在年輕人的肩膀上，除了每天望著薪資袋斤斤計較，我們還要看到兩大黨繼續從我們的口袋中掏錢去做買票的政策。
除了這些看得見算得出的數字外，新世代的我們更擔憂未來居住的環境。自然及文化資產正在快速的流失，全球暖化議題嚴重，各國無不紛紛祭出環保政策，以求人類的永續發展。但是在台灣社會發展的歷程中，環保議題長期的受到忽略，政治依舊只為某些老闆服務。我的家鄉──雲林，在六輕進駐後，蚵農們的生計便陷入困頓，原本溫馨的小漁村變得荒涼不堪，而六輕造成的污染滲入這個農業大縣的寸土，對大半居民的健康都是隱憂，六輕的大老闆看透了這個商機，便在附近開了醫院，不知情的人，還在心裡默默的感謝他，等待著八輕和大煉鋼廠的到來。等到大煉鋼廠跟石化廠蓋好時，多產生的二氧化碳跟可以預期的國際經濟制裁，是不是又要我們這個世代來負擔呢？世代的接力棒即將交到我們手上，但是在每天的紛爭中我們看不到未來，我們被迫接受這個爛掉的局，連玩不出新把戲的政治手法及包袱也想丟給我們，就是要我們漆藍塗綠，誓死效忠上級，不然就被打成叛徒。然而就算是誓死效忠，沒有家世，沒有錢，自然也就沒有參與政治的可能。
藍綠內耗看不到未來
對我們而言，兩個舊社會的紛爭無聊至極，但是卻被兩大黨炒作成台灣最重要的事情。這樣的內耗讓我們看不到未來，已在的兩個社會也都不代表我，唯一能做的就是開創新的第三社會，成立自我的政治代表，大概也只有這樣，我們所真正關心的才會得到反應。
＜第三社會系列四之三＞第三社會與社運參政
第三社會成員史維辰
2007/06/01 載於蘋果日報
還記得那一年許多年輕人匯集台北市大安森林公園旁的競選總部，只為了一張「快樂、希望」的貼紙和旗幟，可以拿回去向同學們說著什麼叫做「進步」。還記得，當時的宜蘭反六輕運動，開啟了長達二十四年的宜蘭經驗序幕，動員了地方草根社區與綠色執政所組成的進步聯盟，共同打造了城市治理與地景改造的「宜蘭經驗」。
但是今天，我們的環境生態危機並沒有減緩，反而持續惡化，環保團體依舊為了反對大煉鋼計畫、千年藻礁保護等等而大聲呼籲四處奔走。文化保育及人權保障的成績，在民間團體每年的評鑑中搖搖欲墜，樂生依舊是無解的皮球。
組織與運動常被收編
吉貝沙尾海灘和國家公園內各式的BOT、二次金改下龐大國家資產的賤賣，以自由競爭市場之名的民營化、私有化也不知道已經起訴了多少位政務官，更別提健保黑洞、勞工基本薪資、性別平權、老人年金等等各種攸關著台灣社會民生百年發展大計的各種政策議程，都在長期的民主內戰，藍綠惡鬥的泥沼中，日漸萎縮與模糊；越來越清楚的是執政黨與在野黨共同剝削台灣本土社會的父子關係。
以北宜高速公路為例，宜蘭引來大批炒地皮地產商以及礁溪溫泉色情業的復甦，宜蘭桃園化的日子不遠矣，宜蘭經驗變成了神話；緊接而來的蘇花高，執政在野幾乎沒有爭論，無人出來面對真相，台灣東部地區的經濟政策竟然只寄望一條高速公路！所幸，現今的政治環境中，社會運動團體多半已經清醒，不再為了含淚投票而胃潰瘍，不在每次投票之後後悔不已，而已經開始思考如何打開一個獨立的政治空間的時候了。
回顧過去台灣社運參政之歷史，從早年的職業團體代表，到今天的政黨不分區立委，社運團體在政黨的利誘威逼之下，組織與運動的主體性經常被收編，或淪為政黨的外圍打手，在相忍為國的集體利益之下，犧牲了個別差異的弱勢主體價值；另一方面，民進黨新潮流的議會路線與社運路線的爭論，最後選擇了精算政治利益，拋棄了地方組織和社運議題的經營取向，在今天兩大黨對於社會種種矛盾的對應日趨同質化，以及新自由主義為主的政治影響力急速擴張的過程中慘敗。然而，社會運動的能量還在，只是分散在各角落奮戰，第三社會相信台灣本土社會的草根進步力量，必須在第一社會和第二社會的民主內戰中，拒絕由國家由上而下的主導建構的偽公民社會範型，從虛構的進步改革聯盟中解放出來。
政治行動採雙重策略
第三社會未來的組織將不僅止於精美文宣以及媒體曝光率，而是必須建立長久穩固的議題經營基礎，在草根層次發展出更廣泛的進步社會力量聯盟，政治行動的準則採用雙重策略：草根基層行動與議會選舉路線並行。透過議會宣傳來強化議題，並為議會外的團體增加資源，由候選人提供支持者投票的機會。台灣的社會需要持續社會運動不斷的創新與改革，台灣的社會需要堅持社會民主價值的政黨出線，台灣需要第三社會。
2007/06/01 載於蘋果日報
還記得那一年許多年輕人匯集台北市大安森林公園旁的競選總部，只為了一張「快樂、希望」的貼紙和旗幟，可以拿回去向同學們說著什麼叫做「進步」。還記得，當時的宜蘭反六輕運動，開啟了長達二十四年的宜蘭經驗序幕，動員了地方草根社區與綠色執政所組成的進步聯盟，共同打造了城市治理與地景改造的「宜蘭經驗」。
但是今天，我們的環境生態危機並沒有減緩，反而持續惡化，環保團體依舊為了反對大煉鋼計畫、千年藻礁保護等等而大聲呼籲四處奔走。文化保育及人權保障的成績，在民間團體每年的評鑑中搖搖欲墜，樂生依舊是無解的皮球。
組織與運動常被收編
吉貝沙尾海灘和國家公園內各式的BOT、二次金改下龐大國家資產的賤賣，以自由競爭市場之名的民營化、私有化也不知道已經起訴了多少位政務官，更別提健保黑洞、勞工基本薪資、性別平權、老人年金等等各種攸關著台灣社會民生百年發展大計的各種政策議程，都在長期的民主內戰，藍綠惡鬥的泥沼中，日漸萎縮與模糊；越來越清楚的是執政黨與在野黨共同剝削台灣本土社會的父子關係。
以北宜高速公路為例，宜蘭引來大批炒地皮地產商以及礁溪溫泉色情業的復甦，宜蘭桃園化的日子不遠矣，宜蘭經驗變成了神話；緊接而來的蘇花高，執政在野幾乎沒有爭論，無人出來面對真相，台灣東部地區的經濟政策竟然只寄望一條高速公路！所幸，現今的政治環境中，社會運動團體多半已經清醒，不再為了含淚投票而胃潰瘍，不在每次投票之後後悔不已，而已經開始思考如何打開一個獨立的政治空間的時候了。
回顧過去台灣社運參政之歷史，從早年的職業團體代表，到今天的政黨不分區立委，社運團體在政黨的利誘威逼之下，組織與運動的主體性經常被收編，或淪為政黨的外圍打手，在相忍為國的集體利益之下，犧牲了個別差異的弱勢主體價值；另一方面，民進黨新潮流的議會路線與社運路線的爭論，最後選擇了精算政治利益，拋棄了地方組織和社運議題的經營取向，在今天兩大黨對於社會種種矛盾的對應日趨同質化，以及新自由主義為主的政治影響力急速擴張的過程中慘敗。然而，社會運動的能量還在，只是分散在各角落奮戰，第三社會相信台灣本土社會的草根進步力量，必須在第一社會和第二社會的民主內戰中，拒絕由國家由上而下的主導建構的偽公民社會範型，從虛構的進步改革聯盟中解放出來。
政治行動採雙重策略
第三社會未來的組織將不僅止於精美文宣以及媒體曝光率，而是必須建立長久穩固的議題經營基礎，在草根層次發展出更廣泛的進步社會力量聯盟，政治行動的準則採用雙重策略：草根基層行動與議會選舉路線並行。透過議會宣傳來強化議題，並為議會外的團體增加資源，由候選人提供支持者投票的機會。台灣的社會需要持續社會運動不斷的創新與改革，台灣的社會需要堅持社會民主價值的政黨出線，台灣需要第三社會。
＜第三社會系列四之四＞不能因為贏不了就不戰鬥
第三社會成員 李拓梓
2007/06/02 載於蘋果日報
執政黨即將由黨團提案加碼老農津貼，引起黨內外廣泛討論。民進黨黨團總召柯建銘講了一句話頗耐人尋味，「這是政治問題，大家也知道不應該加碼，但國民黨立委已提案，民進黨就算要擋，過四個月的協商期，還是擋不住，最後反而功勞都被國民黨搶走。」
為了選票加碼惡鬥
有人說第六屆立法委員真的是有史以來最糟糕的國會議員，實在沒有枉屈他們。這是通過違憲NCC的一屆立委、這是怠惰監察院同意權的一屆立委、這是史上第一次沒有在預算會期通過總預算的立委、這也是讓保護黑金條款在農漁會復活的一屆立委。
這一屆的國民黨仗著人數優勢，不斷侵蝕行政部門的提名權等權力，甚至強行通過很多不可思議的法律。而這一屆的民進黨，經常放棄人民的期待，不能夠在對的事情上，堅持下去。我還記得上個會期在國防委員會裡，民進黨拚了老命，把一堆無法辨識受益者的錢坑法案擋了下來；但在這個會期，黨團總召居然對老農津貼這種明知不應該的加碼表示支持。
朝野惡鬥很多年了，除了總預算這種「癱瘓型」的惡鬥外，也不乏老農津貼這種「加碼型」的惡鬥。為了選票而對明知不應該的法案退讓，不但惡劣，也印證了民進黨基本價值的陷落。因為執政的關係，而必須在激進路線上負責任的退讓，這是可以理解的事情；但如果為了選票而放棄自己的核心價值，去和魔鬼共舞而非與之戰鬥，那麼這些人從政，到底有什麼意義？民眾投給兩大黨，又有什麼不同？
給下一代龐大債務
整個老農津貼的決策，充滿了最無謂的算計。一千元既無法改善老農生活，亦無法轉為投資活絡市場；反之，老農津貼所帶動的各種津貼上漲，反而會形成無底洞般的錢坑，留給下一代龐大的債務。執政黨不思加速推動國民年金法，反而因為怕功勞被國民黨搶去而加碼老農津貼，就是典型的治標不治本的選舉炒作，也是為了媚俗而出賣靈魂的舉動。從法定工時案迄今，這種亂加碼不勝枚舉，而在競相胡開政策支票之際，兩黨卻為了聖火還是中正紀念堂的假議題吵得不可開交，這時是不是應該要有人站出來大聲喝斥纏鬥中的兩大黨分開呢？
兩大黨或許不會醒來，但是人民應該早點看清他們在虛假議題上戰鬥的荒謬性。當現有的政治力量無法滿足人民的需求，人們就應該要鼓勵新興力量站出來。很高興有「第三社會」可以提供不滿現狀的一群人一個出口，也希望大家能夠為主張「進步本土」的朋友們繼續加油！
2007/06/02 載於蘋果日報
執政黨即將由黨團提案加碼老農津貼，引起黨內外廣泛討論。民進黨黨團總召柯建銘講了一句話頗耐人尋味，「這是政治問題，大家也知道不應該加碼，但國民黨立委已提案，民進黨就算要擋，過四個月的協商期，還是擋不住，最後反而功勞都被國民黨搶走。」
為了選票加碼惡鬥
有人說第六屆立法委員真的是有史以來最糟糕的國會議員，實在沒有枉屈他們。這是通過違憲NCC的一屆立委、這是怠惰監察院同意權的一屆立委、這是史上第一次沒有在預算會期通過總預算的立委、這也是讓保護黑金條款在農漁會復活的一屆立委。
這一屆的國民黨仗著人數優勢，不斷侵蝕行政部門的提名權等權力，甚至強行通過很多不可思議的法律。而這一屆的民進黨，經常放棄人民的期待，不能夠在對的事情上，堅持下去。我還記得上個會期在國防委員會裡，民進黨拚了老命，把一堆無法辨識受益者的錢坑法案擋了下來；但在這個會期，黨團總召居然對老農津貼這種明知不應該的加碼表示支持。
朝野惡鬥很多年了，除了總預算這種「癱瘓型」的惡鬥外，也不乏老農津貼這種「加碼型」的惡鬥。為了選票而對明知不應該的法案退讓，不但惡劣，也印證了民進黨基本價值的陷落。因為執政的關係，而必須在激進路線上負責任的退讓，這是可以理解的事情；但如果為了選票而放棄自己的核心價值，去和魔鬼共舞而非與之戰鬥，那麼這些人從政，到底有什麼意義？民眾投給兩大黨，又有什麼不同？
給下一代龐大債務
整個老農津貼的決策，充滿了最無謂的算計。一千元既無法改善老農生活，亦無法轉為投資活絡市場；反之，老農津貼所帶動的各種津貼上漲，反而會形成無底洞般的錢坑，留給下一代龐大的債務。執政黨不思加速推動國民年金法，反而因為怕功勞被國民黨搶去而加碼老農津貼，就是典型的治標不治本的選舉炒作，也是為了媚俗而出賣靈魂的舉動。從法定工時案迄今，這種亂加碼不勝枚舉，而在競相胡開政策支票之際，兩黨卻為了聖火還是中正紀念堂的假議題吵得不可開交，這時是不是應該要有人站出來大聲喝斥纏鬥中的兩大黨分開呢？
兩大黨或許不會醒來，但是人民應該早點看清他們在虛假議題上戰鬥的荒謬性。當現有的政治力量無法滿足人民的需求，人們就應該要鼓勵新興力量站出來。很高興有「第三社會」可以提供不滿現狀的一群人一個出口，也希望大家能夠為主張「進步本土」的朋友們繼續加油！
Democratic war' becoming fiercer
By Jou Yi-cheng 周奕成 TAIPEI TIMES
Friday, May 25, 2007,
The results of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) legislative primaries have two political implications. One is that some talented politicians from different generations were eliminated from the legislature. The other is that the "democratic war" between Taiwan's two sides will get even fiercer. Most of the politicians who were eliminated were better known as rational politicians than political warriors. The intensification of Taiwan's "democratic war" is both the cause and result of the rise of the warriors and the decline of the doves within the DPP.
There are two factors in Taiwan's constitutional structure that have contributed to the rise of the warriors and the intensification of the conflict. The first is the halving of the number of legislative seats, and the other is the system of presidential authority and direct presidential elections. The former means that the nomination process has become extremely fierce, while the latter strengthens the vicious party system and the polarized opposition that comes with it.
The reduction of legislative seats from 225 to 113 has already assured that at least half of the current legislators will lose their jobs. It has also guaranteed an extremely fierce nomination process. Tough competition is not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is what the candidates are competing on.
This recent primary was clearly not a contest between the different candidates' ability to govern -- namely, who can achieve the party's vision of the future. Rather, it was a contest of their fighting spirit -- who has more hate and vicious battle tactics.
Why have hate and strife become the parties' standard for choosing candidates? This is the eve of the democratic war, and Taiwan's two social forces have consolidated their power in preparation for the ultimate battle.
Party competition has come to be seen as a battle between us and them. Moderates are viewed by parties as weak in the face of the enemy and their loyalty is questioned. This is why the DPP legislative primary resulted in the rise of the warriors.
Taiwan's democratic war has its origins in the historical conflict between the two local and foreign societies, but it is also continuously fed by the viscious two-party system. The presidential authority and direct presidential elections have solidified a system in which each party works to hinder the other, while not allowing room for choice within the party itself. The injuries that result from a system in which presidential elections pit half of the population against the other hardly need explaining.
The people who ardently support the presidential system and who devote themselves to presidential campaigns can broadly be classified as those who support the democratic war. They believe that the opposing camp should be wiped out and that their own camp, by winning the presidential election, can bring about the other side's complete destruction.
Faced with the escalating democratic war and the loss of some of the DPP's political talent in the legislative primary, there are two possible constitutional solutions. The first is to immediately amend the Constitution to increase the number of seats divided proportionally between the political parties. The second is to promote a new political force for Taiwan.
For some time now there have been calls to push for an eighth round of constitutional amendment to implement a Cabinet system. This arrangement could alleviate the harmful opposition between the two parties, accompany a reasonable increase in the number of legislative seats and give moderate forces more room to breathe. In fact, the legislature has already had proposals for two different versions of a Cabinet system.
However, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) unfortunately ordered the KMT caucus whip to kill a joint resolution by party legislators in support of the popularly proposed amendment. Now that he has received all but the DPP's presidential nomination, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) should immediately push for an amendment to heal the inner-party divisions and loss of talented politicians from the "war within the war" -- the DPP primary.
Former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) earlier asked that all parties be prudent and earnest while working to achieve the legislative majority needed for passage of the seventh amendment. Now with many legislators being eliminated as the number of legislative seats is halved, Lin should immediately call for another amendment.
Perhaps we could adopt the "Five Yesses and Five Noes" plan proposed by the Civic Alliance for Parliamentarianism and increase the ratio of seats allotted to political parties' legislators-at-large to equal the 79 single-district seats, which includes aboriginal representatives.
When a new constitution is implemented -- sometime during the next president's term at the earliest -- the seventh Legislative Yuan could also include valuable former DPP legislators who had been knocked out in the primary process, such as Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄), Hong Chi-chang (洪奇昌) and Lo Wen-chia (羅文嘉).
Regardless of whether or not the amendment succeeds, Taiwan needs a new political force. In this country a moderate political party has always been lacking. Although the moderates in the DPP primary are generally well liked, they were unable to navigate the party's nomination system. This demonstrates that moderate attitudes are unable to survive within the DPP.
But fractured public opinion could still be hoping for social unity, and be weary of the moderate and rational localization forces in the democratic war. It is regrettable that the DPP, as it seeks to lead Taiwan, has abandoned representing this moderate force.
Without it being represented in politics, Taiwan will continue to sink further into the polarization of its democratic war.
To stop the slaughter, we need peace-keeping troops for "humanitarian intervention," otherwise the battle will rage on. If a new political party is formed to join the year-end legislative elections, then the talented DPP legislators who fell in the primary would still have a chance to be elected as legislators-at-large. Most importantly, Taiwan cannot continue to sink into opposition between two societies. The third society must rise, and it must have a political force.
Jou Yi-cheng is a member of Taiwan’s emerging third society..
Friday, May 25, 2007,
The results of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) legislative primaries have two political implications. One is that some talented politicians from different generations were eliminated from the legislature. The other is that the "democratic war" between Taiwan's two sides will get even fiercer. Most of the politicians who were eliminated were better known as rational politicians than political warriors. The intensification of Taiwan's "democratic war" is both the cause and result of the rise of the warriors and the decline of the doves within the DPP.
There are two factors in Taiwan's constitutional structure that have contributed to the rise of the warriors and the intensification of the conflict. The first is the halving of the number of legislative seats, and the other is the system of presidential authority and direct presidential elections. The former means that the nomination process has become extremely fierce, while the latter strengthens the vicious party system and the polarized opposition that comes with it.
The reduction of legislative seats from 225 to 113 has already assured that at least half of the current legislators will lose their jobs. It has also guaranteed an extremely fierce nomination process. Tough competition is not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is what the candidates are competing on.
This recent primary was clearly not a contest between the different candidates' ability to govern -- namely, who can achieve the party's vision of the future. Rather, it was a contest of their fighting spirit -- who has more hate and vicious battle tactics.
Why have hate and strife become the parties' standard for choosing candidates? This is the eve of the democratic war, and Taiwan's two social forces have consolidated their power in preparation for the ultimate battle.
Party competition has come to be seen as a battle between us and them. Moderates are viewed by parties as weak in the face of the enemy and their loyalty is questioned. This is why the DPP legislative primary resulted in the rise of the warriors.
Taiwan's democratic war has its origins in the historical conflict between the two local and foreign societies, but it is also continuously fed by the viscious two-party system. The presidential authority and direct presidential elections have solidified a system in which each party works to hinder the other, while not allowing room for choice within the party itself. The injuries that result from a system in which presidential elections pit half of the population against the other hardly need explaining.
The people who ardently support the presidential system and who devote themselves to presidential campaigns can broadly be classified as those who support the democratic war. They believe that the opposing camp should be wiped out and that their own camp, by winning the presidential election, can bring about the other side's complete destruction.
Faced with the escalating democratic war and the loss of some of the DPP's political talent in the legislative primary, there are two possible constitutional solutions. The first is to immediately amend the Constitution to increase the number of seats divided proportionally between the political parties. The second is to promote a new political force for Taiwan.
For some time now there have been calls to push for an eighth round of constitutional amendment to implement a Cabinet system. This arrangement could alleviate the harmful opposition between the two parties, accompany a reasonable increase in the number of legislative seats and give moderate forces more room to breathe. In fact, the legislature has already had proposals for two different versions of a Cabinet system.
However, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) unfortunately ordered the KMT caucus whip to kill a joint resolution by party legislators in support of the popularly proposed amendment. Now that he has received all but the DPP's presidential nomination, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) should immediately push for an amendment to heal the inner-party divisions and loss of talented politicians from the "war within the war" -- the DPP primary.
Former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) earlier asked that all parties be prudent and earnest while working to achieve the legislative majority needed for passage of the seventh amendment. Now with many legislators being eliminated as the number of legislative seats is halved, Lin should immediately call for another amendment.
Perhaps we could adopt the "Five Yesses and Five Noes" plan proposed by the Civic Alliance for Parliamentarianism and increase the ratio of seats allotted to political parties' legislators-at-large to equal the 79 single-district seats, which includes aboriginal representatives.
When a new constitution is implemented -- sometime during the next president's term at the earliest -- the seventh Legislative Yuan could also include valuable former DPP legislators who had been knocked out in the primary process, such as Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄), Hong Chi-chang (洪奇昌) and Lo Wen-chia (羅文嘉).
Regardless of whether or not the amendment succeeds, Taiwan needs a new political force. In this country a moderate political party has always been lacking. Although the moderates in the DPP primary are generally well liked, they were unable to navigate the party's nomination system. This demonstrates that moderate attitudes are unable to survive within the DPP.
But fractured public opinion could still be hoping for social unity, and be weary of the moderate and rational localization forces in the democratic war. It is regrettable that the DPP, as it seeks to lead Taiwan, has abandoned representing this moderate force.
Without it being represented in politics, Taiwan will continue to sink further into the polarization of its democratic war.
To stop the slaughter, we need peace-keeping troops for "humanitarian intervention," otherwise the battle will rage on. If a new political party is formed to join the year-end legislative elections, then the talented DPP legislators who fell in the primary would still have a chance to be elected as legislators-at-large. Most importantly, Taiwan cannot continue to sink into opposition between two societies. The third society must rise, and it must have a political force.
Jou Yi-cheng is a member of Taiwan’s emerging third society..
Arise, O Taiwanese third society
By Lin Chih-Chen 林致真 TAIPEI TIMES
2007年6月7日 星期四
Sunday, Jun 03, 2007, Page 8
The most common reaction to the term "third society" is one of confusion. "Does Taiwan even have a first, let alone a second society?" is a question that many would ask.
The answer to this question is a definite yes, and the chaotic political struggle we see every day is living proof.
Taiwan's first society is the one that existed prior to 1945; the indigenous society, if you will. This society experienced the colonial rule of Japan and was even at war with China and its allies during World War II.
Taiwan's second society consists of people from all over China who came and settled in Taiwan between 1945 and 1949. Members of the second society came from very diverse backgrounds, but Taiwan's foreignness at the time forced them together.
The next four to five decades saw a small minority of the second society dominating Taiwan's political and cultural spheres.
The first society was mostly suppressed in those two spheres but was quite successful in contributing to Taiwan's economic miracle.
However, with Taiwan's democratization, the first society was able to obtain political representation in the form of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), whilst the second society was continuously represented by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or other pan-blue groups.
With the DPP's victory in 2000, the political representatives of the first society took the reins of power for the first time.
However, even after seven years of DPP rule, the political power of the second society still refuses to recognize its political leadership.
At the same time, the political power of the first society sought extremism as a way of self preservation.
Thus Taiwan over the last few years degenerated into what former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) termed a "democratic civil war." Even today the two main political powers are still engaged in a fierce struggle with each other and it is severely damaging the country's democratic vitality.
What then is Taiwan's third society? To put it simply, the Third Society is all those of us who are sick and tired of the struggle between the first and second society.
To us, the two societies have many interests in common -- much more than they are aware of, in fact.
For example, many politicians from the first society highlight the bitter past experienced by many members of the public under the KMT's authoritarian rule.
However, these people often overlook the fact that the majority of the second society's members suffered even worse fates.
Members of the second society still feel a strong sense of insecurity because of their minority status. They fail, however, to see the first society's fear of a minority-rule resurgence.
To members of the Third Society, the ongoing struggle neglects the common interests of all Taiwanese and instead exaggerates the minor differences between the two old societies.
The struggle also exploits external antagonisms for internal electoral competitions, which in turn shows the outside world how polarized the nation has become. At the same time, the struggle between the two political blocs of the two old societies utterly fails to give Taiwanese any meaningful policy choices.
Instead, the two blocs present the same irresponsible fiscal and social policies made up by corruption and tax cuts that have trapped the country in an abyss of monstrous national debt.
People who are fed up with this nonsensical struggle must step forward and create the new third society. The political manifestation of this new society will promote external unity while providing a meaningful choice of social policies internally.
The members of the new society want no part in the ongoing cruel political struggle, but instead wish to be the "peacekeepers" between the two old societies.
Some might then ask, What is the position of the new society on national identity? To us, the answer cannot be clearer. The community, comprised of the 23 million people in Taiwan and its outlying islands, is an independent and sovereign nation, with the Republic of China' as its constitutional name.
The future of this independent and sovereign nation can only be decided by those 23 million inhabitants.
We believe that the above statement is the consensus for the vast majority of Taiwanese and the foundation on which national unity can be built. We also believe that the independent status of Taiwan fits the current interests of the people on this island.
Therefore we will defend Taiwan's status as an independent nation.
Taiwan is an inspiration to the rest of the world because of its democratic success. However, the ongoing "democratic civil war" is alienating more and more people.
We fear that in a not too distant future, the nation's once proud democratic achievements will wither as people's apathy to politics increases.
We therefore call for the formation of Taiwan's third society, a society that is founded on reasoning, not gimmicks or slogans; a society that has meaningful debate on social policies and not pointless arguments over dead people; a society that unites in a common hope for the betterment of this nation.
This shall be Taiwan's third society.
Lin Chih-chen is a member of Taiwan's emerging third society.
2007年6月7日 星期四
Sunday, Jun 03, 2007, Page 8
The most common reaction to the term "third society" is one of confusion. "Does Taiwan even have a first, let alone a second society?" is a question that many would ask.
The answer to this question is a definite yes, and the chaotic political struggle we see every day is living proof.
Taiwan's first society is the one that existed prior to 1945; the indigenous society, if you will. This society experienced the colonial rule of Japan and was even at war with China and its allies during World War II.
Taiwan's second society consists of people from all over China who came and settled in Taiwan between 1945 and 1949. Members of the second society came from very diverse backgrounds, but Taiwan's foreignness at the time forced them together.
The next four to five decades saw a small minority of the second society dominating Taiwan's political and cultural spheres.
The first society was mostly suppressed in those two spheres but was quite successful in contributing to Taiwan's economic miracle.
However, with Taiwan's democratization, the first society was able to obtain political representation in the form of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), whilst the second society was continuously represented by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or other pan-blue groups.
With the DPP's victory in 2000, the political representatives of the first society took the reins of power for the first time.
However, even after seven years of DPP rule, the political power of the second society still refuses to recognize its political leadership.
At the same time, the political power of the first society sought extremism as a way of self preservation.
Thus Taiwan over the last few years degenerated into what former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) termed a "democratic civil war." Even today the two main political powers are still engaged in a fierce struggle with each other and it is severely damaging the country's democratic vitality.
What then is Taiwan's third society? To put it simply, the Third Society is all those of us who are sick and tired of the struggle between the first and second society.
To us, the two societies have many interests in common -- much more than they are aware of, in fact.
For example, many politicians from the first society highlight the bitter past experienced by many members of the public under the KMT's authoritarian rule.
However, these people often overlook the fact that the majority of the second society's members suffered even worse fates.
Members of the second society still feel a strong sense of insecurity because of their minority status. They fail, however, to see the first society's fear of a minority-rule resurgence.
To members of the Third Society, the ongoing struggle neglects the common interests of all Taiwanese and instead exaggerates the minor differences between the two old societies.
The struggle also exploits external antagonisms for internal electoral competitions, which in turn shows the outside world how polarized the nation has become. At the same time, the struggle between the two political blocs of the two old societies utterly fails to give Taiwanese any meaningful policy choices.
Instead, the two blocs present the same irresponsible fiscal and social policies made up by corruption and tax cuts that have trapped the country in an abyss of monstrous national debt.
People who are fed up with this nonsensical struggle must step forward and create the new third society. The political manifestation of this new society will promote external unity while providing a meaningful choice of social policies internally.
The members of the new society want no part in the ongoing cruel political struggle, but instead wish to be the "peacekeepers" between the two old societies.
Some might then ask, What is the position of the new society on national identity? To us, the answer cannot be clearer. The community, comprised of the 23 million people in Taiwan and its outlying islands, is an independent and sovereign nation, with the Republic of China' as its constitutional name.
The future of this independent and sovereign nation can only be decided by those 23 million inhabitants.
We believe that the above statement is the consensus for the vast majority of Taiwanese and the foundation on which national unity can be built. We also believe that the independent status of Taiwan fits the current interests of the people on this island.
Therefore we will defend Taiwan's status as an independent nation.
Taiwan is an inspiration to the rest of the world because of its democratic success. However, the ongoing "democratic civil war" is alienating more and more people.
We fear that in a not too distant future, the nation's once proud democratic achievements will wither as people's apathy to politics increases.
We therefore call for the formation of Taiwan's third society, a society that is founded on reasoning, not gimmicks or slogans; a society that has meaningful debate on social policies and not pointless arguments over dead people; a society that unites in a common hope for the betterment of this nation.
This shall be Taiwan's third society.
Lin Chih-chen is a member of Taiwan's emerging third society.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
