Daily Bloom is now featuring members of New Bloom commenting the news everyday. Not only provide information, we also want to provide the thoughts from our own perspective. Please like or share if you like it.
September 1st, 2014
【香港 中國 台灣】
(郭凌峰 The last Wild Strawberry participator in Freedom Plaza, a researcher of consciousness, free will and schizophrenia at Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and an active anarchist in Nankan, Taiwan.)
September 2nd, 2014
Formosa Plastics Group (FGP) over water source issue once again induced controversy. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) demanded FGP to complete and try out its alternative water source including the reuse of the tailwater, rainwater recycling and desalination in order to relieve its heavy consumption of water in Yunlin area.However, FGP has only come up with a new project that aims to recycle water from Sinhuwei River and set up “Nanzih Work Station”. Moreover, this project has been protested against by residents in Yulin County’s Taisi Township for extraction of agricultural water.Therefore, EPA committee decided that FGP must complete alternative water source project, or FGP will violate the Environmental Impact Assessment Law.
FGP not only cause more severe land subsidence by groundwater overdraft but have arrogant attitude toward pollution compensation that almost makes it become the ” second RCA”. Because it is extremely hard to prove that pollution have direct correlation to cancer, FGP often evade compensation duty by claiming that cancer may be caused by unhealthy habits.Residents found no access to compensation, and their agricultural living has become the victim of industrail water use for further prosperity in Taiwanese industry.Maybe we should already start ponder on the fruit of advancement, which benefits most citizens while very few people suffer from the painful cost.This violate the technology ethics. Unless we share the fear of technology altogether, or it’s tough to understand the ethical contradiction between development and environment,community’s benefit and individual’s dignity. All of these distorted obligation and destined guilt are what society imposed on the residents of Yunlin.
September 2nd, 2014
[Occupy Central Finished Already?]
Occupy Central’s Benny Tai declares that Occupy Central has “failed” in regards to that Beijing did not back down in the face of popular protest. Tai stated that in the face of “political reality” and the “pragmatism” of Hong Kong people, whereas he was previously confident that Occupy Central could bring out a mobilization of 10,000, he now says that is a “maybe.” Namely, occupying Hong Kong’s Central business district runs the risk too high of permanently damaging Hong Kong’s economy.
One may speculate as to whether Tai’s comments are genuine or, in fact, meant to drum up agitation in preparation for future protest. Chen Kinman, also a prominent Occupy Central leader, publicly disagreed with Tai’s comments. Yet prior optimism may have been misguided.
Very probably, what is becoming visible now under tension is the internal splits within Occupy Central. Some have also pointed to divides between Occupy Central leaders and Hong Kong’s very active student organizers. It may be that with the backing down of Occupy Central leaders, students will seize a more active role in determining the course of future protest. Certainly, given that the election under contestation is slated for 2017, it should be apparent from the beginning that the struggle of Occupy Central will be one for the long haul. The next few years will be crucial for movement building. And while western response has been quiet to date, if Hong Kong is to achieve democracy, it will have to do so with its own hands.
(Brian Hioe is a freelancer currently based in Taipei, he will be starting an M.A. in East Asian Languages and Culture at Columbia University in Fall 2014.)
September 4th, 2014
(Shane Hu 目前是全職的家庭主夫，旅居美國但關心台灣社會的不公不義)
September 5th, 2014
[The Politics of “Solidarity” Between Taiwan and Hong Kong]
Last Sunday, while on their two-week tour of the United States, prominent Sunflower Movement student leaders Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting expressed their support for the democracy movement in Hong Kong’s Occupy Central. Even the Ma administration has, to date, expressed at least “regret,” for China’s refusal to permit democratic elections in Hong Kong, although that it only expressed “regret” has also come under fire. By contrast, the Chinese government in Beijing has stated that Taiwan and, for that matter, the United States, should keep out of Hong Kong’s affairs.
Much has been made in the media about Taiwan’s support for the democracy movement in Hong Kong, whether this is merely in regards that Taiwanese’s eyes are set on Hong Kong because it may be a vision of a possible future for Taiwan should Taiwan fall under Chinese control, or in regards to actual cases of Taiwanese post-Sunflower Movement activists traveling to Hong Kong to share their skills with Hong Konger activists or to observe. On the level of international relations, some commentators have spoken of the natural alliance between Taiwan and Hong Kong to resist China which both should work towards.
Nevertheless, the deeper question that may be asked is to what extent any “actual” alliance between Hong Kong and China is forming or even possible. There is an incipient politics of “solidarity” shared between Hong Kong and Taiwan perhaps. But if it remains only on the level of “solidarity”—that is to say, the offering of mutual sympathies from one to the other—then there is still something to be desired in terms of cooperation. A politics of “solidarity” without mutual strategizing on a fundamental level or consisting merely cooperation on a superficial level very likely will not accomplish much.
(Brian Hioe (丘琦欣) is a freelancer currently based in Taipei, he will be starting an M.A. in East Asian Languages and Culture at Columbia University in Fall 2014.)