台灣人,你被偷了沒?

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2013/new/jul/8/today-o3.htm

台灣人,你被偷了沒?

◎ 蕭文婷

土耳其、巴西、保加利亞地理位置天南地北,

最近卻紛紛爆發大規模示威抗議,引發國際媒體高度關注。

土耳其人民抗議的是政府疑似圖利財團,

要拆遷首都伊斯坦堡少有的綠地Gezi Park蓋大型購物中心及豪華公寓;

巴西人則是抗議政府花大錢蓋足球館,卻調漲市井小民的公車票價。

保加利亞年初已有一次因水電油價太高(咦,好耳熟),

爆發跨黨派大規模抗議,迫使當時的總理下台,組成新的聯合政府;

最近又因一名有黑道背景的媒體大亨被任命為國家安全局主席,

人民認為是「官商勾結」,再度爆發大規模示威。

我在華盛頓郵報看到一張照片,一位挺著大肚子的孕婦參加示威,

靜靜地坐在路邊,一把傘在她身邊;不知為何,很受到震撼。

這幾個示威的共同點是:

一、這些國家還算是「民主」國家,執政者是民選的。

二、雖然起因於某個單一事件,但卻引爆出全面對政府改革的要求。

例如,巴西示威抗議的重點已經不只是公車票,

而是要求政府全面改善醫療教育等政策。

三、示威抗議的民眾是跨黨派、跨階層的,還有中產階級大量參與

這些特點跟阿拉伯之春和無產階級革命有明顯不同,

有評論家稱「二○一三年夏天是全球中產階級抗議的季節」。

紐約時報的專欄作家佛里曼

(Thomas Friedman,《世界是平的》作者,

二○一○年曾說台灣是他最喜歡的國家

歸納這些抗爭說:

最大的共同點是,這些國家的人民覺得被「偷」了!

他們選出的政權沒有依照人民的期望施政,

一意孤行,辜負人民託付,迫使人民走向街頭。

佛里曼這段話,用在台灣也很恰當啊,不是嗎?

從馬英九連任以來,

不管是油價、電價、核四、十二年國教、證所稅等等,

每件事情都跟民意相反。

最近硬要簽署的兩岸服務貿易協議更是恐怖,

馬政府官員竟然好整以暇地說「做得好就不怕競爭」?

還有夢想家、花博大花錢,跟巴西蓋足球館異曲同工。

台灣人民,你有沒有覺得屬於你的東西被偷了呢?

雖然我人在國外,

沒什麼資格「詛咒叫別人死」,可是我真的很希望,很快的,

可以在每天看(聽)的紐約時報、華盛頓郵報、NPR、BBC、CNN

看到、聽到台灣人民的憤怒,傳達到國際!

(作者為醫師,美國台僑)

————————————————————————————————————-

我真的很希望,很快的,

可以在每天看(聽)的紐約時報、華盛頓郵報、NPR、BBC、CNN

看到、聽到台灣人民的憤怒,傳達到國際

>>>台灣人民掙脫民進黨挾持才有可能 !!!

————————————————————————————————————-

[ 只要台灣人民無力掙脫民進黨挾持>中國人逐步扼殺台灣生機 ]

< 民進黨挾持>打扁助馬連任—>阻斷台灣人民民主方式保衛主權>

[ 錯誤解讀選舉結果 >> 顯示台灣人危機意識不足 ]

中華民國體制共犯結構 >>>>

二○○八年台灣人已經被賣了一次,

二○一二年台灣人再被賣一次.

二○一六新騙局

———-

中國民進黨 中國國民黨 >> 中國人

————————————————————————————————————–

[  不要只聽蔡英文說了什麼 要看她做了什麼 ]

基本上北京對民進黨並不認識,她也希望雙方能有更好的溝通

她本人對於訪問中國大陸持開放態度(open minded)。

———>

她也表示在協議已經簽署下,台灣已受到此一對外協議的約束

她當選總統,也不會癈除此一協議

若民進黨上台執政的話, 也不一定會就ECFA新的內容進行公投

———>

除了兩岸關係外,

蔡英文也表示,台灣與美國的關係是台灣另一重要對外關係

———–>

她同時也承認

陳水扁有一些"個人的問題",

民進黨對此的態度很明確,

就是希望司法來公正解決這些問題

>>>>>台灣人小心仔細的解讀這些假話背後的真正意圖 >>>>

民進黨2008大選五都選舉同樣的老戲碼?

國共決定國民兩黨候選人

台灣人只能選擇 投票不投票

台灣人看破手腳的民進黨政客台灣走不出一中緊箍咒

[ 相關 ]

<<<<  李登輝前總統九十歲壽宴-『感恩之夜』-蔡英文致詞    >>>>

—————————————————————————————————————

[  中國民進黨 中國國民黨   把台灣推入中國五十步一百步之別 ]

民進黨抨擊馬政府一國兩區」放棄台灣主權

卻又公布民調宣揚八十一.二%贊成該黨「台灣前途決議文」。

<<  台灣前途決議文牴觸台灣關係法  >>

———>

中國民進黨台灣前途決議文

台灣依「憲法」稱為中華民國

改變中華民國殖民的現狀必須公投

實在悲哀!

請問民進黨,能舉出台灣屬於中華民國法律文件嗎?

台灣人若不制止民進黨,必然步上香港的後塵。

—->

[ 相關 ]從聯合國三個決議案說起 香港獨立的台灣教訓 [  沈建德  ]

————————————————————————————————————

[  檢驗民主的細節戳破台灣民主法治假象  ]

 台灣人被排除在外台灣總統大選2012  一場假民主的拖棚歹戲  ]

一場勝負已定假民主政治拖棚歹戲—台灣人唯一的輸家

民進黨 —–>    <<   三隻小諸總統大選  >>

民進黨2008大選五都選舉同樣的老戲碼?

國共逼退民進黨國內定的候選人

台灣人看破手腳的民進黨政客逐步台灣推入中國

[ 相關 ][  民進黨立委選制變革成就了國民黨一黨獨大  ]

—————————————————————————————————————

[ 台灣獨立運動目的是->台灣國共爭奪中國主權戰爭脫身 ]

[ 台澎一國金馬一國  中國內戰不必拖台灣下水  台灣中國一邊一國 ]

<< 台灣不會因為中華民國流亡政府的存在變成中華民國 >>

[  國民黨殘餘者虛構的政府 >>>

寄生台灣自稱中華民國流亡中國人台北政權 ]

————————————————————————————————————

[ 相關 ] 謊話連篇的服貿協議

————————————————————————————————————–

[  明參選暗助選  ( 打假球 ? ) – 再放馬後炮- 台灣政黨政治的騙局]

蘇貞昌、謝長廷 參選總統 >> 助馬當選 !!!

蔡英文 唯一提名參選總統 >> 保馬連任 !!!

———————————————————————————————————-

The New York Times

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/takin-it-to-the-streets.html?_r=1&&pagewanted=print

June 29, 2013

Takin’ It to the Streets

THE former C.I.A. analyst Paul R. Pillar asked this question in a recent essay in The National Interest: Why are we seeing so many popular street revolts in democracies? Speaking specifically of Turkey and Brazil, but posing a question that could be applied to Egypt, Israel, Russia, Chile and the United States, Pillar asks: “The governments being protested against were freely and democratically elected. With the ballot box available, why should there be recourse to the street?”

It is an important question, and the answer, I believe, is the convergence of three phenomena. The first is the rise and proliferation of illiberal “majoritarian” democracies. In Russia, Turkey and today’s Egypt, we have seen mass demonstrations to protest “majoritarianism” — ruling parties that were democratically elected (or “sort of” in Russia’s case) but interpret their elections as a writ to do whatever they want once in office, including ignoring the opposition, choking the news media and otherwise behaving in imperious or corrupt ways, as if democracy is only about the right to vote, not rights in general and especially minority rights.

What the protesters in Turkey, Russia and Egypt all have in common is a powerful sense of “theft,” a sense that the people who got elected are stealing something more than money: the people’s voice and right to participate in governance. Nothing can make a new democrat, someone who just earned the right to vote, angrier.

Here is what the satirist Bassem Youssef, the Jon Stewart of Egypt, wrote in the Egyptian daily Al Shorouk last week, on the first anniversary of the election of President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood’s party: “We have a president who promised that a balanced constituent assembly would work on a constitution that everyone agrees on. We have a president who promised to be representative, but placed members of his Muslim Brotherhood in every position of power. We have a president and a party that broke all their promises, so the people have no choice but to take to the streets.”

A second factor is the way middle-class workers are being squeezed between a shrinking welfare state and a much more demanding job market. For so many years, workers were told that if you just work hard and play by the rules you’ll be in the middle class. That is just not true anymore. In this age of rapid globalization and automation, you have to work harder, work smarter, bring more innovation to whatever job you do, retool yourself more often — and then you can be in the middle class. There is just so much more stress on people in, or aspiring to be in, the middle class, and many more young people wondering how they’ll ever do better than their parents.

Too few leaders are leveling with their people about this shift, let alone helping them navigate it. And too many big political parties today are just vehicles for different coalitions to defend themselves against change rather than to lead their societies in adapting to it. Normally, this would create opportunities for the opposition parties, but in places like Turkey, Brazil, Russia and Egypt the formal opposition is feckless. So people take to the streets, forming their own opposition.

In America, the Tea Party began as a protest against Republicans for being soft on deficits, and Occupy Wall Street as a protest against Democrats for being soft on bankers. In Brazil, a 9 cent increase in bus fares set off mass protests, in part because it seemed so out of balance when the government was spending some $30 billion on stadiums for the Olympics and the World Cup. Writing in The American Interest, William Waack, an anchorman on Brazil’s Globo, probably spoke for many when he observed: “Brazilians don’t feel like their elected representatives at any level actually represent them, especially at a time when most leaders fear the stigma of making actual decisions (otherwise known as leading). … It’s not about the 9 cents.”

China is not a democracy, but this story is a sign of the times: In a factory outside Beijing, an American businessman, Chip Starnes, president of the Florida-based Specialty Medical Supplies, was held captive for nearly a week by about 100 workers “who were demanding severance packages identical to those offered to 30 recently laid-off employees,” according to Reuters. The workers feared they would be next as the company moved some production from China to India to reduce costs. (He was released in a deal on Thursday.)

Finally, thanks to the proliferation of smartphones, tablets, Twitter, Facebook and blogging, aggrieved individuals now have much more power to engage in, and require their leaders to engage in, two-way conversations — and they have much greater ability to link up with others who share their views to hold flash protests. As Leon Aron, the Russian historian at the American Enterprise Institute, put it, “the turnaround time” between sense of grievance and action in today’s world is lightning fast and getting faster.

The net result is this: Autocracy is less sustainable than ever. Democracies are more prevalent than ever — but they will also be more volatile than ever. Look for more people in the streets more often over more issues with more independent means to tell their stories at ever-louder decibels.

—————————————————————————————————————-

發佈留言

發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *