Interview: Terry Kuo and Felix Leung
Terry Kuo was an MA student in philosophy of mind at National Yang Ming University, currently works in Taoyuan, and was a founding member of New Bloom. Felix Leung was a former student in philosophy of mind at National Yang Ming University from Hong Kong and currently still lives and works in Taiwan. The following interview was conducted on September 17th, 2017.
Terry Kuo: Jiayang might have participated more in the movement. I wasn’t there on 318.
Brian Hioe: On 318, I was with Xiaohei and Jiunn Tyng.
Felix Leung: We still lived in Shipai then. 318. That was Sandy’s birthday.
Brian Hioe: There was a rally that day. 120 Hours to Protect Democracy.
Felix Leung: At the time we were waiting at home for Sandy with a cake. And then she didn’t come up. Did she know it would take place?
Brian Hioe: She said that she didn’t and that she lost track of time.
Felix Leung: Then she probably didn’t know. She said that she got caught up with the series of events. She wasn’t in the “decision-making group”. And so she couldn’t “decide” to come home!
Brian Hioe: It’s kind of funny because I also interviewed Sandy and now I also see what the people waiting at home with the cake were thinking. [Laughs] Because I am interviewing a lot of friends, it’s a strange experience. A lot of my interviews will probably feel very meta-textual in the final product.
So I more or less wanted to ask, how you guys began participating in social movements. Regarding what issues and for what reasons?
Photo credit: billy1125/Flickr/CC
Terry Kuo: I think I could say that I became conscious of these things in college. I began to take Dr. Houng’s courses. The upperclassmen, such as Shunpin and others would go to demonstrations. What was very interesting was the at that point, there were very few people that participated in demonstrations. What I remember quite clearly is that that was the call for legal reform. That was the Judicial Reform Foundation.
I’m not very sure if the campaign to oppose the death penalty had been very firmly established at that point. iI was a demonstration to urge legal reform from legislators. I remember there was what was considered a large amount of people then. About 200 people. It was fewer people.
Even earlier, there were a lot of protests we participated in as well. Around the second time Frank Hsieh ran for president, there an activity to hold a march from Pingtung to Taipei, and when they entered Taipei, there was a rally. There was also the “Hold Hands to Protect Taiwan”. That was when China passed an anti-separatism law, and missiles were pointed at Taiwan, the idea to hold hands to surround all across Taiwan.
The first time I participated in social movements was probably regarding legal reform. After that, referendum was an entry point. But the point is, there were big events and small events. After that was the Wild Strawberry Movement.
Brian Hioe: Can you talk about it a bit?
Terry Kuo: The Wild Strawberry Movement was when Chen Yunlin came to Taiwan. So then, I went to Jinhua and after that went to road by Yuanshan. I’m not sure I remember why.
Brian Hioe: Because of the Grand Hotel?
Terry Kuo: Ah, that’s right! We wanted to go to the Grand Hotel, where Chen Yunlin was staying. But we were blocked partway there, so we all gathered on the road. And I remember at that point, someone called, saying, “Everyone gather at the Executive Yuan.” So we left Yuanshan and went to the Executive Yuan. After spending two nights at the Executive Yuan, we got driven out, so we went to Liberty Plaza.
Most people probably remember the end of the Wild Strawberry movement as the demonstration that took place on November 7th, the 1107 Action. That was quite a large protest. But we actually stayed in Liberty Plaza afterwards, probably until January 4th of the following year. Less people may know about that aspect. At that time we held some discussions, and played some documentary, I think it is the very early attempt as to what is quite popular now today for street protests.
After the Wild Strawberry movement, there were also many other demonstrations. Then I went to serve my draft term in the military. So I was unable to participate in more demonstrations after. Then it was after that there were events such as the Sunflower Movement. But what I think is, it’s quite interesting, what big protests took place after the Sunflower Movement?
Brian Hioe: Probably the occupation of the Ministry of Education?
Wild Strawberry movement occupation in front of the Executive Yuan. Photo credit: 笨笨的小B/WikiCommons/CC
Terry Kuo: Yeah. But since then, there haven’t been large-scale protests on that level. Before 318, there were quite a lot of demonstrations that I think were quite important. One was on Double Ten Day, organized by the Black Island Youth Front. There was also the demonstration outside the Ministry of the Interior, with the slogan that we would “Take apart the government”. And there was also the anti-media monopoly movement. That was earlier. These were quite large-scale, leading up to 318.
There was also the Taiwan Youth Association (台灣青年社), that under the Taiwan Society (台灣社), there was a association for young people called the Taiwan Youth Association. Some important people participated, such as Wang Sichang. Or Tsai Yizu. I don’t know if you know him, he’s an important cultural theorist in Tainan. He was a member of the Taiwan Youth Association. Su Zixiang also participated.
You could say that it was an organization or a social movement to support Taiwanese independence and the establishment of a new country. They organized some events then, which I also participated in. But there was not such a strong sense of attraction. What was a source of attractive force was interpersonal relations, people saying that you should do this, or that. I think participating back then is different from participating now.
Brian Hioe: For what reasons do you think you participated?
Terry Kuo: In the beginning, it really was because of interpersonal relations. Because Dr. Houng, or upperclassmen, said that these events were important. In the beginning, we really didn’t want to attend. Like if you brought your friends, and all went, people would ask, “Why should I go?”
Back then, it was like, if you went and demonstrated, it was like you had been brainwashed. It’s not like later, around 318, when you’d be like, “This person didn’t go. That person didn’t go.” And it was like they had been brainwashed.
Before, it was the opposite. So if you went, it was like you had been brainwashed. [Laughs] So people didn’t want to go in the beginning, but it was a sense of social pressure. It was a feeling that you should go, or that you should stand up. In the beginning like that.
Now it’s like there is a sense that this is proper. There’s a sort of social division saying that this is proper. But back then, you wouldn’t get any real sense of social approval from participating. You could maybe it’s like going to the temple. Some people think you must go. Well, maybe that’s an exaggeration.
It wasn’t for any high and lofty reason, or any belief that society should go in this direction, that I began participating. It was only later that after understanding it more, I would think it meant something. But in the beginning, it was probably more a sense of interpersonal relations. Of course, they told us what happened, and that a democratic country should be like this. We all knew this. And I think this kind of pressure from interpersonal relation is rare and precious, because is not because you want the social impact necessarily, but you have your own values and you want to spread this value to people you can contact.
Knowing something is right and actually doing that is different. Everyone in New Bloom knows that writing articles is what is right too, but do people write? It’s all just Brian writing. [Laughs]
Brian Hioe: [Laughs] Can we talk about the 5-6 Movement? Why did you guys begin participating? Because you all went there to sing every week.
Felix Leung: At that point, social divisions were very large. So social movements began to rise up. At that time, Taiwan also internally began to be receive pressure from China. There pressure, such as regarding free trade, was quite strong.
The only thing you could do was use social movements as a means of registering your dissent. It slowly began from the anti-media monopoly movement and other movements. It made politics seem like something that was safe, which wasn’t dangerous to participate in.
With regards to the 5-6 Movement, I think that the film directors who led it made it a point to state outright that this would be a peaceful, non-violent protest, and a moderate force. And it also used culture and the artists as peaceful means of protest to protest the KMT.
Photo credit: Tinru/Flickr/CC
Brian Hioe: Felix, since you’re from Hong Kong, how would say that you began participating in Taiwan’s social movements?
Felix Leung: The first time I was participated was probably the Shilin Wang family struggle. Before, in Hong Kong, I had participated in some protests in Hong Kong, such as Tiananmen Square commemorations or the annual marches on July 1st.
But with the Shilin Wang family incident, what I think led to my active participation was probably emotional feelings. I used to live in Shilin. The Wang family struggle took place somewhere I passed by quite often.
Secondly, it’s probably because I interacted a lot with Terry and the Yangming Meaningful Club. A single person probably is not very inclined to actively participate in something which might be dangerous. Going with a group feels safer and also makes it safer. It’s not a single person confronting violence. It also has to do with interpersonal relationships.
Terry Kuo: I think it also has to do with the time period. During the Shilin Wang family struggle, if there weren’t other factors, a person from Hong Kong might not participate. But I believe that now, after the Umbrella Movement, it may be different.
People might have a sense of wanting to learn from social movements in Taiwan and so may go. But at that time, I think it was less likely. That was when the KMT was in power.
Felix Leung: There were some issues because of my visa status regarding occupation-style protests, if I got arrested. Sometimes it ends up as participating without being able to be involved too deeply.
As a Hong Konger, you might also be made a political example of, regarding China. This is an inherent danger, as well, that I might be exiled from Taiwan permanently. So my view is that what I can do, I do.
Brian Hioe: Regarding 318, do you have any views regarding the direction of the movement? For example, some people may not agree with the decisions made by the core decision making group regarding 324 or the decision to withdraw from the Legislative Yuan.
Terry Kuo: Regarding the decision to withdraw, I’ve thought of an unorthodox take on it, which is that if you look at any of the successful forms of direct action which took place, you’ll find that two people were always present when it was successful. Those two people were called Lin Fei-Fan and Chen Wei-Ting.
It’s very interesting. The anti-media monopoly movement can also be considered to have been fairly successful, and both Lin and Chen were present. This was also true of the clash on Double Ten Day. Other people said to charge and called for direct action in other incidents, as well, but they weren’t as successful.
The 324 incident may have also been less successful because, at the very least, these two people didn’t fully participate in it. It was partially successful. But the set goal wasn’t achieved. If the set goal is achieved, I would count that as a success. Because the rest are factors you can’t control.
So success or failure is something you can be predicted. If you get beaten up, that’s not something you can control. And if society becomes divided on the issue because of that beating, I also don’t count it as a success.
I don’t think the two of them did too badly, regarding the things they said after 318. Why did the clashes they were involved in more often achieve their set goals? For example, during Double Ten Day.
My view is that clashes and forms of direct action often involve top-down leadership. At the very least, they can’t be so democratic. When you charge, how can you decide on what to do? If it’s totally democratic and transparent, then everyone knows your plans, including the police.
It’s a matter of trust. Because you feel these people won’t have such a large difference between what they preach and what they practice, had effective results in the past, and can express what you feel in your heart, then you feel as though you can support this person. It’s not because they are very democratic that you support them.
At the very least, these people had been leading direct action for a year. Maybe even longer. They’ve been doing this awhile, so you feel that you can believe them. Even if Chen Wei-Ting came out and said, “We’ve come to a decision,” and you’ve never thought about this before, you probably would still feel that they might be right.
Photo credit: Duke Lin/Flickr/CC
It’s a matter of trust that built up over time. Why didn’t some people have faith in other occasions? Others that led charges might not have been famous enough in society or built up enough social trust. That may be what led to success.
I remember on 330, there were 500,000. The sense was that we would withdraw soon. We hoped for many people to show up. That’s an example of faith. I feel that in terms of fighting over authority, some people might be unhappy and feel used by Lin and Chen.
But I didn’t look at it like that. We didn’t hope for this thing to disintegrate back then, at that point in time. We needed a lot of people then. So all of the Meaningful Club came out, I recall. We did some ridiculous things too. Xiaohei put this black box on his head.
Brian Hioe: I remember that.
Terry Kuo: Everyone was in pretty high spirits that day. I remember we came out of NTU Hospital station first. That’s the kind of power that moves people. We put a lot of things together. And I think the two of them took care of things pretty well. At the very least, if we attribute the success of the movement to these two people, I don’t feel all that used. Up to now, to some extent, I still feel that way. We don’t about how we’ll feel about that in the future, depending on what they do.
But the important thing is the faith that people have. Why did direct action succeed that time? Because the goal was clear. Occupy the Legislative Yuan? They really managed to occupy the Legislative Yuan. As for the Executive Yuan, it wasn’t as organized. I think that that faith and mobilization capacity, built up over participating in struggles over time, also led to their learning things the course of the struggles they participated in. They learned to organize something. It was funny, because while we said we knew how to charge and do direct action, in reality it was only those two that knew how to.
Brian Hioe: What about the decision to withdraw? Because a lot of people felt that the aims of the movement hadn’t yet been achieved. The CSSTA hadn’t been withdrawn.
Terry Kuo: It’s quite interesting to think about that. After all, like the Wild Strawberries, it wasn’t really about withdrawing or not withdrawing. If you decided that you didn’t want to withdraw, you could withdraw. It’s that simple. Nobody can request someone to withdraw or not to withdraw. You can say that, like during the Wild Strawberries, everyone said to withdraw.
But if we didn’t want to withdraw? We could just stay ourselves. There’s no need to blame Lin Fei-Fan or Chen Wei-Ting or the core decision making group. If you didn’t want to withdraw, then continue occupying. If you can’t maintain that and you get driven off, that’s what happens.
They might have been angry at the two of them, but who cares? I’m protesting and you’re protesting. Everyone decided to withdraw from the Legislative Yuan and we decided not to, we decided to stay on. That’s choice enough.
It depends on whether you think occupying the Legislative Yuan is important enough. If you don’t think you should withdraw, if you want to continue to give pressure to the government, then gather people. Like they did. You can say that, “They said to withdraw, there would be no way to gather enough people.”
But anyone can say stuff like that. If you don’t want to withdraw, you can scold them for deciding to withdraw, but whatever you say, they’ll withdraw. So you have to pick up the slack. Again, it returns to why only the two of them were ever successful.
Because the rest of the people were just all talk. Why listen to them? If you’re good enough, then pick up the slack. Say, Wang Yikai. But people like to push blame and responsibility onto other people and just give opinions from the sidelines. Who likes people who force responsibility onto others and don’t do anything themselves? For example, New Bloom. If I never participated, but I kept giving Brian opinions about what to write, write this, or write that. What then? Who would listen to you? [Laughs] I think this discussion about the withdraw can reveal some defect of our mind, we all want to be a hero without blame, without doing something in the spotlight. However by definition, a Hero is a man or woman who stands in front. I think we criticize the decision making process of the movement as not democratic enough, but we never realize the real democratic society need people to think about it from the standpoint of anarchism, which is totally absent in Taiwan’s movements.
Photo credit: 中岑 范姜/Flickr/CC
It’s funny, because we tried this before during the Wild Strawberry Movement. So you can look at it this way, but there’s no issue of whether to withdraw or not to withdraw. And the pressure is quite large. I also think it’s better to withdraw before you completely lose strength. It’s better than losing strength and some negative things appearing later on. To end when the situation still looks good. For example, withdrawing when 500,000 people still support you. That’s better. So they were more able to hold onto the original ideals of the movement in that way.
Brian Hioe: What would you say the movement was opposed to? For example, many were opposed to the black box, and others because the CSSTA was a trade deal signed with China. Still others opposed it because the KMT pushed for it. But probably the fewest opposed it because of opposition to free trade in itself.
Terry Kuo: Back then, Dr. Houng said something I think is quite meaningful. 318 has a very significant meaning, which was that it dragged us towards opposition to China. That’s the first level. But I think the meaning of the movement was less opposition to ECFA or free trade. The important aspect was opposition to unification.
Opposing China means, in Taiwan, opposing the KMT. The two are tied together. For the DPP to do so well in elections is because of opposition to the KMT. So the DPP benefitted, ultimately, from 318. These legislators who wouldn’t have been voted in except for 318 taking place benefitted.
And this may have been one of the ultimate outcomes of the movement. In Taiwan, people may be opposed to the KMT, but in the long-term, this is opposition to China.
Brian Hioe: What kind of political tendencies do you think there are in social movement participants in Taiwan? Because I think that, at the very least, they slant left politically. And not right. Many people say that they are left-wing, although sometimes I am unsure why. Where does this come from?
Terry Kuo: I think that this is a form of labeling. The best kind of label which sticks is one that people don’t actually know too much about it. It has a sense of progressiveness to it, but it’s not very clear what this means. I don’t think there are that many people who are left. Left and good are tied together. Good people, you would say are more left. Taiwan’s notion of left is more like showing social concern. It’s not really in terms of concrete political ideals.
Who’s more left? If you ask anyone, they’ll say that they are left leaning. But who is really left? Who is self-motivated in saying that they are left-wing? Besides Brian. [Laughs] Chen Wei-Ting doesn’t often say he’s left. Le Flanc Radical? They say that are left independence. But I think they place greater weight on independence, rather than left. And their left independence is to counteract the pro-unification left. Or they want to create a theory of left independence.
Those openly left-wing are all pro-unification left, such as Coolloud, or Wang Haozhong, or whoever. Those who claim to be left independence will all talk about Su Beng, But to be honest, I feel that Su Beng’s left is rather old-fashioned.
Would you say Hsu Sirong is left-wing? In terms of political thinking, he may seem left, but he is totally right-wing. He claims that if you have private property, the government can’t tear down your property as an absolute right. This is quite right-wing, in fact. The left-wing may more naturally support nationalization. But sometimes social care actually legitimizes right-wing thinking.
Photo credit: billy1125/Flickr/CC
Chang Tiezhi is also someone that many people think is left. But he’s actually right-wing. He’s someone that middle class people like. So I think it’s a label for social care. It’s not actually being left. For example, Bernie Sanders running for president and says that he’s left-wing. But as for the NPP, the NPP won’t claim that it is left-wing.
If you’re more progressive media and you ask them, what do you lean towards politically, they will always say that they are left-leaning. But Sanders said he was left from the beginning and in a more radical way. Everyone will think someone like Hsu Sirong is left-wing. In terms of political ideals, the land appropriation he is opposing, is something basic enough that the right-wing could also support. Even Robert Nozick would probably stand up and support that.
Brian Hioe: Three years later, what do you think the Sunflower movement has accomplished, in terms of influencing people?
Terry Kuo: I think it’s had quite a large influence. Like I said, in terms of the overall situation, we have to look at it from several aspects. You can divide it between when before the DPP was elected and after the DPP was elected. Before, the DPP’s influence effect was quite direct.
The Sunflower Movement, however, made participating social movements into something like going to a rock concert. You wouldn’t see someone say in an embarrassed manner, “Hey, I’m going to see May Day perform tomorrow.” You would be very excited about it. You would invite friends. And you’d think it’s a good thing.
Brian Hioe: You’d make sure that you clicked “Going” on the event on Facebook.
Terry Kuo: It wasn’t like that in the past. Like I said, politics was like a bad thing in the past, it was like you were brainwashing people to going. People would be like, “Uh, I’m good, thanks.” And then you would have to argue with them politically and think of ways to force them to come. Then in the end, you could only be like, “Come on. Aren’t we friends? Help out a bit.” [Laughs]
Now it isn’t like that. You could just be like, “Yo. Legislative Yuan.” And then everyone goes with you to the Legislative Yuan. My co-worker at I-Mei, he said that he became conscious of social issues following the Hung Chun-Hsiu incident, when all those people went there for one time, and one time only. He went there to listen to the rock bands. It seemed like a very cool thing. Like a live show. May Day has concerts with 100,000 or 500,000 people too. Everyone likes to go to shows, and it’s a really good show. Everyone feels good after listening.
In the future, it won’t be so easy to get people to go onto the streets. For the DPP to win the legislature of presidency this time, it needed a lot of resources. But afterwards, you would find that Taiwan really hasn’t absorbed these things. These things haven’t been completely digested. Protest movements have weakened greatly at this point. After the DPP took before, social movements have weakened.
Photo credit: Charlie Chang/Flickr/CC
Brian Hioe: Where do you think all of these people from social movements have gone to? Into government?
Terry Kuo: Probably quite a lot of people have entered government. But most maybe just have to make a living right now. Some have entered government, to be sure. I don’t think they’ve disappeared. I think it represents that the Sunflower Movement’s influence is not actually deep enough. Without the stimulation of a political clash, people have disappeared. Of course, there are still a lot of political clashes, but they’re not as explosive as in the past.
For example, opposition to the demolition of historic railroads in southern Taiwan. Or on Matou mountain. A lot of environmental or other issues. Because they’ve encountered unequal events.
But compared to 318, it’s a different feeling. If you participate in social movements, it feels less like a rock concert. The indigenous struggle for traditional territories may be the exception. But overall, I think Taiwan has to transition. It can’t depend on sudden emotions as motivating social movements, or wanting to be cool. Because these sorts of protests have an issue. When there’s colonizer to fight, you lose strength.
So if I were the Tsai government, I won’t attack you. Why would I? And I’d tell you, I won’t attack you. Because then, opposition will emerge. I wouldn’t want this. It’s like that.
And it’s no longer cool, to stay out all day being baked by the sun, without even a single opinion. The media won’t even come and there are no stars. Sometimes stars are important. If Lin Fei-Fan went, Chen Wei-Ting went, or Freddy, or Huang Kuo-Chang came, then there would be a sense of something happening, and the media would come. Then there would be that excitement. But they don’t seem to be doing that.
Brian Hioe: So you think that there could not be another movement like the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan in the future?
Terry Kuo: In the short-term, I don’t think so. And I think political change in Taiwan cannot only depend on these means. I think it has to move to the next stage, which is more comprehensively having systematic change. Such as establishing a new constitution. If 100,000 people or 500,000 people take to the streets, it may not lead to fundamental change.
Brian Hioe: How do you think China looks at this?
Terry Kuo: I’ve heard one view about it. Actually, I could ask relatives. I have Chinese relatives. I can ask. Have they heard of the Sunflower Movement? I heard one way of explaining it, which is that the Sunflower Movement has led China to realize that they don’t understand Taiwanese young people at all. As for the rest, I’m not very sure. I don’t know how Chinese people look at it.
On the other hand, perhaps China doesn’t care about Taiwan all that much. If you were the leader of China, with the economic problems you currently face, regarding the economy, or the environment, that’s a lot on their plate already. And Hong Kong may be more important to deal with for China. So I don’t think Taiwan is a huge threat to them.
Brian Hioe: Felix, any thoughts on Hong Kong?
Felix Leung: I think China has quite a large force behind it. It gets larger and larger, but it also could inversely have to do with the economy. If the economy was good, they might not actually bother with Hong Kong too much, regarding freedoms. But when the economy is bad, they might want to do something to distract from the economy, such as calling for unification with regards to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The Sunflower Movement and Umbrella Movement are kind of stimulating, since there’s the sense that if you don’t stand up now, then when? 318 is a critical point to say that if you don’t do anything now and just wait, then you’ll regret it, so why do that? Stand up now.
Photo credit: Toomore Chiang/Flickr/CC
Regarding political control in Taiwan or Hong Kong, that raises local consciousness. When you’re in the sea, you won’t think too much about it, but if the water were to drain away, you’d start to think about it. It’s like that with the political decline in freedoms. You realize it had its importance. Now a group of people want to drain away the water, so you’d cling to something fundamental you feel has been threatened.
Brian Hioe: Lastly, I want to ask, do you think the Sunflower Movement could have an effect on international social movements? Whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere.
Terry Kuo: In Hong Kong, I think so.
Felix Leung: Yes.
Terry Kuo: I also think that humans don’t differ too much between different places. Hong Kong might be like, “Taiwan? You’re willing to do things like charge into and occupy your legislature. And drag it on for so long? And nothing happens? Well, if you can, so can we.” I think people in Hong Kong probably watches what Taiwan does quite a bit.
Felix Leung: Yes.
Terry Kuo: It serves as a comparison. On one side is China and on the other side is Taiwan. So there’s a sort of internal persuasiveness. You’ll be like, “Well, they do this too.” Like how Taiwan talks about Japan, or the USA, or France, as a standard.
But this influence is towards countries that look at Taiwan as a model country or see Taiwan positively. Hong Kong might see Taiwan that way. Japan might also. Japan may see itself as higher, so it may think it has less to learn. We have less contact with southeast Asian countries, so they might feel like there is less to learn.
The Philippines has a high degree of political control in society right now and there are a lot of opposition movements. In Indonesia as well. Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of exchange with these places.
If there were, and when people from the Philippines come here, at least economically, I think they would see Taiwan as an advanced country. And if we had connections, we could influence them. As things are now, I think we can only influence Hong Kong. There’s no structure. So I think with countries such as the Philippines, we could have appeal, but there isn’t. As for Europe and America?
Brian Hioe: I think they think they are best. [Laughs]
Terry Kuo: For them, it’s like reading a story from far, far away. Like something happened in a third world country. [Laughs]. Like how we look at Philippines. “Oh, so many people are being killed, look how poor they are there.” “Oh, there’s a political conflict in Taiwan, and they occupied the Legislative Yuan.”
They won’t think that they can learn something from this. If America has something like the News Lens, they might write it as a story. “Wow, so Taiwan is like this,” and so on and so forth. They might have some inspiration.
Photo credit: Toomore Chiang/Flickr/CC
Yet it’s just inspiration, not influence. There’s not that much deep content. But what you are doing now with your project is the deepening the content of it. Chomsky and other people might write books about social movements. Apart from that, social movements don’t have too much depth to them. Like Chen Chih-Hsiung, being killed and shouting, “Long live Taiwan!”
Otherwise, there’s no depth. Depth comes later. Like Irish independence, there have been movies made about it, and we watch those. So it’s interesting. Because there have been many books written on the Sunflower Movement. But you feel as though it’s still lacking something.