Other than the fact of shedding light on a poorly crafted and possibly destructful services trade pact with China, Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement has performed an extraordinary, if under-appreciated, service to the country by sparking a necessary societal debate on the meaning of democracy. This movement has open many doors and ideology as to what the term “Democracy” means. Jovially, the vast majority of the Sunflowers’ critics, both in the West and various parts of Asia, have used “democracy” and “rule of law” as a weapon with which to discredit the activists’ nearly three-week occupation of the Legislative Yuan. While conceding the possibility that the movement’s ideals might have been laudable, the critics often expressed strong disagreement with the “illegal” techniques adopted to pressure the government. Many may disagree with that definition of the hot word of the day “Democracy” and seek to expand the nature of it to what is sometimes referred to as positive freedom in which Jonathan Schell defines as “the capacity to participate in political life. The Democracy of Taiwan has become an illusion used and abused by both the powers that be and by those who have no pity in seeing the democratic miracle slowly descend into soft dictatorship. Of course Taipei can reply to the objections with the law and put the leadership behind bars with strong support from a number of people in Taiwan and abroad. After all, they did break the law to include several other dissidents worldwide, some of these people include Liu Xiaobo. But the government has broken its contract with society, and consequently the law has become an instrument of repression.