The Funnel and the Trumpet

The Funnel and the Trumpet:
Ten Years after the Return of Hong Kong, 20 years after Martial Law, 30 years after the Cultural Revolution
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
June 27, 2007


Deng Xiaoping


Lee Teng-hui


Chen Shui-bian

This is the 10th anniversary of Hong Kong's retrocession, the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law on Taiwan, and the 30th anniversary, more or less, of the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Taiwan's political path following the lifting of martial law resembles a funnel. The broad horizons opened up by the lifting of martial law represent the large end of the funnel, Taiwan's every narrowing horizons represent the small end of the funnel. By contrast, the political path followed by the mainland and Hong Kong regions, 30 years after the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and 10 years after Hong Kong's retrocession, resembles a trumpet. From the small end with mouthpiece, their horizons have steadily broadened as they advanced confidently toward the ever wider bell.

Of course, the mainland and Taiwan regions of China have many areas in which they cannot be compared. The biggest difference is that the Taiwan region has established a procedural framework for democracy. It has surpassed Hong Kong in directly electing its president. It has surpassed the mainland in ways too numerous to be cited individually, such as multiparty politics, direct elections at all levels, and a free media.

But Taiwan qua Taiwan, 20 years after the lifting of martial law, truly has been marching into the small end of a funnel. Martial Law and the Period of Mobilization for the Suppression of Communist Rebellion were rescinded 20 years ago. Politically and economically, the Taiwan region found itself at a watershed moment, reborn into a new world of limitless possibilities. Who knew it would soon fall victim to Lee Teng-hui's relentless attempts to undermine the constitution and practice "black gold" (cronyist) politics? Furthermore the direct election of the president required only a plurality, enabling the Democratic Progressive Party and Chen Shui-bian to seize power, and by means of "two bullets" obtain an illegal second term, during which time divisions arose over national identity, chaos undermined constitutional rule, the judiciary became a rubber stamp, the economy fell into depression, corruption became the norm, and the quality of life declined. Instead of progressing, Taiwan began regressing in every way, sliding toward the bottom of the funnel. Democracy and constitutionalism have become nothing more than tools with which Chen Shui-bian can hijack the nation and safeguard his kleptocracy.

Twenty years after the lifting of martial law, the core value of Taiwan's ruling regime has become: How to safeguard Chen Shui-bian's corruption, and how to work with Chen Shui-bian to continue deceiving oneself and others about Taiwan independence. Is this why we lifted 20 years of martial law? Is this to be its crowning achievement?

Do not compare the mainland with Taiwan, you say? Well then let's discuss the mainland qua mainland. Let's look at the changes 30 years after the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, at
Deng Xiaoping's "Black Cat, White Cat" thesis, at his declaration that "Only economic development is a hard truth," and at his call to "Let some people get rich first." His logic is incontrovertible, and the benefits are incalculable. Thirty years ago, if a farmer's wife sold two eggs on the street, she risked vilification as a "capitalist-roader." Thirty years later, the mainland has become the industrial workshop of the world. A conformist ant hill in which everyone wore blue Lenin jackets, has become a prosperous consumer society. Yes, problems still plague the mainland. The democratization of its political system lags behind others'. But China qua China, 30 years after the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, truly does suggest the ever widening bell of a trumpet.

Looking at Hong Kong qua Hong Kong, the ten year trend is also remarkably trumpet like. Ten years ago, Hong Kong was panic-stricken. The bottom had dropped out of the real estate and stock markets. Today it is booming. Its global economic and trade roles are on the rise. Its virtues prior to retrocession, clean and transparent government, have been preserved. Hong Kongers continue to push for the direct election of governors and an upgrade of the region's status. Hong Kong's retrocession to China was a thorny problem. But Deng Xiaoping's formula "one country, two systems" has allowed the mainland and Hong Kong to advance step by step toward the broad end of the trumpet over the past ten years. A single phrase has shrugged off ideology. A simple formula has allowed a nation to extricate itself from a dead end. (At this point we must add that we do not advocate "one country, two systems" for Taiwan.)

Lee Teng-hui was the first president following the lifting of martial law. Chen Shui-bian was the first president following regime change. Both stood at historic watersheds, full of possibilty. But they both stooped to racist demagoguery and political intrigue, and took Taiwan down the path to constitutional ruin, political corruption, and economic decline. By contrast, Deng Xiaoping was the first leader following Mao Zedong. He rescued a mainland on the verge of disintegration, and set it back on the path toward national greatness. It is not easy to draw comparisons between Lee, Chen, and Deng. But if we simply compare their starting points and end points, we can see that Deng Xiaoping went from narrow to wide. He was dealt a losing hand, but parlayed it into a fortune. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, went from wide to narrow. They were dealt winning hands, yet frittered away the family fortune.

What is the reason behind the rise of the mainland and the decline of Taiwan over the past 20 years? Put simply, it is because they had Deng Xiaoping, while we had Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.

Original Chinese below:

解嚴20年／文革後30年／香港回歸10年
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.06.27 04:10 am

今年是香港「回歸」十年，解嚴二十年，亦是文革後約莫三十年。

從大歷史來看，台灣解嚴後二十年的歷史走向是「漏斗型」；二十年來，從解嚴當時最寬闊的地帶（猶如漏斗的上端開口處），一步一步，愈走愈窄（走向漏斗窄狹的底部）。相對而言，文革後的三十年，及香港回歸十年的歷史走向，則宛如「喇叭型」；自頂端窄小的吹嘴，愈走愈寬，走向前方寬闊的喇叭口。

當然，中國與台灣頗多不能相比之處。最大的差異在於台灣已經大抵建立了民主運作的完整程序架構；例如，超越香港者是總統直選等，超越中國者更不可以道里計，如政黨政治、里長以上的各級直選與自由媒體等等，不勝枚舉。

但是，以台灣論台灣，解嚴後的二十年，確實是愈走愈窄的「漏斗型」。二十年前解嚴時，因戒嚴令的取消與動員戡亂時期的終止，台灣在政治經濟各方面確實曾有大開大闔、脫胎換骨的契機。當時的台灣，宛如站在歷史的大出口，何其開闊！詎料，解嚴後不久竟即陷入李登輝毀憲亂憲的風潮及黑金政治的夢魘。接著，因總統選舉採相對多數制，使民進黨及陳水扁奪得政權，又以兩顆子彈而僥倖連任；其間國家認同分裂、憲政濁亂、司法受到操弄、經濟低迷、貪腐成風、民生凋敝……。整個台灣，亦即台灣的各方面，不進反退，皆一步一步滑向漏斗的底端；情勢演變至今，整個民主憲政，竟然沉淪墮落到了只成為被陳水扁挾持以捍衛貪腐的私器而已！

解嚴二十年，如今台灣主政當局的核心政策議題竟然是：如何捍衛貪腐的陳水扁？以及如何陪陳水扁繼續操弄「自欺欺人」的台獨騙術！這難道就是當年解嚴所追求的目標？這難道就是台灣解嚴二十年的終極成就？

不要用中國和台灣來比，然而，不妨以中國論中國，看看文革後三十年的變化。鄧小平的「黑貓白貓論」、「發展才是硬道理」及「讓一部分人先富起來」，道理淺白，效益宏大。三十年前，連農村大媽捧兩顆雞蛋到街上求售，皆可能被打成「走資派」；三十年後的中國，已成了世界工廠與世界市場。穿著列寧裝制服的藍螞蟻社會，如今儼然已經成了繽紛滿目的花花世界。是的，中國仍有極多問題，政治的民主化尤其落伍太多；但是就中國論中國，文革後三十年的政經趨勢，確實是走向愈來愈寬的喇叭口。

再以香港論香港，十年的走向亦大體上是「喇叭型」。經濟方面，從十年前的人心惶惶，房價股市狂跌，到如今非但景氣回溫，且其世界經貿角色亦仍見上升空間。在社會及政治方面，回歸前的優勢如政府廉能及公信力仍然維持，且政治議題亦朝向「特首直選」等升級領域進行試探。試想，香港回歸中國曾是多麼棘手的問題，但鄧小平一句「一國兩制」，卻使十年來的中港關係一步步走向寬闊的喇叭口；一句話甩掉了意識形態的包袱，一句話使國家從死胡同裡鑽出來。（在此須附一語，我們不贊成台灣施行「一國兩制」。）

李登輝是站在解嚴時代的第一人，陳水扁是站在政黨輪替時代的第一人。他們皆曾站在歷史的最開闊處，但他們皆沉溺於政爭權謀，將國家在大歷史上帶往憲政沉淪、政治腐敗及經濟下坡的漏斗下端。相對而言，鄧小平則是站在後毛澤東時代的第一人，他卻在大歷史上將中國從瀕臨解構帶向「大國崛起」的氣勢。即使不宜以李扁鄧三人相互比較，就以他們自己的政治起點與政治終點比較，鄧小平的歷史表現應是由窄而寬的「喇叭型」，把一手爛牌打旺了；李登輝與陳水扁則無疑是由寬而窄的「漏斗型」，把一手好牌打臭掉。

兩岸二十年來的消長，因何所致？一個比較簡化但中肯的答案可能是：因為他們有鄧小平，我們有李登輝與陳水扁。