Having KO'ed Yu Hsi-kuen, what is Frank Hsieh doing, except running for "President of the Nation of Taiwan?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 02, 2007
No sooner had the birthday party begun, than the birthday boy suddenly "worried himself sick" and announced he would not be able to attend. Did Frank Hsieh really boycott of the Democratic Progressive Party National Congress and election rally because he was "sick to his stomach?"
Frank Hsieh may not have been "sick to his stomach" physiologically. But he may well have "worried himself sick" psychologically. His dramatic gesture wasn't aimed only at Yu Hsi-kuen. It was also aimed at the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." It used one issue as a pretext for another. It used borrowed strength to increase its own strength, Hsieh took advantage of the opportunity to confront Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party: If you want me to run for president, do not attempt to keep me captive, allow me to lead and leave me a free hand.
As matters stand, the Democratic Progressive Party is caught in its own trap. Frank Hsieh is up to his knees in quicksand. Turning lemons into lemonade is going to be easier said than done.
First, Chen and Hsieh are saying that "Taiwan independence is disadvantageous during elections." The truth is Taiwan independence is not necessarily disadvantageous to the Democratic Progressive Party during elections. Otherwise it wouldn't have demagogued the issue of Taiwan independence as long as it has. The real problem is that Taiwan independence is disadvantageous to sound governance. As Chiu Yi-ren and others already made clear during the DPP National Congress, it is impossible to rule the nation by means of Taiwan independence. After all, if Taiwan independence were truly advantageous to sound governance, how could it be disadvantageous during elections? If Taiwan independence were truly disadvantageous during elections, why would the Democratic Progressive Party pass a "Resolution for a Normal Nation" that amounts to a "Resolution to Demagogue Taiwan independence Forever?"
The Democratic Progressive Party is currently engaged in a patently phony struggle over the semantics of the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name" vs. the "Rectification of the Nation's Name." The dilemma Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party face is this: On the one hand they want to demagogue the issue of Taiwan independence during the upcoming presidential election. On the other hand demanding Taiwan independence prevents them from effectively governing the nation, and from easing the apprehensions of middle class voters. Now, with its "Resolution for a Normal Nation," the Democratic Progressive Party has declared that it intends to demagogue the issue of Taiwan independence forever. If all the DPP can do is quarrel over the semantic distinctions between the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name" and the "Rectification of the Nation's Name," how can it resolve the contradiction between the demands of electioneering and the demands of sound governance?
Actually, Frank Hsieh's Number One Enemy within the party is not Yu Hsi-kuen, but Chen Shui-bian. Yu Hsi-kuen may have been swept out of office because he advocated Taiwan independence. But Chen Shui-bian was able to stage a comeback by hijacking the Taiwan independence movement. Frank Hsieh turned on Yu Hsi-kuen merely because Yu demanded that the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" include the words: "Rectification of the Nation's Name." But Chen Shui-bian demanded a "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan," creating a far bigger international stink. He even trashed Taipei/Washington relations. So why doesn't Frank Hsieh argue the merits of his case with Chen? Obviously, what is going on is a power struggle. Chen advocates Taiwan independence, his stock goes up. The difference between the two positions is trivial. Yu advocates Taiwan independence, his stock goes down. Now that Yu Hsi-kuen is out of the picture, Frank Hsieh finds himself at loggerheads with Chen Shui-bian.
Besides, doesn't Frank Hsieh advocate Taiwan independence? He said the Democratic Progressive Party has always advocated a Republic of Taiwan and a Taiwan Independence Party Constitution. He announced his "Five Year Plan for the Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution." He declared that the office he was running for was "President of the Nation of Taiwan." What was the point of his break with Yu Hsi-kuen over semantic differences in the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name" vs. the "Rectification of the Nation's Name?" Doesn't Frank Hsieh also advocate Taiwan independence? Isn't he equally determined to demagogue the issue of Taiwan independence, in perpetuity?
The controversy over the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" doesn't really have anything to do with semantic differences between the "Rectification of the Nation's Name" and the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name." It has to do with why the DPP can not and dare not put words such as the "Rectification of the Nation's Name" and the "Nation of Taiwan" into official writing. Especially when the DPP boasts that Taiwan independence is already "mainstream public opinion." Why has the DPP, which has already been in power for nearly eight years, openly admitting that the "Rectification of the Nation's Name" is "disadvantageous to sound governance?" Obviously the issue is not semantic differences between the "Rectification of the Nation's Name" and the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name." The issue is whether advocates of Taiwan independence actually have a workable plan for governing a nation.
If they have a workable plan, then why after decades of promotion and eight years in power, are we still not permitted to see these party documents? If they don't have a workable plan, why are they still playing these fraudulent games? Why are they issuing their "Resolution to Demagogue Taiwan Independence Forever?" and their "Resolution to Dismember Taiwan?"
Frank Hsieh, who refers to himself as a candidate for "President of the Nation of Taiwan," opposes the "Rectification of the Nation's Name to Taiwan." Hsieh has accused Yu Hsi-kuen of "calling for a showdown while ignorant of the circumstances." Meanwhile he remains silent about Chen Shui-bian, who is "calling for a showdown while aware of the circumstances." Frank Hsieh, armed with the "Resolution to Demagogue Taiwan Independence Forever," has KO'ed Yu Hsi-kuen. Now he faces Chen Shui-bian.
Through the "Resolution for a Normal Nation," Frank Hsieh has made clear he is a Taiwan independence moderate. But the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" is for all intents and purposes a "Resolution to Dismember Taiwan." This bears not only on whether Hsieh will win the election. It also bears on whether Hsieh will be able to govern the nation if he is elected. Frank Hsieh doesn't need to take a stand on the "Rectification of the Name of the Nation" issue. What Frank Hsieh needs is tell the people whether he intends to continue demagoguing the issue of Taiwan independence. Whether Taiwan independence is going to continue tear Taiwan apart?
Having KO'ed Yu Hsi-kuen, what is Frank Hsieh doing, except running for "President of the Nation of Taiwan?"
撂倒游，謝長廷就不是選「台灣國總統」了？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.02 03:07 am
生日派對就待開場，壽星突然「憂憤成疾」，宣告缺席。謝長廷臨場杯葛民進黨全代會及大選造勢活動，難道真是因為「腹痛如絞」？
謝長廷未必在生理上「腹痛如絞」，卻不無可能在心智上「憂憤成疾」。他使出這個大動作，不只是針對游錫?，也不僅是針對《正常國家決議文》；而是借題發揮、借力使力，順勢與陳水扁及民進黨攤牌：若要我謝長廷選總統，就別挾持我，要給我主導權，給我自由！
但是，情勢走到今天這一步，民進黨已然作繭自縛，謝長廷亦早已泥足深陷。欲扭轉情勢，重新出發，談何容易？
首先，扁謝等人現在皆謂「台獨不利選舉」；然而，真相卻是，台獨未必不利民進黨選舉，否則即不會炒作到今日地步；真正的問題是，台獨根本不能平順執政，不能平順治國，邱義仁等在全代會中已為此定調。否則，台獨若有利治國，豈會不利選舉？而台獨若不利選舉，民進黨又怎會表決通過等同《民進黨一直鬧台獨決議文》的《正常國家決議文》？
民進黨如今將黨內鬥爭聚焦於「台灣正名」或「國號正名」的文字出入，誠是自欺欺人。謝長廷與民進黨面臨的困局分明是：一方面想玩弄台獨以炒作選舉，但另一方面又因主張台獨即無可能平順執政治國，致不能化解中間選民的疑懼。如今，透過《決議文》，民進黨既宣示要鬧台獨一直鬧下去，則僅是爭執「台灣正名」與「國號正名」的文字出入，豈能平衡選舉與治國的矛盾？
其實，謝長廷在黨內的頭號敵人，不是游錫?，而是陳水扁。游錫?因主張台獨而落到如今掃地出門的下場，陳水扁這一年來卻是因挾持了台獨而東山再起，興風作浪。游錫?只因欲在黨內文件《決議文》中載明「國號正名」，謝長廷就與他反目；而陳水扁則大張旗鼓地用「台灣公投入聯」在國際上大吵大鬧，甚至把台美關係也毀了，謝長廷卻為何不敢據理力爭？可見，眼前上演的仍是權力鬥爭的成分較大（扁主張台獨，大旺），而路線鬥爭的成分較小（游主張台獨，大衰）。不過，如今游錫?被整肅了，謝長廷勢須直接面對與陳水扁角力的局面。
何況，謝長廷自己難道不主張台獨？他說，民進黨本來就主張台灣共和國及台獨黨綱，又宣示他的「五年正名制憲論」，並昭告他選的是「台灣國總統」；則他為了「台灣正名」或「國號正名」的文字出入與游錫?等決裂，有何意義？難道謝長廷自己不同樣也是主張台獨？難道他不同樣也是主張鬧台獨一直鬧下去？
《決議文》引發的爭議，其實不在於「國號正名」與「台灣正名」的出入；而是在於為何「國號正名」及「台灣國」這區區幾字，竟然在民進黨誇稱台獨已是「主流民意」的情勢中，仍然不能、不敢見諸文字？又為何在民進黨執政已近八年後，如今竟公然承認「國號正名」不利於執政治國？所以，問題的癥結根本不在「國號正名」及「台灣正名」的文字出入，而在於台獨究竟是否執政治國的可行方案？
若可行，則何以經數十年鼓吹及八年執政仍不能見諸黨內文件？若不可行，則又為何仍要繼續玩弄這個騙局幻術，發布這一紙《民進黨一直鬧台獨決議文》及《台獨繼續凌遲台灣決議文》？
自稱選「台灣國總統」的謝長廷，竟反對「國號正名為台灣」；喝斥游錫?「沒有資訊，就喊拚」的謝長廷，卻對「有資訊，還是要拚」的陳水扁噤若寒蟬。手捧《民進黨一直鬧台獨決議文》的謝長廷，撂倒了游錫?，如今已直接面對陳水扁！
謝長廷在《決議文》上作文章，似在展現及凸顯他是台獨的溫和派。然而，《正常國家決議文》在本質上已是《台獨繼續凌遲台灣決議文》；這不僅影響謝能否贏得選舉，更將攸關謝若當選能否執政治國。謝長廷其實不必在「國號正名」區區數字的出入上計較表態，他必須告訴國人：是否還要一直鬧台獨？台獨是否還要繼續凌遲台灣？
撂倒了游錫?，謝長廷難道就不是選「台灣國總統」了？
No comments:
Post a Comment