The Pro Reunification Plebiscite

The Pro Reunification Plebiscite: Chen Shui-bian rails against Tsao Hsing-cheng for 20 Minutes
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2007

Last week, Tsao Hsing-cheng bought a half-page ad in several major newspapers, promoting his "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act." Its main provision was a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." According to reports, Chen Shui-bian spent a full 20 minutes railing against Tsao, accusing Tsao of "manipulating politics" under the pretext of promoting peace, when his real motive was to oppose independence and to promote reunification.

This newspaper proposed a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" ten years ago, opening up new possibilities for cross-Straits relations. Its reverberations have been endless. Over the past decade, the Democratic Progressive Party has drafted several "Pro Reunification Plebiscites" as replacements for "Pro Independence Plebiscites." Lee Yuan-tse established a cross-Straits group based on the same guiding principles. While discussing politics Frank Hsieh has frequently raised such a possibility. Tsao Hsing-cheng is an entrepreneur who is highly enthusiastic about such a plebiscite. His current proposal for legislation to that effect is probably the result of years of pondering the possibilities.

Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal has some points worth considering. Chen Shui-bian's criticisms were rude and inappropriate. He was smearing and labeling Tsao. Tsao Hsing-cheng advocates a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." Tsao's main assertion was that when the time comes to reunify, the people have a right to decide whether or not to do so. In other words, if the people on Taiwan do not agree to reunify, then they have legal recourse. They have a mechanism that conveys their opinion. Chen Shui-bian quoted him out of context, and leveled false charges against him. Tsao Hsing-cheng said "citizens have the right to decide whether or not to reunify." Chen spun this as "opposition to independence and promotion of reunification." He referred to the "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act" as nothing more than a "Cross-Straits Unification Act," a "Taiwan's Forced Reunification Act," and a "Taiwan Surrender Act." Chen sounded like a thug, and nothing at all like a president.

Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft is of course not perfect. For instance, he states that the Taiwan side has the right of approval when the mainland side proposes a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." This, we feel, is inappropriate. We believe the initiative for any "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" must remain in the hands of the Taiwan side. This must be prescribed by law. The initiative must not fall into the hands of the mainland side.

Tsao's proposal however, is motivated by concern for Taiwan. Every word is filled wtih heartfelt concern for the people's feelings. The ruling regime's response in the face of such opinions, was not to separate the wheat from the chaff, to extract the marrow from the bones, or to be inspired Tsao's earnest patriotism. Chen Shui-bian's response surprised everyone. He used the crudest, most caustic language to blast Tsao Hsing-cheng. Not only did he distort Tsao's statements, he questioned his patriotism. He treated Tsao Hsing-cheng like a traitor. Chen revealed the mentality of a petty tyrant, for whom heartfelt counsel is perceived as intolerable disloyalty.

Leave aside Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft for the moment. Ten years ago, this newspaper proposed its own "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" framework: One. The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. According to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. If, on the other hand, it needs to declare independence, then by implication the Republic of China (or Taiwan) is not a sovereign and independent nation. Two. Reunification changes the nation's status quo, therefore it requires the agreement of 23 million people. The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" says that "changing Taiwan's independent status" by reunifying with the mainland, requires "a plebiscite/referendum by all of Taiwan's residents." Tsao's proposal contains similar stipulations.

In other words, the "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" is not what Chen Shui-bian refers to as an "Anti-independence Plebiscite." Its two main provisions are: One. The Republic of China (the Democratic Progressive Party will want to substitute "Taiwan") is a sovereign and independent nation. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "anti-independence?" It might even be considered "a defense of independence." Two. To change the status quo (by opting for reunification), must be decided collectively by 23 million people. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "promoting reunification?" It might even be considered "opposition to reunification."

Tsao's proposal contains ill-considered aspects. But its basic concept is that the nation is already independent, that its sovereignty should be defended, and any changes to the status quo must undergo a plebiscite/referendum process. In other words, any pro reunification plebiscite must take place only when the time is ripe. If a plebiscite opposes reunification, then Taiwan's sovereignty can be guaranteed. Such thinking, in the context of a complex cross-Straits strategic scenario, may come across as wishful thinking. But it bears scant resemblance to what Chen Shui-bian made it out to be.

Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal may not have been completely thought out. But his patriotism does not deserve to be questioned. Any flaws in his proposal do not outweigh its virtues. Nor do they undermine his image as a world class entrepreneur. Chen Shui-bian's remarks were caustic, vicious, and cruel. If we were to compare him to Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we would be flattering him. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are nasty towards foreigners, unlike Chen Shui-bian, who is nasty towards his own compatriots.

統一公投：陳水扁罵曹興誠二十分鐘！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.20 03:59 am

上周，曹興誠登報鼓吹制定《兩岸和平共處法》，其中的主要機制是「統一公投」；詎料竟被陳水扁公開罵了二十分鐘，指曹興誠「操弄政治」，「假和平之名，行反獨促統之實」。

「統一公投」是本報約在十年前首先提出，為兩岸關係開闢了新思維，迄今回響不絕。十年以來，民進黨曾幾度擬以「統一公投」取代「獨立公投」，李遠哲組建的兩岸小組亦曾有意列為綱領，謝長廷論政時也曾多次提及；曹興誠則是企業家中對此議最熱中者，此次提議立法應是他多年思考所致。

曹興誠的提議誠有可待斟酌之處，但陳水扁的批評卻是失格失態，簡直是栽贓、扣帽子。曹興誠提議的「統一公投」，其主要用心是在「倘若有『統一』之提案時，必須賦予台灣人民對提案有決定可否之權利」；亦即，若台灣人民不同意「統一」，依法即可有一民主機制來表達並保障民意。但是，陳水扁竟斷章取義、誣陷栽贓，將曹興誠所主張的「國民對統一擁有可否的自主權」，誣指為「反獨促統」，並指《兩岸和平共處法》根本就是《兩岸統一法》、《台灣被統法》、《台灣投降法》。這簡直是流氓口氣，那裡像是總統的言語？

當然，曹興誠的《草案》尚有可待商榷之處；比如，該案主張應在中國大陸提出「統一公投」之「要求」時，台灣「方予辦理」，此議恐非允當。我們認為，若要實施「統一公投」，其發動權仍應操在台灣方面，並在法制上訂出發動之條件，主動權絕不可落在對岸。

然而，曹案畢竟係為台灣利益著想，字斟句酌之間充滿憂時傷民的情愫，可謂嘔心瀝血；主政當局面對此類建言，即使不能沙中淘金，摘其神髓，亦當會受到如曹某這般愛國企業家的熱誠所感動。但是，陳水扁的反應卻是大出眾人意料，竟以如此尖刻粗暴的言語訾罵曹興誠，非但扭曲其議論，更汙蔑其愛國之心，儼然將曹興誠視作台奸國賊！這是統治者以諍友為寇讎的刻薄表現，委實令人齒冷。

擱下曹興誠的《草案》，本報十年前提議「統一公投」時所舉出的基本架構是：一、中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。若用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，則台灣是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。否則，若須再宣布獨立，即代表中華民國（或台灣）不是主權獨立的國家。二、統一會改變國家現狀，所以須經二千三百萬人同意。用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，倘若面臨「台灣獨立現狀之更動」（亦即統一），即必須「經由台灣全體住民以公民投票的方式決定」。在曹案中，亦有類似申論。

也就是說，「統一公投」絕非陳水扁所說的「反獨促統」，其兩大支柱是：一、中華民國（民進黨可將主詞易作「台灣」）是一主權獨立的國家。既是如此，則曹案豈是「反獨」？反而是「護獨」。二、若要改變現狀（表決統一選項），應經兩千三百萬人共同決定。既是如此，則曹案豈是「促統」？反而可以說是「反統法制化」。

曹案或有思慮未周之處，但其基本思維只在確立國家主權（國家已經獨立），並維護國民主權（若要統一而改變現狀，須經公民投票決定）。換言之，倘若公投同意統一，必是兩岸整合已至水到渠成之時；若是公投反對統一，則台灣的自主性仍可確保。這樣的思維，在複雜的兩岸情勢中，即使顯得有點一廂情願，但豈容陳水扁恣意誣陷栽贓？

曹興誠的提案容或未盡周延，但他此時此刻愛國傷民的情懷不容汙蔑，其提案內容瑕不掩瑜，無損其為心繫天下的企業家形象；陳水扁則是言語尖刻，思維骯髒，道德陰損，倘稱其與查維茲、阿馬丁加德同類，恐怕尚有抬舉之嫌。因為，阿查二人大多是對異邦口出惡言，未聞像陳水扁如此詆毀謾罵自己的國民！