Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian

Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2009

If someone were to tell you that Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui, and Chen Shui-bian have a lot in common, would you believe it?

First let's look at Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui. Fan Lan Ching wrote an article dealing with 2/28, in which he argued on behalf of Chen Yi. He wrote, "Chen Yi was an upright official who cared for the people." Lin Cho-shui, in his new book, "The Theater of History" wrote, "Chen Yi has long been the designated villain. Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian, and brutal, all rolled into one. Most people think he is the chief culprit behind the 2/28 Incident. But this is not Chen Yi's true face. I found myself unable to go along with this view of him, and was surprised to find that Chen Yi and his administration were good officials seldom found in Chinese politics." Lin Cho-shui agreed that "Chen Yi was extremely honest and never violated the law.'

Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui have different views on the overall significance of the 2/28 Incident of course. But the two men actually share many views about Chen Yi. Not every view, but some of the most important views. Lin Cho-shui said that after intensive reading and interviewing many respected elders, he was surprised to learn this. Fan Lan Ching probably knew all this. Lin Cho-shui and Fan Lan Ching, a.k.a. Kuo Kuan-ying, are about the same age. Both have conducted in-depth investigations of Taiwan's politics and history. Yet both have arrived at the same conclusion about Chen Yi. Is that not surprising?

A proper evaluation of Chen Yi's place in history is difficult. But how one perceives Chen Yi and 2/28 need not bear any relationship to whether one advocates Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence rhetoric distorts the meaning of 2/28 in order to justify independence. In order to distort the meaning of 2/28, Taiwan independence advocates attribute all manner of evil to Chen Yi. Lin Cho-shui wants to reverse this distorted assessment of Chen Yi. He wants to correct Taiwan independence advocates' perception of 2/28. He says "2/28 was a predestined historical tragedy." This is Fan Lan Ching/Kuo Kuan-ying's view as well. He too considers 2/28 an "historically predetermined tragedy," a legacy of the Opium War and the KMT vs. CCP Civil War.

Lin Cho-shui is the "Master Theoretician of the Taiwan independence Movement." Yet decades later, he has made these surprising discoveries about Chen Yi. Alas, the Taiwan independence movement long ago decided to make Chen Yi the designated villain. It has used 2/28 as an excuse to divide society and the nation. Fan Lan Ching's thinking is different because he has a different understanding of history. He does not think Chen Yi was so villainous. He does not think hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of people died during the incident. Fan made note of 800 mainlanders and 1000 Taiwanese killed or wounded. He also disagrees with the Taiwan independence movement's spin on 2/28. Differing perceptions about the truth of 2/28 hardly end with Chen Yi.

Even more surprising is the fact that Chen Shui-bian shares many of the same views as Fan Lan Ching. Fan Lan Ching says the "Republic of China" is merely "Chinese territory occupied by the US." He says "Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province. It has no existence. It is not a province, because the provincial government has been dissolved. Still less is it a nation. It is a mere apparition." On the one hand, such arguments constitute opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, they sing the same tune as Taiwan independence. They too repudiate the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian denies that Taiwan is part of China. But he agrees with Fan Lan Ching when he says "What the hell is the Republic of China anyway?" and "The Republic of China is dead!" Their language is nearly identical. So why has Fan Lan Ching been removed from office, while Chen Shui-bian still enjoys the privileges of a former President?

Fan Lan Ching's views regarding 2/28 have been characterized as "insults to Taiwan." But if so, what are we to make of Lin Cho-shui's nearly identical views? Furthermore, if we can change our view of Chen Yi, why can't we change our view of 2/28? Why can't we perceive 2/28 in the same light as Lin Cho-shui, as a "predestined historical tragedy?" If we make the 2/28 Incident a hostage to Taiwan independence mythology, we will never learn the truth about 2/28, and Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching will dog us forever.

For mid-level civil servant Kuo Kuan-ying to discuss state affairs in such terms under a pen name is indeed questionable. But it hardly compares with President Chen Shui-bian open declaration that "The Republic of China is dead!" Chen makes Fan look like a piker. Tit for tat. You want to destroy the Republic of China, and I will show no mercy towards Taiwan. Emotions run higher and higher. The language becomes more and more outrageous. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching are two mutually destructive extremes.

Fortunately, Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching constitute a tiny minority. Apart from the likes of Kuan Bi-ling, few people want to use the Fan Lan Ching incident as an excuse to take sides.

Most people hope that Taiwan and the Republic of China can coexist.

范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的略同所見
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.24 04:47 am

若說范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的見解有相同之處，你信不信？

先說范蘭欽與林濁水。范蘭欽有一篇文章論及二二八，為陳儀伸冤。他寫道：「實在陳儀是愛民清官。」林濁水則在他的新著《歷史劇場》中說：「陳儀在社會通論中長期以來也成為箭垛人物（即箭靶），集貪腐、無能、專制、殘暴於一身，一般人認為他是二二八的罪魁禍首……。但這不是陳儀的本來面目。……我發現我不能同意前述通論，並遽然心驚地發現陳儀和他的團隊在中國政界是不容易找到的好官。」林濁水並同意「陳儀本人非常清廉，絕不枉法」的說法。

范蘭欽與林濁水各自腦海中的「二二八全圖」當然不同。但二人對陳儀的「部分評價」竟然如此相同（不是全部，卻是最重要的部分），仍可令人驚異不置。林濁水說，他是在「傾力閱讀」並訪問耆宿後，始「遽然心驚」地有此發現；但是，對於范蘭欽而言，這或許卻是他早已建立的認知。林濁水與筆名范蘭欽的郭冠英年歲學歷相若，且皆對台灣政治及歷史探掘極深，但二人竟然會遲至今天始對陳儀出現相似的評價，豈能不令人也「遽然心驚」？

陳儀的歷史評價是一個難題。但陳儀的評價如何，與二二八的定論如何，或與應否主張台獨，其實並無必然關係；然而，如今的台獨論調，卻因為要主張台獨所以扭曲二二八，又因為要扭曲二二八所以將萬惡歸於陳儀。林濁水現在想從扭轉對陳儀的評價，來修正台獨人士對二二八的認知，並主張「二二八是一個歷史命定的悲劇」；這卻是「范蘭欽」郭冠英的一貫主張，亦即他也認為二二八是自鴉片戰爭至國共內戰的「歷史命定的悲劇」。

林濁水號稱是「台獨理論大師」，卻在數十年後始對陳儀有「遽然心驚的發現」；但台獨論述卻早已將陳儀定位鎖死當作箭靶，亦將二二八操作成撕裂族群、分裂國家的台獨圖騰；相對而言，「范蘭欽式思維」則可能因為有不同的史識史觀，例如不認為陳儀是那般不堪，亦不認為事件中有台獨所稱數十萬或數萬台灣人死難（范指外省人死傷八百，本省人死傷千餘人），而對台獨的二二八論述不能同意。何況，台灣社會對二二八「本來面目」的認知差異，又豈僅只在對陳儀的評價不同而已？

更令人「遽然心驚」的是，范蘭欽與陳水扁也有所見略同之處。范蘭欽指「中華民國」只是「靠美國占領了中國的一角」；他且說：「台灣只是中國叛離的一個省……其實根本沒有這個東西，她不是省，自廢了，更不是國，只是一個鬼島。」這樣的論調，一方面是反台獨的；但另一方面卻不啻與台獨同調，亦即也否定中華民國。陳水扁的台獨論述一直糾纏於「台灣是中國的一部分」，與「范蘭欽」同；更指「中華民國是什麼碗糕」、「中華民國已經滅亡」，這豈不也是「范蘭欽」的口吻？然而，范蘭欽已遭免職，而陳水扁迄今仍享受卸任總統禮遇。

范蘭欽對二二八的論述，被指為「辱台」，但要如何解釋林濁水為陳儀翻案？再者，如果對陳儀的評價可以調整，吾人對二二八的思考，有無可能也朝向林濁水所稱「歷史命定的悲劇」方向移動？否則，如果非要以後來的台獨論述挾持二二八的「本來面目」，不但二二八真相難現，且「陳水扁們」及「范蘭欽們」也將永遠存在。

中階公務員郭冠英用筆名以那類措詞來議論國是，確屬可議；但是，這與陳水扁以總統身分公然詛咒「中華民國已經滅亡」相較，卻是小巫見大巫。你來我往，你要摧毀「中華民國」，我就不放過「台灣」；情緒愈來愈敗壞，言語愈來愈離譜。冤冤相報，相激相盪，「陳水扁們」與「范蘭欽們」遂成了相互毀滅的兩個極端。

幸而，陳水扁們與范蘭欽們畢竟是兩個少數的極端。今天，除了管碧玲之類，已經很少人會藉此又要撕裂大家選邊站了！

多數國人皆希望：台灣和中華民國能一起好好活下去。