Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?

Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2009

Tsai Ing-wen has proposed championing Taiwan by adopting a "New Nativism." In her view, the DPP's "Old Nativism" has become too narrowly exclusive. That narrow understanding of nativism lacks the tolerance that an "immigrant society" needs the most.

[Translator's Note: Referring to the Taiwan region as an "immigrant society" or "society of immigrants" is politically misleading. The term "immigrant" denotes movement from one nation to another. Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China. ROC citizens who migrate from the Mainland to Taiwan are migrants, not "immigrants."]

Why is tolerance necessary? Tsai Ing-wen says the Democratic Progressive Party must adhere to its ideals, and that the difference between the DPP and the KMT is in their ideals. To achieve its ideals the DPP must expand its political base by becoming more tolerant. Tsai Ing-wen effectively conceded that the DPP's "ideals" were not inclusive enough. She spoke repeatedly about "ideals," but she never made clear what those "ideals" were. All that hemming and hawing. She obviously had something to say, but just couldn't spit it out.

In fact, amidst all of Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric, her so-called "ideals" was merely a euphemism for Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party has used many euphemisms for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen can hardly deny that the Democratic Progressive Party's ideal is Taiwan independence. But she apparently hopes to lead the Democratic Progressive Party away from the constraints of "narrowly defined Taiwan independence." Hence her euphemistic invocation of "ideals." As for her affirmation that "what an immigrant society most needs is tolerance," she was unwilling to openly state that "an immigrant society must not divide people according to tribes." She wanted to avoid criticism from members of her own party. Her rhetoric was sufficiently convoluted to resembled a pretzel.

Put simply, Tsai Ing-wen's "New Nativism" can be understood as no further resort to dividing people by provinicial origin, i.e., "tolerance," in the pursuit of independence, which will remain the DPP's "ideal," but which will no longer be spelled out.

This kind of thinking was intended to be a kind of breakthrough. But frankly, it offered nothing new. The DPP's "Resolution on the Nation's Future" and "Resolution on Ethnic Groups" covered these issues long ago. The problem is the DPP's past actions have already made Taiwan independence and a "Taiwanese ethnic identity" two sides of the same coin. One can no longer advocate Taiwan independence without dividing Republic of China citizens into "Native Taiwanese" and "Mainlanders." Perhaps Taiwan independence is a phony issue. Perhaps the DPP's real forte is dividing people into tribes.

Tsai Ing-wen deserves affirmation for being sensitive to the problem. But she has not offered much of a solution. If Taiwan independence is still the DPP's ideal, it will remain mired in a double dilemma. It will remain incapable of achieving Taiwan independence in the global arena, even as it continues to divide Republic of China citizens into "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" in the domestic arena. Taiwan independence, by its very nature, divides people. A "Taiwan independence ideology that tolerates diversity" is a logical impossibility. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen avoid the term "Taiwan independence" and substitute the euphemism "ideal?"

The fact that "Nativism" is considered compatible with tolerance is due to the DPP's past efforts. But Taiwan independence is, on the face of it, anything but tolerant. After all, its goal is to overthrow the Republic of China. It is tolerant neither in name nor in substance. And since it is not even tolerant in name, how can it possibly be tolerant in substance? Yet Tsai Ing-wen would make a conceptual leap from "Tolerant Nativism" to "Tolerant Taiwan independence." That is akin to expecting a strawberry patch to yield apples.

The DPP's problem is its adherence to Taiwan independence. Its increasingly narrow definition of "Old Nativism" was the inevitable result of its stubborn adherence to Taiwan independence. But for the majority of people on Taiwan, if the DPP refrains from advocating Taiwan independence, "Nativism" is not an issue. Apart from the DPP, most people assume that "new and old immigrants, regardless of provincial origin, are all Natives." The above is a quote from Tsai Ing-wen. But it is something that Tsai Ing-wen knows the DPP cannot possibly either endorse or achieve.

Take Fan Lanqin for example. Fan's remarks can be characterized as an isolated extreme. Criticism from within the Pan Blue attests to that. By contrast, for the DPP ethnic demagoguery is second nature. Ethnic demagoguery is the DPP's defining characteristic. Fan Lanqin referred to himself, in self-mockery, as a "high class mainlander." Overnight the DPP twisted his meaning and transformed it into a politcal codeword. They even mocked Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan as "high class mainlanders," attempting to equate them with Fan Lanqin. Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen was trying to use euphemisms such as "Tolerant Nativism" to clean up the Democratic Progressive Party's image. She appears to be a slow learner.

The Democratic Progressive Party has long equated Taiwan independence with Nativism. Taiwan independence is Nativism. Nativism is Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Nativism to dress up Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Taiwan independence to distort the meaning of Nativism. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to distinguish between the two. She wants to use "Tolerant Nativism" to achieve their "ideal," i.e., Taiwan independence. She can talk about "Tolerant Nativism." She can avoid talking about Taiwan independence, by referring to it euphemistically as their "ideal." But this is akin to "covering one's ears while stealing a bell."

If the DPP does not resolve the issue of Taiwan independence, it will never resolve the issue of Nativism. As mentioned before, the main reason "Nativism" has been so narrowly defined is Taiwan independence. Without Taiwan independence, Nativism need no longer be so narrowly defined. A "Tolerant Taiwan independence" is a contradiction in terms. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to emancipate liberate itself from narrowly defined Nativism. If one is determined to overthrow the nation, how can one possibly avoid tearing society apart?

Has Chairman Tsai thought this through?

蔡英文為何吞吞吐吐
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.27 04:37 am

蔡英文主張「以新本土觀」捍衛台灣；她認為，民進黨的「舊本土觀」，被窄化成一種排他性的觀念，那種窄化的本土詮釋忽視了移民社會最需要的包容。

為何必須包容？蔡英文說：因為民進黨必須堅持理想性，而民進黨與國民黨的區隔就在理想性；要實現理想，就必須以包容性擴大社會基礎。蔡英文不啻指出，民進黨的「理想」的「包容性」不夠；但她提出了一連串的「理想」，卻終篇未敘明「理想」為何物？吞吞吐吐，欲言又止。

其實，在蔡英文此次提出的整套論述體系中，所謂「理想」，就是「台獨」的代稱（民進黨曾用過許多代稱，來代替指涉「台獨」）。此時此際，蔡英文不可能否認「台獨」是民進黨的「理想」，但她似亦有意帶領民進黨擺脫「窄化的台獨」之束縛，於是就用了「理想」這個「心照不宣」的詞彙。至於「移民社會最需要的包容」（提出期許），則應當是她不願直言的「移民社會不宜撕裂族群」（避免批判），語氣亦極盡曲折迂迴之能事。

因此，蔡英文的「新本土論述」，可以被解讀為：不再用族群撕裂的手法（要包容），來追求台獨（理想，但不可明說）。

這樣的思考雖然意在突破，卻無太多新意，其實民進黨的《國家前途決議文》及《族群決議文》，皆已早著先鞭。問題是：民進黨過去的政治操作，已使台獨與族群撕裂變成一體兩面；不可能倡台獨而不談撕裂，甚至台獨只是假議題，而撕裂才是民進黨的真本事。

蔡英文的警覺與思考是可以肯定的，但她提出的救治辦法卻無甚高論。因為，民進黨若仍以「台獨」為「理想」，即勢將繼續陷於對外台獨不成，對內繼續撕裂的困境；簡約而言，台獨就是撕裂，根本不可能出現一種所謂的「族群包容的台獨建國論述」。倘非如此，蔡英文何以諱言「台獨」，而用「理想」來代稱？

「本土」如今已然是一個具有包容性的概念，對此民進黨過去的努力與貢獻有目共睹；但「台獨」在應然面上卻不是一個包容性的概念（畢竟是要顛覆中華民國），且在實然面上也不可能是一個包容性的概念（既在應然面上不包容，如何在實然面包容？）。蔡英文若欲從「包容性的本土」跳躍至「包容性的台獨」，不啻是想從草莓園裡長出蘋果。

民進黨的問題在「台獨」。「舊本土觀」之所以「窄化」，正是因為「台獨」；但對於整體台灣的多數民眾而言，若不主張台獨，「本土」即無「窄化」的問題。除了民進黨以外，多數民眾皆理所當然地認為：「新舊移民不分族群都能共享『本土』。」此處引號內為蔡英文的用語，這卻正是蔡英文知道民進黨做不到之處。

以范蘭欽事件為例。范的言論可謂是一極端的孤例，由泛藍內部對其批判可證；但民進黨對族群議題的惡劣操弄，卻形同是該黨「天賦」的「集體人格」。范蘭欽一句耍冷自我調侃的「我是高級外省人哦」，一夕之間被民進黨廣泛地扭曲用為族群操作的口頭禪，甚至公開比附指馬英九及劉兆玄皆是「高級外省人」，欲將之「范蘭欽化」。而蔡英文竟然欲以純屬修詞技法的所謂「包容性的本土」來期許民進黨，實在猶不如一般書生之見。

民進黨始終將「台獨」與「本土」劃上等號。台獨就是本土，本土就是台獨；以本土裝飾台獨，以台獨扭曲本土。現在，蔡英文似乎想將之剝離分割，欲以「包容的本土」來實現「理想」（台獨），甚或只談「包容的本土」，諱談台獨（代稱為「理想」），此皆不啻掩耳盜鈴。

民進黨不解決「台獨」問題，即無可能解決其「本土」問題。如前所述，本土「窄化」的主因是台獨；若無台獨，本土必可走出「窄化」。其實，正因為不可能有「包容的台獨」，所以民進黨才始終走不出其「窄化的本土」。欲顛覆國家，如何可能不撕裂社會？

不知蔡主席以為然否？