Is President Ma Forbidden to Affirm the Mainland's Progress?

Is President Ma Forbidden to Affirm the Mainland's Progress?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 9, 2009

President Ma Ying-jeou's reflections on the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen incident have inspired widely divergent reactions. The real issue however is whether it is permissible to affirm Beijing's political and economic progress?

The Democratic Progressive Party says it isn't. It calls Ma's remarks "capitulation." Former participants in the June 4th pro-democracy movement also expressed disappointment. They say Ma failed to uphold the requisite high standards. But others agree with Ma. Annette Lu said "[Mainland] China has indeed made progress over the past two decades. I hope everyone will refrain from sniping (at President Ma)."

Has Beijing improved over the past two decades? June 4th pro-democracy groups say that Beijing uses economic development to cover up political despotism. In other words, they are indirectly conceding that there has been successful economic development. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said (China) has made significant economic progress, and become a world leader. Such remarks can be regarded as representative of world opinion. As we can see, no one disputes that the Mainland China has made progress over the past two decades. The disagreement is over how to interpret the progress that has been made.

Beijing has made progress, but still has room for improvement. This is the global consensus. People disagree due to their differing backgrounds, either as individuals or as members of social movements. President Ma Ying-jeou's evaluations are not going to be the same as Hillary Clinton's, Tsai Ing-wen's, or Wang Dan's. They are not even going to be the same as his own evaluations prior to becoming president. A record 150,000 people gathered in Victoria Park in Hong Kong to commemorate June 4th. Meanwhile on Taiwan, the primary "expression of solidarity" was the Democratic Progressive Party denouncing Ma Ying-jeou for a "moral retreat" and denouncing his June 4th speech as a "shameful document." The public in Hong Kong felt a moral duty to speak out on behalf of 1.3 billion compatriots. The DPP, by contrast, has never had any desire to communicate with the 1.3 billion people on the Mainland. Its sole motive for expressing solidarity with June 4th was to harass Ma Ying-jeou.

As previously noted, Beijing has made progress, but has room for improvement. This is the global consensus. But the real question is whether President Ma is permitted to say so.

Objectively speaking, Ma Ying-jeou numbers among those on Taiwan who actually feel strongly about the June 4th Tiananmen Incident. But in his speech on June 4th, he was obligated to speak as the President of the Republic of China. He elevated the cross-Strait dialogue to a higher level. He spoke of the incident in terms of universal values such as "freedom", "democracy," "the rule of law" and "human rights." All these terms appear in President Ma's reflections on June 4th. He expressed hope that the two sides could move away from an arms race and diplomatic struggle, and instead compete to see who could best enhance the rule of law and human rights. He hoped the Chinese people as a whole could create a free and democratic future. June 4th pro-democracy groups denounced Ma's remarks as taking the easy way out. They said Ma Ying-jeou should address the issue of June 4th. He should not use the 2-28 Incident to talk about June 4th.

President Ma mentioned his hopes for Beijing. At the same time he offered a positive evaluation of developments on the Chinese Mainland. He said the success of economic reforms had greatly improved people's lives. He said Beijing now paid more attention to human rights than in the past. He said Beijing displayed a new level of openness and self-confidence compared to the past. But his remarks were denounced as "pro-[Mainland] China" and "capitulation."

Is the Chinese Mainland developing democracy and the rule of law? Can the two sides maintain peace across the Taiwan Strait? These are important questions. But the most important question of all, is whether the two sides can establish common values and pursue a common goal. If one day the Chinese Mainland achieves freedom and democracy, how will it rehabilitate the victims of June 4th? If freedom and democracy do not improve on Mainland China, can the victims of June 4th ever be vindicated?

Mainland China has progressed, but still has room for improvement. One should criticize its shortcomings, but affirm its improvements. This is only fair. Internally, Beijing suffers from corruption. But one must affirm three decades of reform and liberalization. Externally, Beijing's cross-Strait strategy leaves one apprehensive. But one must affirm that we are on the road to peace and to a win/win scenario. Affirming the progress Beijing has made and condemning its remaining shortcomings are equally important. They will help us eliminate the bad and increase the good. Would critics really have Ma Ying-jeou repudiate Mainland China's reforms, liberalization, and adoption of a win/win cross-Strait policy?

Don't the two sides wish to move away from the irreconcilable blood feud? Don't they wish to move toward democracy, the rule of law, peace, and a win/win scenario? If they do, then leaders on both sides must leave behind the confrontational era of Mao Zedong vs. Chiang Kai-shek, Jiang Zemin vs. Lee Teng-hui, Hu Jintao vs. Chen Shui-bian. They must encourage each other to improve. They must promote the public welfare and implement democratic rule. On this basis, President Ma's reflections on June 4th were befitting his role as President.

Is it permissible to affirm the improvements Mainland China has made over the past two decades? The answer is yes. One cannot say that because the mainland has improved so much, it has no more room for improvement. Conversely, one cannot say that because the mainland still has room for improvement, it has not improved at all.

馬總統能不能肯定中國的進步？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.10 02:58 am

馬英九總統的六四事件二十周年感言，引發了見仁見智的議論，那就是：對於北京政權在政治及經濟上的改善與進步，可不可以給予肯定？

民進黨反對，指馬的談話是「投降主義」；六四民運團體亦表失望，認為沒有「高度」。但也有認同者，呂秀蓮就說：「大陸近二十多年來的確有進步，希望大家不要在字裡行間挑（馬總統的）毛病。」

二十年來，中共政權是不是有進步？連六四民運團體都說，「以經濟發展掩飾政治專制」，可見亦承認「經濟發展」的成就；而美國國務卿希拉蕊也說，「（中國）在經濟上取得重大進展，並崛起為世界領袖」，可視為世界輿論的代表。可見，各方對中國大陸二十年來的進步與改善並無太大異議，歧見其實是在如何解讀這些進步與改善。

有進步，但仍大有改革空間；這應是對北京政權二十年來表現的世界輿論公約數。至於出現見仁見智，則是由於個體或社群的背景差異所致：例如：馬英九總統的評論不會與希拉蕊、王丹或蔡英文相同，也不會與當總統以前的馬英九相同。又如：香港有破紀錄的十五萬人聚集維多利亞公園紀念六四，但台灣最主要的「聲援活動」卻是民進黨指馬英九「道德退卻」，又謂其「六四感言」為「醜陋文件」；因為，香港人自認必須代替十三億「同胞」發聲，但民進黨從來未視十三億人為溝通對象，聲援六四的主要目的只是在「嗆馬」。

前文說，有進步，亦有改革空間，這是對中國二十年來表現的世界輿論公約數。問題是：馬總統可不可以也這樣說？

客觀而論，在台灣能為六四動了強烈的真感情者，馬英九絕對算得上一個。但他此次在六四感言中，站在中華民國總統的高度，將兩岸對話從六四事件提升放大到「自由」、「民主」、「法治」、「人權」等「普世價值」（這些語彙均見馬總統六四感言），而希望兩岸能從「軍備競賽」、「外交惡鬥」，轉為「法治人權的競相提升」，「為中華民族子孫開創一個自由、民主的未來」。這些談話被六四民運團體認為避重就輕；並認為馬英九應直指六四，不必藉二二八來喻六四。

馬總統在提出對北京政權的期許之同時，亦對中國大陸二十年來的發展有正面評價；指出「大陸經濟改革成功，人民生活大幅改善」、「大陸當局比過去更為注意人權議題」，「展現與過去完全不同的開放與自信」。這些談話，則被指為「肯定中國」、「投降主義」。

然而，必須正視的是：無論就中國大陸民主法治的發展而言，或兩岸和平交流的維護而言，最重要的關鍵皆在應當建立一個共同追求的價值目標。因為，倘若有一天中國大陸實現了自由民主，六四豈會不平反？而倘若中國大陸的自由民主不能點點滴滴地進步改善，六四又豈有平反的一天？

因而，面對這個「雖有進步，仍應大改革」的中國；批評其缺失，與肯定其進步，其實皆是應有之義。對內而言，中共政權的缺失及腐敗甚多，但不能不肯定其三十年改革開放的進取表現；對外而言，北京在兩岸策略上仍令人多所疑懼，但也不能不肯定漸漸走向和平雙贏之路。肯定中共政權的進步處，與批評譴責其敗壞處，其實同等重要，因為皆有助於在革惡向善中逐漸趨向正確的目標。否則，難道要馬英九否定大陸改革開放與兩岸共生雙贏？

兩岸若不想再回到誓不兩立的時代，而欲迎向一個民主、法治、和平、雙贏的未來；那麼，雙方領導人理應走出過去毛蔣、江李、胡陳相互叫囂詈罵的時代，而改為相互規過勸善以共同促進民生、民主的良性互動。準此以言，馬總統的六四感言，是符合他的角色與高度的。

那麼，究竟可不可以肯定中國二十年來的進步與改善？持平的答案是：不能因大陸「的確有進步」，而否認仍大有改革空間；亦不必因仍大有改革空間，而否定「的確有進步」。