To the DPP: End Your Anti-Intellectual Demagoguery

To the DPP: End Your Anti-Intellectual Demagoguery
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2009

As one watches the Democratic Progressive Party's protests against the Chiang/Chen Meeting and ECFA, one gradually realizes how hollow, how anti-intellectual, and how demagogic the DPP's mainland policy really is.
The Democratic Progressive Party has never opposed Mainland China spending tens of billions or even hundreds of billions procuring goods and services from Taiwan. It merely resents the images of Mainland procurement teams being given the red carpet treatment by "native Taiwanese" industrialists. What kind of head in the sand attitude is this? Does the DPP expect Mainland Chinese businesses to procure goods and services from Taiwan anonymously? DPP Secretary-General Su Chia-chuan said he did not object to Chen Yunlin coming to Taiwan for a meeting. But Chen shouldn't "flit back and forth, acting like an overlord." Does that mean if Chen Yunlin doesn't "flit back and forth, acting like an overlord," the Democratic Progressive Party will not oppose the Chiang/Chen Meeting?

Everyone is wondering just exactly what is it the Democratic Progressive Party opposes? The four Chiang/Chen Meetings have led to the signing of 12 agreements. They include direct flights, Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan, mutual legal assistance, food safety, agricultural quarantines, cooperation in labor affairs for the fishing industry, and cooperation in standards certification. One seldom hears the Democratic Progressive Party say no to these. Is the DPP not opposed to the 12 agreements reached during the Chiang/Chen Meetings? Is it opposed merely to Chen Yunlin fltting back and forth, acting like an overlord? Just exactly what is it the Democratic Progressive Party opposes?

ECFA is no different. For example, ECFA immediately benefits Taiwan businesses on the Mainland by providing them with a 6-9% reduction in tariffs. This puts them on an equal footing with the ASEAN plus Three countries. Has the DPP ever said one word against this? Besides, the Ma administration has repeatedly stressed that it will not increase imports of agricultural products or introduce mainland laborers. How has the DPP responded? On the one hand it insists it has no idea what sort of animal ECFA is, that it doesn't know whether it is round or flat. On the other hand, it is inciting farmers to oppose ECFA. But if the DPP doesn't know whether ECFA is round or flat, why is it demanding a referendum? Believe it or not, the DPP replied, We demand a referendum on ECFA precisely because we don't know whether it is round or flat! Just exactly what is it the Democratic Progressive Party opposes?

The general public may not know the content of the Chiang/Chen Meeting or ECFA. That is to be expected. But to suggest that Tsai Ing-wen and decision-makers within the DPP do not know which 12 agreements reached by the Chiang/Chen Meeting, or the pros and cons of ECFA, is simply disingenuous. It is nothing more than anti-intellectual demagoguery. Tsai Ing-wen and her fellow strategists within the DPP know perfectly well what the Chiang/Chen Meeting and ECFA were about. They have merely chosen to turn them into their political footballs. They have characterized Chen Yunlin as an "overlord." They have characterized support for ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." This is simply disingenuous. This is nothing more than anti-intellectual demagoguery.

Why have cross-Strait relations come to this? For two reasons. First, the Taiwan independence movement has reached an impasse. It has nowhere else to go. If the Taiwan region can stand tall as the "Republic of China," then cross-Strait relations will move toward a win-win symbiosis. Secondly, globalization and regional economic organizations such as ASEAN plus Three have established a macro-level trend. Taiwan's competitiveness has been seriously tested. It faces a deadly political and economic crisis. Yet the DPP's political and economic strategy flies in the face of these factors.

First, The DPP continues to trumpet "one country on each side" and "de jure Taiwan independence." Therefore its political leaders' thinking, and its supporters' feelings, require that they reject the Republic of China. This "repudiate the Republic of China to prove one's love of Taiwan" mentality dominates the DPP's mainland policy discourse. That is why the DPP opposes the Chiang/Chen Meeting and ECFA, and is indifferent to whether they are round or flat. Secondly, cross-Strait relations are severely constrained by globalization. As the Ma administration said, the Chiang/Chen Meeting and ECFA are the first building block for Taiwan's globalization. But the DPP's strategy to advocate "ASEAN plus Four" and to sign FTAs with the United States and other countries, while refusing to sign an ECFA with Mainland China. Either that, or to demand that ECFA must be preceded by the signing of an FTA. As a result, the Democratic Progressive Party has found itself caught on the horns of a major dilemma. For the record, such an expectation is reasonable.

Signing ECFA is a way to confront the challenge of globalization. But the DPP considers ECFA a scourge. It may sign FTAs with other countries. But it refuses to sign an ECFA with Mainland China. Moreover, if the Taiwan region becomes part of ASEAN plus Four, it may find it impossible to resist the importation of Southeast Asian agricultural products and laborers. So why isn't the DPP opposed to ASEAN plus Four? Clearly the DPP's actions are actually directed at the Republic of China. That is why it opposes the Chiang/Chen Meeting and ECFA. If the DPP were to view globalization from the perspective of the Republic of China, it would not act the way it has. If the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy superstructure is erected on a "Nation of Taiwan" political foundation and an "anti-globalization" political foundation, can it really stand?

Just what is it the Democratic Progressive Party opposes? If it wants to repudiate the Republic of China and champion a "Nation of Taiwan," it should not oppose direct flights and astronomical amounts of Mainland trade and economic procurement. If it is concerned about the plight of disadvantaged economic groups, why doesn't it oppose globalization? Why doesn't it oppose ASEAN plus Four? Just what is it the Democratic Progressive Party opposes?

The Democratic Progressive Party should immediately cease its disingenuous, anti-intellectual demagoguery.

民進黨必須終止反智愚民的政治操作
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.12.24 03:05 am

觀察民進黨對江陳會及ＥＣＦＡ的抗議活動，益發察覺民進黨大陸政策的空洞虛無與反智愚民。

民進黨從未反對中國對台灣動輒數百億甚至數千億的經貿採購，卻只是反對中國採購團那些「上國代表」在台灣受本土廠商前呼後擁的場景；這是何等莫名其妙的鴕鳥政策，難道是要中國用「無名氏」的名義向台灣採購？民進黨秘書長蘇嘉全又說，陳雲林來台灣開會則罷，但不要「搞得像太上皇一樣四處趴趴走」；那麼，是否不趴趴走，民進黨就認為陳雲林不是「太上皇」了，也就不反對江陳會了？

大家都在問：民進黨究竟在反對什麼？四次江陳會已簽訂的十二項協議，包括直航、陸客來台、司法互助、食品安全、農產品檢疫、漁業勞務合作、標準認證合作等，幾乎從未聽到民進黨說過一句「反對」；難道民進黨真是完全不反對江陳會的十二項協議，而只是反對陳雲林趴趴走？民進黨究竟在反對什麼？

ＥＣＦＡ亦然。例如，ＥＣＦＡ的立即利益是可使台商在大陸減免六％至九％的關稅，以取得與「東協加三」國家的平等競爭地位；對此，民進黨何嘗有過一句反對？再者，馬政府已屢稱不會增加農產品進口項目，亦不會引入大陸勞工；但民進黨卻一方面自稱不知ＥＣＦＡ是圓是扁，另一方面又煽動農民反ＥＣＦＡ。有人問：既不知ＥＣＦＡ是圓是扁，為何主張公投？民進黨竟說：正因不知是圓是扁，所以要公投！請問：民進黨在反對什麼？

一般民眾未必知道江陳會及ＥＣＦＡ的內容，這或許是正常現象；但若說蔡英文及民進黨決策階層亦不知江陳會十二項協議及ＥＣＦＡ的得失利害如何，則必是自欺欺人、反智愚民的政治操作。蔡英文及民進黨操盤者，明知江陳會及ＥＣＦＡ是圓是扁，卻偏偏要將之捏成符合他們自己政治操作的形狀；將陳雲林捏成「太上皇」，將ＥＣＦＡ捏成「傾中賣台」。這是自欺欺人，這是反智愚民。

兩岸關係何以走到今日地步？主要因素有二：一、台獨在兩岸關係中已無路可走；台灣若要以「中華民國」的地位走下去，兩岸關係只有朝雙贏共生努力。二、全球化及區域經濟組織（如東協加三）所形成的大局大勢，使台灣的競爭力受到嚴重考驗，面臨了致命的政經危機。然而，民進黨的政經戰略，卻刻意與這兩大因素背道而馳。

一、民進黨迄仍主張「一邊一國」的「法理台獨」；因而其政治領袖的操作概念及其支持者的情感傾向皆在否定中華民國。這種「以否定中華民國來愛台灣」的心態，主導著民進黨的大陸政策；所以，民進黨才會不管是圓是扁也要反對江陳會與ＥＣＦＡ。二、兩岸關係受到全球化的高度制約；如馬政府所言，江陳會及ＥＣＦＡ是台灣建構全球化布建的「第一塊積木」。但民進黨的操作卻是，一方面主張成為「東協加四」，並與美國等國家簽訂ＦＴＡ；卻又另一方面反對與中國簽定ＥＣＦＡ，或主張簽訂ＥＣＦＡ須以可與他國簽訂ＦＴＡ為前提（這種期待是對的）。由此可見，民進黨已陷於嚴重的自相矛盾之中。

簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，是為了面對全球化。但民進黨若認為ＥＣＦＡ真是洪水猛獸，則即使可與他國簽訂ＦＴＡ，亦不可與中國簽ＥＣＦＡ；何況，台灣若成為「東協加四」，則恐無可能阻擋東南亞的農產品及勞工輸入，那麼民進黨何不亦反對成為「東協加四」？可見，民進黨的操作，在骨子裡仍是因為反對中華民國，所以才反對江陳會與ＥＣＦＡ；倘若民進黨是站在中華民國及全球化的立場上思考，即不致如此操作。試問：民進黨倘將其兩岸政策架設在政治上的「台灣國」與經濟上的「反全球化」上，如何立足？

民進黨究竟在反對什麼？若是因否定中華民國而主張台灣國，則應根本反對直航及大陸天文數字的經貿採購；若是因顧慮弱勢經濟族群的處境，則應根本反對全球化，更應反對成為「東協加四」。請問：民進黨究竟在反對什麼？

民進黨應當立即終止自欺欺人、反智愚民的政治操作。