Just What is Tsai Ing-wen's "Alternative?"

Just What is Tsai Ing-wen's "Alternative?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 27, 2010

Party politics means that the opposition party opposes the ruling party and proposes "alternatives." Tsai Ing-wen opposes ECFA, and has proposed an "alternative." Her "alternative" is her "Political Platform for the Decade," currently under construction, which may be regarded as a sweeping alternative for the nation's political and economic future.

The alternative Tsai has proposed for ECFA is "move closer to the world before moving closer to [mainland] China." She proposes "allowing industries with particularly high tariffs to invest on the mainland." But if one wishes to "move closer to the world before moving closer to [mainland] China," one must first "enable the world to move closer to Taiwan." Without signing ECFA, how can one provide the world an incentive to move closer to Taiwan? What about her proposal "allowing industries with particularly high tariffs to invest on the mainland?" What is this path but "moving closer to [mainland] China before moving closer to the world," which Tsai Ing-wen herself firmly opposes? Or worse, "forcing Taiwan businesses to flee to [mainland] China?" Such an "alternative" is not merely self-contradictory, it is suicidal.

Leave ECFA aside for the moment. Tsai Ing-wen's "Political Platform for the Decade" also seeks a political and economic "alternative" for the nation's future. She said that Taipei must rethink its "economics above all else path." She said that "Economic development has led to 'generational injustice,"' and asked "Is economic growth our only goal?"

She mentioned this during the Two Yings Debate. She said that "Over the past several decades Taiwan's economy had exports as its priority. The public on Taiwan paid a heavy price. For example, the destruction of national lands, the destruction of the local landscape, a growing gap between the cities and the countryside, and alternating floods and droughts."

Tsai Ing-wen's claim is questionable. Economic growth may not be one's only goal. But for the people of any nation it is invariably their most important goal. Therefore political rhetoric denouncing "economics above all else" hardly negates the necessity and importance of economic growth. Economic development can damage the environment. It can lead to calls for the "redistribution of wealth." But the resources generated by economic development can also heal the environment. Tax policies can also equalize inequities in wealth. Tsai Ing-wen said the public on Taiwan paid a "very heavy price" for an export-oriented economy. But her assertion hardly negates the fact that 70% of our GDP comes from exports. Exports have long been the bedrock of Taiwan's economic survival and prosperity. Given Taiwan's current economic difficulties, is Tsai Ing-wen's "alternative," the repudiation of economic growth and the questioning of export-orientation the least bit convincing?

Tsai Ing-wen's "Political Platform for the Decade" has yet to offer an "alternative" for the status of our constitution and our national identity. But her current obsession with "economic alternatives" is clearly politically-motivated. It is obviously a Procrustean Bed into which economics must be force-fitted into a preconceived political framework. For example, the main reason she opposes ECFA is her desire to avoid "East Asia becoming a Sinocentric East Asia." She also wants to avoid "weakening and marginalizing the United States." Perhaps her politically-motivated thinking has convinced her to question our "economics above all path" and our "export-orientation." Perhaps it has convinced her to reduce our cross-Strait economic and trade dependency, in order to avoid mainland China's political threat.

Such a policy proposal is even more bizarre than Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake!" It is precisely concerns about cross-Strait political crises that necessitate strengthening Taiwan's economic structure and export trade. Otherwise, if Taiwan's economy becomes increasingly depressed, the magnetic attraction mainland China exerts on Taiwan's economy will be even more serious. The political threat will be even more difficult to control, leading to a vicious circle. Is Tsai Ing-wen's "alternative" to "rethink our economics above all else path and export-orientation" in order to "reduce cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges?" If so, she needs to realize that such an "alternative" cannot possibly "cool down the economy" and "resolve political problems." It can only lead to an irreparable economic chill and political disaster. Is Tsai Chi really this obtuse, or is she merely feigning ignorance?

The world has changed radically. Whether we are talking about short term or long term benefits, Taipei must base its political strategy on its economic strategy. Over the past decade or so, the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian regimes were utterly incapable of suppressing booming cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Instead they seriously undermined our chances of becoming an Asian-Pacific Operations Center. Whether we are talking about short term or long term profits, whether we are talking about economics or politics, the harm inflicted upon Taiwan will be difficult to remedy.

The Democratic Progressive Party's path is to force economic strategy into the Procrustean Bed of political strategy. The result is bizarre "alternatives" such as "rethinking our economics above all path and our export-orientation in order to reduce cross-Strait exchanges." We would like to ask Tsai Ing-wen what are the short term and long term benefits of her "economic cool down" and "questioning of exports?"

Tsai Ing-wen's "Political Platform for the Decade" is still tinkering at the margins. The public still does not understand what her "alternative" is for the status of our constitution and our national identity. Does she intend to "jettison our economics above all path and question our export-orientation?" Does she intend to propose an "alternative" to what she dismisses as the "Republic of China government in exile?"

看不懂蔡英文的「替代方案」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.27 03:24 am

政黨政治就是「在野黨」反對執政黨，並提出「替代方案」。蔡英文反對ＥＣＦＡ，提出「替代方案」；她正在研議的「十年政綱」，則更可視為國家政經路線全套足本的「替代方案」。

蔡英文為ＥＣＦＡ提出的替代方案是，「由世界走向中國」，並主張「讓關稅特別高的產業到大陸投資」等。不過，若要「由世界走向中國」，首先要「讓世界走進台灣」；倘不簽ＥＣＦＡ，如何增加「世界走進台灣」的誘因？至於主張「讓關稅特別高的產業到大陸投資」，此一路徑更十足是蔡英文自己所反對的「由中國走向世界」，甚至是「逼台商奔赴中國」。這樣的「替代方案」，非僅自相矛盾，而且不啻是自尋死路。

跳開ＥＣＦＡ的個案，蔡英文的「十年政綱」也嘗試為整體經濟政策路線提出「替代方案」。她說，台灣必須重新檢驗「經濟掛帥路線」；並質疑：「經濟發展造成了『世代不正義』。」「經濟成長還是不是我們唯一的發展目標？」

此一觀點，她在雙英辯論時即已提出。她說：「過去幾十年台灣經濟以出口為優先，台灣社會付出了很慘重的代價；例如國土破碎、鄉土景觀破壞、城鄉差距過大、水旱災交織等代價。」

蔡英文的主張可待商榷。經濟成長雖然未必是唯一目標，卻是任何國家社會最重要的目標。因而，「經濟掛帥」這類政治語言，並不足以推翻「經濟成長」的必要性與重要性。何況，經濟發展可能破壞生態，也可能形成「財富重分配」的問題；但經濟發展所產生的資源，卻也是用以改善生態，與利用租稅政策以平均財富的重要憑藉。再者，蔡英文只說，出口導向的經濟使台灣社會付出了「很慘重的代價」；但是，憑她這一句話，卻抹煞不了幾佔ＧＤＰ七十％的出口經貿，長期以來皆是台灣安身立命的重要磐石。面對台灣當前經濟困境，倘若蔡英文提出的「替代方案」，竟是「否定經濟掛帥／質疑出口導向」，這種論調豈有說服力？

蔡英文的「十年政綱」，尚未端出在憲政定位及國家認同上的「替代方案」；但她迄至目前所提的「經濟替代方案」，顯然皆是以政治思考為主，亦即欲削足適履，以「經濟方案」配合「政治方案」。例如，她反對ＥＣＦＡ的主要理由，是欲避免「東亞成為以中國為中心的東亞」，也欲避免「使美國弱化與邊緣化」。也許正因這樣的政治思考邏輯，使她認為「檢驗經濟掛帥路線／質疑出口導向經濟」，應當即可降低兩岸經貿依賴，進而擺脫中國的政治威脅。

這是比「何不食肉糜」還要離奇的國策主張。因為，正是由於有兩岸政治危機的顧慮，所以要強化台灣的經濟體質及出口貿易；否則，台灣的經濟倘若愈趨低迷，中國大陸在經濟上的磁吸效應必會愈嚴重，在政治關係上的威脅也會更難節制，且必將形成一個惡性循環。也就是說，若以「為了降低兩岸經貿關係／所以要檢討經濟掛帥與出口導向」作為「替代方案」，非但不能以「經濟降溫」來解決政治問題，反而必將因「經濟失溫」而造成萬劫不復的政治災難。蔡英文真是智不及此，還是故作天真？

世局丕變，無論就「近利」及「遠利」言，台灣皆應「以經濟戰略支撐政治戰略」。過去十餘年，李扁二任政府，完全無法抑制兩岸經貿關係的紅火發展，卻又嚴重挫傷了實現「亞太營運中心」的機遇；這無論就「近利」或「遠利」言，就「經濟」或「政治」言，對台灣皆是難以彌償的損傷。

民進黨的路線是「以政治戰略扭曲經濟戰略」，因而才會出現這種「為降低兩岸關係／應檢驗經濟掛帥／質疑出口導向」的「替代方案」，離奇至極。試問：蔡英文的「經濟降溫／質疑出口」，有何「近利」，又有何「遠利」？

蔡英文的「十年政綱」，迄今仍在「外圍地帶」繞圈子；國人不知她對憲法定位及國家認同的主軸路線，將提出什麼「替代方案」？莫非要用「廢棄經濟掛帥／質疑出口導向」，來支撐其「中華民國是流亡政府」的「替代方案」？