Tsai Ing-wen: More Taiwan Independence-minded than Chen Shui-bian?

Tsai Ing-wen: More Taiwan Independence-minded than Chen Shui-bian?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 31, 2010

Tsai Ing-wen has left many people in shock. Many people assumed Tsai Ing-wen had adopted a more rational perspective on national identity and the status of the Republic of China Constitution in her "Political Platform for the Coming Decade." They assumed she was struggling to transform the DPP. But according to the latest news reports, she has openly asserted that "the Republic of China is a government in exile."
Tsai Ing-wen is Chairman of the DPP. These views are the most irrational views on Taiwan independence that any chairman of the DPP has expressed since the 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Tsai Ing-wen is a potential candidate for President of the Republic of China in 2012. These views are the most irrational views on Taiwan independence any presidential candidate has expressed, ever. Such extraordinary comments, issuing from the lips of the ostensibly rational Tsai Ing-wen, could only leave listeners in shocked disbelief.

The "Government in Exile" theory is the most irrational Taiwan independence theory one is likely to encounter in cross-Straits debate. For example: 1. The DPP's "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution" does not repudiate the Republic of China per se. It merely asserts that the political structure of the ROC "leads to an impasse for constitutional reform." Therefore it advocates the authoring of a new constitution and the "founding of a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan" via public referendum. 2. The DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" also recognizes the "constitutionally-defined Republic of China" as a "backdoor listing" strategy, as a means of maintaining a framework by which "all residents of Taiwan can participate in a referendum." 3. The "two states theory" has never maintained that the ROC is a government in exile. 4. The "one country on each side" theory still allows room for the "two states" theory. 5. The "rectification of names" movement calls for the abolition of the Republic of China, but does not repudiate the Republic of China prior to its abolition. 6. The "Taiwan's undetermined status" theory merely asserts that Taiwan "does not necessarily" belong to the Republic of China. 7. The "Resolution for a Normal Nation" advocates the "swift rectification of names." 8. The "foreign government" theory still recognizes the Republic of China as a de facto "authority." 9. The "second republic" is merely an "extension" of the ROC.

As we can see, among the various "hard line Taiwan independence," "soft line Taiwan independence" and "quasi-Taiwan independence" theories, the "government in exile" theory is the most extreme. It asserts that the "Republic of China is on the mainland" and "not on Taiwan." Therefore it is arguably the most irrational form of Taiwan independence. 1. If the Republic of China is actually a government in exile, then the DPP's years of participation in the democratic and constitutional processes of the Republic of China are utterly meaningless. 2. It effectively contradicts the DPP's own calls for a "public referendum," and instead resorts to political rhetoric to repudiate the Republic of China, denying the public the right to its own opinions. 3. Strategically, it inevitably plays into Beijing's "united front" strategy. In their rush to repudiate the Republic of China, its advocates effectively end up as "Communist fellow travelers."

Tsai Ing-wen is both DPP party chairman and a potential ROC presidential candidate. Given her position of responsibility, her "government in exile" stance is even more irrationally independence-minded than those of Chen Shui-bian and Lee Teng-hui. The 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" paved the way for Chen Shui-bian's bid for the presidency. The "Five Noes" eased cross-Strait tensions. Chen Shui-bian cozied up to Taiwan independence only after he found himself in hot water over corruption, and after leaving office. As for Lee Teng-hui, during the 1996 direct elections, his political platform included the "National Unification Guidelines." Even his "two states theory," launched in 1999, merely attempted to attract Pale Green voters in order to boost Lien Chan's election prospects in 2000. He did not assert that "the Republic of China no longer exists." He said that only after leaving office. But Tsai Ing-wen was perceived as a party chairman committed to transforming the DPP, and a likely 2012 ROC presidential candidate. Yet at the same point in her career, she has adopted an even more irrationally independence-minded stance than either Lee Teng-hui or Chen Shui-bian. What in the world inspired her to openly assert that the "Republic of China is a government in exile?"

Many people are waiting to see what positions Tsai Ing-wen will adopt on national identity and the status of the ROC Constitution in her "Political Platform for the Coming Decade." But over the past month, she has spoken repeatedly of "abolishing ECFA upon assuming power." She has spoken of having "no intention of abolishing the Taiwan Independence Party Constitution," and she has characterized the ROC as a "government in exile." She has even said we must "repudiate our economics above all priorities, and export-oriented tendencies." She has no qualms about ruling out her own transformation or the transformation of the DPP. Her behavior is incomprehensible. Since she asserts that the "Republic of China is a government in exile," how can she possibly lead the DPP to a victory in 2012?

What's even more remarkable, is that Tsai Ing-wen's assertions were hardly a slip of the tongue. The words "government in exile" appeared in black ink on white paper. Since Tsai Ing-wen is advocating Taiwan independence, why is she behaving in such a superficial manner? If Tsai Ing-wen is merely indulging in political power plays, why is she behaving in such a ridiculous manner?

Tsai Ing-wen's "two states theory" brought down the Lee Teng-hui regime. Her stubborn opposition to the 1992 Consensus brought down the Chen Shui-bian regime. Now she is apparently using "government in exile" rhetoric to prevent the DPP from undergoing transformation and taking the high road. Is this still the rational Tsai Ing-wen moderate voters believed her to be?

The phrase "government in exile," printed in black ink on white paper, is a serious matter. Can Tsai Ing-wen cavalierly dismiss public concerns merely by saying that she "has no time for political mudslinging?"

蔡英文比陳水扁還獨？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.31 01:30 am

蔡英文讓許多人跌破眼鏡。不少人曾有幻想，認為蔡英文在她的《十年政綱》中，將對國家認同及憲法定位提出較為理性中道的論述，引領民進黨轉型。詎料，她竟然白紙黑字地公開宣示「中華民國是流亡政府」。

蔡英文是民進黨主席，這樣的言論，是一九九九年《台灣前途決議文》以來，歷任民進黨主席所發表的最獨與最不理性的兩岸論述；同時，由於蔡英文也可能是二○ 一二中華民國總統候選人，這樣的言論，亦是歷來總統候選人所宣示的最獨且最不理性的兩岸政策。這般奇異的論述，出自被視為理性清新的蔡英文之口，豈能不跌破許多人的眼鏡？

《流亡政府論》可謂是最獨且最不理性的兩岸論述。例如：一、《台獨黨綱》並未否定中華民國，只是認為中華民國體制「造成憲政改造的僵局」，而主張由公民投票另制新憲，「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」。二、《台灣前途決議文》更承認「依目前憲法稱為中華民國」，亦即採「借殼上市」的策略，且維持「台灣全體住民公民投票」的架構。三、《兩國論》亦未稱中華民國是流亡政府。四、《一邊一國》則仍有《兩國論》的想像空間。五、《正名制憲》則雖是主張廢中華民國，卻非在未廢前即否定中華民國。六、《台灣地位未定論》也只是說，台灣「不一定」屬於中華民國。七、《正常國家決議文》則主張「及早正名制憲」。八、《外來政權》尚承認中華民國是一事實「政權」。九、《第二共和》亦只是強調中華民國的「成長」……。

由以上例舉可知，在各種「重台獨」、「輕台獨」或「類台獨」理論中，《流亡政府論》是最「獨」的主張，認為「中華民國在大陸」，而「不在台灣」。因而亦是「最不理性」的台獨主張：一、中華民國既是流亡政府，使民進黨參與中華民國的民主憲政運作，完全失去了正當性；二、形同否棄了「公民投票」的理論，只憑政治語言即片面否定中華民國，劫奪民意。三、在戰略上，這必然掉入「中共同路人」的統一戰線，不啻搶在北京前頭否定了中華民國。

再說，以蔡英文兼具黨主席及可能總統參選者的身分言，若持《流亡政府論》，其立場亦較陳水扁及李登輝更獨且更不理性。一九九九年的《台灣前途決議文》，是為陳水扁參選總統預作鋪墊；更不用說還有他就任後的「四不一沒有」，緩和兩岸情勢。陳水扁是在貪腐失政危機出現及卸任後，才愈走愈獨。至於李登輝，一九九六年直選時，他的政治看板仍是《國統綱領》；甚至在一九九九年推出《兩國論》，企圖拉住淺綠，挽救二○○○年連戰的選情，也未說「中華民國已不存在」（那是卸任後的語言）。然而，蔡英文被想像是引領民進黨轉型的黨主席，且極可能是二○一二中華民國的總統候選人，竟然在與李扁對等的生涯時點上，發表比陳水扁及李登輝更獨且更不理性的《流亡政府論》，她究竟是少了哪一根筋？

蔡英文在《十年政綱》中將端出什麼樣的國家認同與憲政定位論述，許多人都在等著看。但是，近一個月來，她陸續發表「執政後，公投廢ＥＣＦＡ」、「沒有廢止《台獨黨綱》的問題」及《流亡政府論》，甚至又「否定經濟掛帥／質疑出口導向」；不啻已然封殺了她自己及民進黨的轉型空間，令人不解。她主張「中華民國是流亡政府」，將如何引領民進黨贏得二○一二？

更令人驚異的是，蔡英文此次絕非信口失言所致，而是用白紙黑字印出《流亡政府論》。蔡英文即使是台獨，何以膚淺至此？蔡英文即使只是想政治操作，何以荒謬至此？

蔡英文曾因《兩國論》，搞垮了李登輝政權；又因堅持否定《九二共識》，搞垮了陳水扁政權。如今，儼然又要以《流亡政府論》，來杜絕民進黨轉型提升的路徑；這樣的蔡英文，仍是中間選民想像中的那個理性清新的蔡英文嗎？

白紙黑字的《流亡政府論》，性質何其嚴肅，更何其沉重，蔡英文豈能如此輕佻地說：「沒時間理會這些政治口水！」