From Li Ruihuan to Li Yafei: The Presidential News Boycott 18 Years Ago

From Li Ruihuan to Li Yafei:The Presidential News Boycott 18 Years Ago
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2010

Li Yafei is Deputy Chairman of the Mainland Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS). On the 11th of this month, while in Taipei, Li publicly stated that the basis of cross-Strait mutual trust is opposition to Taiwan independence and a defense of the 1992 Consensus.

To the best of our recollection, this is the first time a Mainland official has ever publicly expressed "opposition to Taiwan independence" on Taiwan soil. This can be regarded as a milestone in cross-Strait interaction.

From the perspective of Taiwan independence advocates, Li Yafei's action was tantamount to breaking into their house and spitting in their face. Logically speaking it should have provoked a powerful reaction. But the general public treated Li Yafei's declaration of "opposition to Taiwan independence" in a matter of fact fashion. Even the DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups acted as if they hadn't heard it. They failed to utter a single protest, and remained dead silent.

Think back 18 years. On October 29, 1992, CCP Politbureau Standing Committee Member Li Ruihuan was in Beijing, addressing visiting members of the Chinese language media. He declared that Mainland China would not sit by and watch Taiwan declare independence. It would resort to any means to prevent it. Even if it meant blood sacrifices. It would fight to the end. It would spare no expense. The next day over a dozen newspapers on Taiwan faithfully reported his remarks. Who knew a few days later then president Lee Teng-hui would personally spearhead an all out newspaper boycott, the first since democracy was instituted on Taiwan.

On November 11, President Lee Teng-hui, Chairman of the Kuomintang, spoke before the Central Standing Committee. He said "After a certain reporter returned, he wrote a terrifying news story that Intimidated our people." The newspaper Lee Teng-hui was referring to was the United Daily News. The president clearly knew that over a dozen different newspapers faithfully reported Li's remarks. But he deliberately singled out the United Daily News. A few days later, Lee Teng-hui met with a number of Taiwan independence pressure groups, and again referred to the United Daily News. He said "I no longer read that newspaper. Do you?" It was then that Lee Teng-hui initiated the "newspaper subscription cancellation movement" or "newspaper boycott."

The president masterminded an all out, overwhelming, take no prisoners newspaper boycott. The DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups provided the muscle. Political mud flew through the air, accusing the United Daily News of "tilting toward [Mainland] China," of being the "mouthpiece of the CCP," of being the "Taiwan Edition of the People's Daily," of being "Communist fellow travelers." Mass rallies were held everywhere, urging people to cancel their subscriptions. Copies of the United Daily News were piled high then set alight. Movement members attached stickers onto people's mailboxes reading, "Our house does not read the United Daily News." Some stores would not even allow the United Daily News on their racks. Some airlines removed the United Daily News from their inflight reading bins. Some businesses were intimidated into withdrawing their ads from the United Daily News. The sole justification cited for this all out, overwhelming, take no prisoners presidential newspaper boycott was that the United Daily News, like all the other newspapers on Taiwan, truthfully reported Li Ruihuan's "opposition to Taiwan independence" remark.

Lee Teng-hui and Taiwan independence pressure groups intensified their campaign of repression against the media. They set up an "Advertisers Association" and used ad sales to suppress freedom of expression. The President's son-in-law Lai Kuo-chou was made Secretary-General of the Press Council. As we recall that day 18 years later, who could have imagined that "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui would consign the media on Taiwan to a living hell?

Recall this day 18 years ago. Li Ruihuan spoke of "opposition to Taiwan independence." A newspaper accurately reported Li's remarks. Lee Teng-hui, the DPP, and Taiwan independence pressure groups responded by subjecting the newspaper to a terror campaign. Eighteen years later, Li Yafei is invited to Taipei, the guest of a Taipei-based newspaper. He stood on Taiwan soil. He "broke into the house" and openly declared "opposition to Taiwan independence." Why have the DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups pretended not to hear? More to the point, why has Lee Teng-hui pretended not to hear? Why are they silent? Is it because they agree with Li Yafei? Or is it that the public on Taiwan no longer agrees with them?

Another fact is equally interesting. The newspaper that invited Li Yafei to Taiwan and provided him with the podium on which he declared "opposition to Taiwan independence," was one of the newspapers that fanned the flames of the newspaper boycott 18 years ago. Never mind that they too published Li's remarks, on the front page. Never mind that 18 years ago they were accused of being "capitalist bandits" and "traitors to Taiwan." Today, 18 years later, these media moguls have the wherewithal to sponsor large scale cross-Strait fora. They are major players in cross-Strait "peaceful development." The 18 year difference truly is ironic. Accused "capitalist bandits" became key figures on both Taiwan and the Mainland. The supermarkets that refused to display copies of the United Daily News on their racks became giant supermarket chains with stores on both Taiwan and the Mainland. The airline which removed the United Daily News from its inflight reading bins became an aggressive advocate of cross-Strait exchanges. The Democratic Progressive Party, Taiwan independence pressure groups, and Lee Teng-hui once went berserk and persecuted the United Daily News, merely for printing Li Ruihuan's remark about "opposition to Taiwan independence." Today Li Yafei throws "opposition to Taiwan independence" in their faces. Yet they listen in silence. That was then. This is now.

Think back 18 years, to the presidential newspaper boycott movement. Lee Teng-hui conspired with Taiwan independence pressure groups. Together they used state power to hijack public opinion. But this was also the reason they eventually reached a dead end. Lee Teng-hui conspired with Taiwan independence pressure groups and the Democratic Progressive Party. They used smears such as "Communist sympathizers" "Communist mouthpieces" to block the free flow of information and restrict diversity of thought. They ripped the nation apart. They froze social dialogue. They traumatized the nation. They enabled Lee Teng-hui successor Chen Shui-bian to impose a Closed Door Policy on Taiwan, bringing the Republic of China economy to the brink of ruin.

Lee Teng-hui was ostensibly runhappy with the United Daily News. In fact the Li Ruihuan news article was merely a convenient pretext. During Lee Teng-hui's 12 year reign, he engaged in black gold corruption and destroyed the ROC Constitution. United Daily News criticisms provoked his hatred and enmity. Who today does not know that the nation's constitution was destroyed by Lee Teng-hui?

United Daily News founder Wang Ti-wu said "A president has a term limit. A newspaper does not." A president can in a fit of apoplexy, launch a newspaper boycott campaign. But history will eventually return to reason. Lee Teng-hui, the DPP, and Taiwan independence pressure groups may burn newspapers. But can they burn history?

從李瑞環到李亞飛：回視18年前的「總統退報運動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.18 10:26 am

本月11日，大陸海協會副會長李亞飛在台北公開指出，兩岸的互信基礎是反對台獨與堅持九二共識。

印象中，這是大陸官員首次在台灣公開表示「反對台獨」，可視為兩岸互動的一個里程碑。

照理說，對台獨人士言，李亞飛這個動作不啻是「侵門踏戶」的唾面之辱，理應給予強烈反擊。但是，對於李亞飛「反對台獨」四字，非但台灣主流社會似乎認為理所當然，甚至連民進黨及台獨社團亦好像有聽沒有到，未吭一聲，噤若寒蟬。

回憶拉到18年前。1992年10月29日，中共中央政治局常委李瑞環在北京對往訪的華文媒體說：中國大陸絕對不會坐視台灣獨立，將用任何方法來阻止，即使流血犧牲、前仆後繼，也在所不惜……。次日，台灣當時的十幾家報紙皆如實刊登了這個消息；不料，幾天以後，竟然爆發了台灣民主憲政史上一場由總統親身主導的鋪天蓋地的「退報運動」。

11月11日，總統李登輝以國民黨主席身分在中常會上說：「某某報記者回來之後，寫了一篇可怕的報導，恫嚇了我們的老百姓。」李登輝口中的「某某報」，是指聯合報；他雖明知十幾家報紙皆同樣如實地報導了李瑞環的談話，但只挑明了針對聯合報。數日後，李登輝與若干台獨元老會面又論及聯合報說：「我已經不看那個報紙了，你們還看嗎？」於是，李登輝這就吹響了「退報運動」的衝鋒號。

一場由總統發動及主導的鋪天蓋地、穿肌刺骨的「退報運動」於焉爆開，民進黨及台獨團體是操作的主力。政治血滴子漫天飛旋，指聯合報「向中國傾斜」，是「中共的傳聲筒」、「人民日報的台灣版」、「中共的同路人」。鼓動「退報」的群眾集會四處密集舉行，成堆的聯合報在台上被焚燒，家戶的信箱上被運動者貼上「我家不看聯合報」的貼紙，有些超商不容聯合報上架，有些航空公司在班機上撤去聯合報，企業被脅迫不可在聯合報上刊登廣告……。這場總統發動的鋪天蓋地的退報運動，穿肌刺骨的退報運動，原因只緣於聯合報當時與所有報紙一樣，如實報導了李瑞環「反對台獨」的談話。

後來，李登輝與台獨社團對媒體的壓制愈演愈烈，發動企業主成立了「廣告主協會」，用廣告箝制言論自由，總統女婿賴國洲則成了新聞評議會的秘書長…。在18年後的今日回憶那一段過程，誰能相信那竟然是由「民主之父」李登輝主持操作下的媒體煉獄！

回到18年後的今天。18年前，李瑞環在北京「反對台獨」，李登輝、民進黨及台獨社團竟如此對待一家如實報導的報紙；18年後，李亞飛則是台北一家報紙邀來的賓客，站在台灣的土地上「侵門踏戶」地公開宣示「反對台獨」。試問：民進黨及台獨社團為何佯裝沒聽到？李登輝更為何佯裝沒聽到？你們的噤聲不語，究竟是你們同意了李亞飛，還是知道台灣主流社會不再同意你們？

同樣耐人尋味的是，這次邀請李亞飛來台灣宣示「反對台獨」的媒體，18年前也曾幫著「退報運動」煽風點火；儘管他們自己當時也在一版頭條刊登了李瑞環的談話。而且，18年前一名被誣為「資匪」、「台奸」的台商，如今在18年後成了這家媒體的老闆，舉行盛大的兩岸論壇，扮演兩岸「和平發展」的要角。前後18 年，此一時、彼一時，真是歷史的反諷。「資匪者」變成兩岸要角，拒聯合報上架的超商成了兩岸鉅子，撤去聯合報的航空公司成了兩岸交流的積極擁護者；所以，也就難怪曾因李瑞環「反對台獨」而瘋狂迫害聯合報的民進黨、台獨團體及李登輝，如今面對李亞飛「反對台獨」四字噴濺到臉上的唾沫，竟然也就聽其自乾，噤若寒蟬。此一時，彼一時，不是嗎？

如今回顧18年前的那場「總統退報運動」，可知李登輝與台獨社團的結合，是他挾持政權及壓制社會的主要力量；這也是使得他最後在內外走投無路的主因。李登輝結合民進黨及台獨社團，欲用「中共同路人」、「中共傳聲筒」等血滴子，來封殺自由的資訊及多元思維的相對批判，撕裂了國家，凍結封殺了社會辯證，最後終於重創了國家，也使李登輝及後繼的陳水扁帶著台灣一起走上鎖國誤國的絕路。

李登輝對聯合報不悅，其實李瑞環的報導只是他信手拈來的「莫須有」的藉口而已；李登輝12年執政的黑金毀憲，在聯合報同步對其批判的同時亦被他仇視為異端，但如今全國有一人不知憲法已被李登輝所毀嗎？

聯合報創辦人王惕吾先生說：「總統有任期／報紙無任期」。總統可以瘋狂發動退報運動，但歷史的理性仍將漸次彰顯展露；李登輝、民進黨及台獨社團只會燒報紙，你們能燒歷史嗎？