Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?

Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 22, 2011

The earthquake in Japan disrupted Tsai Ing-wen's campaign schedule. On the morning of March 11, she ceremoniously declared her candidacy. By that afternoon however, her announcement was totally drowned out by news of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Tsai Ing-wen found herself buried beneath a landslide of news reports on the disaster of the century. Five days later, Tsai Ing-wen finally dug herself out from under the rubble. Who knew the very first election topic she would toss out, would be the funerary urn of President Ma's father Ma Ho-ling, and the headstone of her own father Tsai Chieh-sheng.

Tsai Ing-wen told reporters that her father's tombstone contained the inscription "Pingtung Feng Gang," whereas the funerary urn of President Ma's father contained the inscription, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification." Tsai Ing-wen said she was simply underscoring the difference between the headstone and funerary urn for the two fathers, and how these differences symbolized their differing allegiances.

Tsai Ing-wen has used this issue as the opening volley in her run for the presidency. We are both surprised and disappointed. How is this such demagoguery any different from previous DPP attacks on Ma Ying-jeou as a "poodle," as [afflicted with] "Hong Kong foot" (athlete's foot), and as "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl)? During the party primaries Tsai Ing-wen urged the nation to "Cease inciting confrontation and hatred," and to "Extricate Taiwan from the politics of mob passions, and lead it toward the politics of rational persuasion." Is this what Tsai Ing-wen considers rational persuasion?

Tsai Ing-wen has compared Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn to Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. Does this qualify as "the politics of rational persuasion?" Are we to understand that Tsai Ing-wen's ringing declaration during the party primaries, has not held up for even five days? Tsai Ing-wen insisted that she was merely underscoring a "difference in allegiances." She insisted that she was merely pointing out the fact that Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone identified him as a native of Feng Gang, not Zhangzhou. In fact of course, Tsai Ing-wen was conducting another form of "rectification of names." In fact she was implying that the inscription on Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification" prove that President Ma is descended from someone who "pandered to [Mainland] China, and sold out Taiwan."

This was the opening volley in Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign. The gunpowder she used was "rectification of names." The bullet she used was "ancestry." Tsai Ing-wen put her own spin on the Two Ying's confrontation. She not only compared Tsai Ing-wen with Ma Ying-jeou, she even compared Tsai Chieh-sheng with Ma Ho-ling.

The fact is, Ma Ho-ling's last wish, calling for the "defusing of Taiwan independence, and the promotion of gradual reunification," was merely his personal wish. President Ma has proposed "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." That is national policy. By contrast, the inscription on Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone could read Zhangzhou. It could read Feng Gang. Either way, it too was merely his personal wish. It could have been inscribed with Yingchuan, Jinjiang, Longxi, or Quanzhou. None of this proves that anyone "did not love Taiwan." None of this supports Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy White Paper. In short, this is anything but the "politics of rational persuasion."

If Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen confront each other during the presidential election, they must compare their national policy proposals, and not the personal wishes expressed by Ma Ho-ling on his funerary urn, or Tsai Chieh-sheng on his headstone.

Tsai Ing-wen trumpets a "new generation." She aspires to the establishment of a "new political culture." But instead, she chose to demagogue funerary urns and headstones. If anything, her gesture is even more contemptible than taunting Ma Ying-jeou by calling him a "poodle," accusing him of "being afflicted with Hong Kong feet" (athletes foot), or referring to him as a "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl). That's because calling Ma Ying-jeou a "poodle" is directed only at Ma Ying-jeou as an individual. Demagoguing funerary urns, on the other hand, drags his ancestors into the picture.

Chen Shui-bian engaged in rampant corruption, and pocketed astronomical amounts of wealth. Yet Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" is now an important faction within the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to issue a single word in condemnation of Chen Shui-bian and Chen Chih-chung's criminal complicity. Does she want President Ma to schlep his late father's funerary urn around with him, while she lugs her late father's headstone as they run for president? Does this qualify as the "politics of rational persuasion?"

It is true that allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and cross-Strait relations, are likely to be the focus during any upcoming presidential election debates. But the debate should not be about Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. The debate should be over concrete policy measures that have already been implemented. These include questions such as whether Tsai Ing-wen recognizes the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, ECFA, whether the OECD will continue functioning, whether fruit and milkfish will be sold, whether she agrees with "No [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," whether she will continue direct flights, and whether she will continue the policies of the preceding administration. These questions have nothing to do with Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. They are however the questions that ought to be asked during any presidential election policy debate.

Over the past three years, President Ma's policy measures have been explicitly informed by his allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and his cross-Strait policy premises. Tsai Ing-wen is the one who has exceeded her brief. She is the one whose policy proposals are diametrically opposed to allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution and the current administration's cross-Strait policy. Answers to these issues will not be found in Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. That is because Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng are not running for president.

Tsai Ing-wen's opening volley was both a surprise and a disappointment. Her take on the matter was so off base, it underscored the vacuum at the heart of her political rhetoric. Her rhetoric is tough on the outside, but hollow on the inside. Tsai Ing-wen said "We must travel a different road." Apparently the road she wants us to travel is strewn with funerary urns and headstones. It is different indeed.

是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生競選總統嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.22

日本大地震，震亂了蔡英文的參選步調；她在三月十一日早上大陣仗宣布參選的新聞，當天下午就被日本的地震海嘯完全吞沒。

五天後，蔡英文勉力從世紀災變的新聞土石流中鑽出來，她丟出的第一個令人注意的選舉話題，竟然是馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈，及她自己父親蔡潔生的墓碑。

蔡英文在接受媒體專訪時說，她父親蔡潔生的墓碑上刻著「屏東楓港」，馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈上卻刻著「化獨漸統」。蔡英文說，她只是簡單陳述兩人父親墓碑及骨灰罈的差異，以及此差異所象徵的認同差異。

蔡英文以這個話題作為她競選總統的第一槍，著實令人十分意外又失望；這與民進黨過去操弄的「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」與「馬統」有何不同？這難道就是蔡英文在初選宣言所說的「不要再召喚對立的仇恨」，「把台灣從過去激情嘶吼的政治，帶往一個理性說服的政治」？

拿馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑相提並論，算不算是「一個理性說服的政治」？蔡英文的初選宣言，難道禁不起五天的考驗？蔡英文說，這是要陳述一種「認同差異」，其意是指蔡潔生的墓碑上不刻祖籍漳州，而刻楓港，其實是一種「正名運動」；至於馬鶴凌骨灰上刻的「化獨漸統」，可以證明馬總統「傾中賣台」的血統。

這就是蔡英文參選總統的第一槍，火藥是「正名」，彈頭是「血統論」。蔡英文擺出的態勢儼然是：雙英交鋒，不但是蔡英文與馬英九比，甚至連蔡潔生也要與馬鶴凌比。

其實，馬鶴凌的遺願「化獨漸統」，只是表達了「個人思維」；馬總統所主張的「不統／不獨／不武」，才是「國家政策」。相對而言，蔡潔生的墓碑不論是刻著漳州或楓港，這也只是「個人思維」，既不能證明其他刻著穎川、晉江、隴西、泉州者就是「不愛台灣」，更不能作為蔡英文兩岸政策白皮書的任何支撐。總之，這完全不是「一個理性說服的政治」。

總統大選如果馬蔡對壘，要比的是馬英九與蔡英文的「國家政策」，而不是馬鶴凌的骨灰罈或蔡潔生的墓碑上刻了什麼「個人思維」。

蔡英文標榜「新世代」，宣稱要建立「新的政治文化」。但這種把骨灰罈與墓碑丟入戰火的動作，其實比「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」或「馬統」更低劣；因為，「貴賓狗」只是針對馬英九個人，骨灰罈卻是把人家祖宗也拖下水。

陳水扁巨貪惡腐，但陳致中的「一邊一國連線」儼然已是民進黨內舉足輕重的派系；蔡英文不對陳水扁與陳致中父子的共犯關係發一語，卻難道想叫馬總統捧著乃父的骨灰罈，與扛著亡父墓碑的自己競選總統？這又豈是「一個理性說服的政治」？

沒有錯，這次總統大選，國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係皆可能是辯論焦點；但辯論的支撐並不在馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑，而是須對已經上路運行的具體政策進行論證。蔡英文承不承認「九二共識，一中各表」，ＥＣＦＡ、經合會繼不繼續？水果虱目魚還賣不賣？「不統／不獨／不武」是否同意？還要不要直航？「前朝兩岸政策」是否應當延續？這些皆與馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑無關，卻是總統大選應當辯論的國家政策。

近三年來，馬總統的國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策皆已明明白白地實際運作；蔡英文欲超越馬英九，即應在國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策上提出針鋒相對的主張。這些，皆不可能從馬鶴凌及蔡潔生的墓碑上找到答案，因為不是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生在競選總統。

蔡英文的第一槍令人意外又失望；走這種偏鋒，只是徒顯其空洞無物、色厲內荏。蔡英文說，「我們要走一條不一樣的路」，在這條路的入口處竟就擺著骨灰罈、豎著墓碑，果然很不一樣。