DPP Should Understand Why Hsu Hsin-liang Wept

DPP Should Understand Why Hsu Hsin-liang Wept
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 12, 2011

Last Saturday the DPP held its first presidential primary debate. Hsu Hsin-liang, due to his image and rhetoric, made the biggest splash among all the candidates. During his closing arguments, he shared a number of feelings about his political life that shocked everyone in attendance, and moved many to tears.

Green Camp veterans in attendance who heard Hsu Hsin-liang's emotional sharing, teared up. Those who didn't, had hearts of stone. After all, Hsu Hsin-liang's political life was filled with setbacks and heartaches, and reflected the experience of other key figures within the Green Camp. These key figures within the Green Camp may be unwilling to endorse Hsu Hsin-liang's thinking in public. But given their own years of suffering they should be able to empathize with him.

Hsu Hsin-liang precipitated the "Chungli Incident," the prelude to the political opposition movement on Taiwan. This was followed by bridgehead incidents, airport incidents, smuggling incidents, and the Tucheng Incident. Every one of these incidents was a milestone. Hsu Hsin-liang's political views have evolved. It has evolved from "Ensuring that the KMT vanishes from the face of the earth," to "Taiwan Nation Building United Front," to "urban guerrilla warfare," to "boldly going west," to "opposition to the rectification of names," to participation in the "red army" protests, to standing on the same dais as Tsai and Su. but alone in his advocacy of "ensuring the status quo, boldiy opening to the Mainland."

Among those in attendance at Saturday's political debate, no one has sacrificed more on behalf of the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was subject to greater humiliation by the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was more sincere and honest than Hsu Hsin-liang. Spontaneous applause and laughter proved that Hsu Hsin-liang was not a total pariah, and that Hsu Hsin-liang's political platform was not totally unacceptable. After all, they were the crystallization of 30 years of political suffering. They were enough to make those who heard him break into tears.

Why does the DPP see Hsu Hsin-liang as a traitor? Even Chen Shui-bian once advocated "five noes," "swore to defend the Republic of China to the death," and dismissed the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" as "self-deception... if it can't be done, it can't be done." Why isn't Chen Shui-bian considered a traitor? When Hsu Hsin-liang advocated boldly allowing Mainland capital onto Taiwan, and Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Tsai Ing-wen boasted that the three mini links and charter flights were implented during her term in office. Su Tseng-chang claimed he was premier at the time. But as it turned out, he was merely the Taipei County Chief. The scene was risible. Su and Tsai blanked out the complete and utter failure of the Chen regime's cross-Strait policy. They then attempted to invoke the three mini links as evidence of their "political accomplishments." Hsu Hsin-liang, on the other hand, promoted a "one China roof, with each side independent," establishing a framework for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. So just exactly who was engaging in self-deception?

Hsu Hsin-liang's basic proposals are simple and easy to understand. Specifically, the ROC's political path must be consistent with its economic path. This has long been the position of the UDN. Under these preconditions, Hsu Hsin-liang laid out his proposal for DPP rule, in the event it returns to office. The DPP must not advocate Taiwan independence. After all, Chen Shui-bian himself championed the five noes. The DPP must not overturn the "one China principle," ECFA, and other channels of communication. It must not impose limits on Mainland investments, Mainland tourism, and Mainland students studying on Taiwan. It must instead use cross-Strait economic interactions to promote Taiwan's economic development, and to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Taiwan must "boldly open up" and reject Lee Teng-hui's policy of "be patient, avoid haste." As long as the public liberates Taiwan's economic vitality, its economy will naturally flourish. As for the political risks alleged posed by economic exchanges, Hsu Hsin-liang considers this a phony issue. Today's globalized political and economic order is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo.

Hsu Hsin-liang may be too optimistic. But political and economic policy should permit the public to make full use of cross-Strait trade and economic resources, and leave the government to deal with political and security issues. For example, the ruling party must not advocate Taiwan independence. It must adhere to democracy. Su and Tsai cannot bring themselves to publicly oppose Taiwan independence, despite the fact that Chen Shui-bian championed the five noes. Their unwillingness to do so has turned them into the biggest detriment to cross-Strait political security. Su and Tsai nevertheless insist on sacrificing cross-Strait economics and trade, on the altar of Taiwan independence. Compare their thinking to that of Hsu Hsin-liang, and we find they have inverted cause and effect. Hsu openly opposes Taiwan independence. He feels economic exchanges will result in political security. Su and Tsai meanwhile, cannot bring themselves to utter a single word against Taiwan independence. How can they possibly throw open the doors to cross-Strait economic and trade? Even Chen Shui-bian championed the "five noes." Do Su and Tsai actually intend to make people suffer through times even more painful than the Chen Shui-bian era?

When confronted with their about face on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, Su and Tsai attributed their flip flop to "changing times." But Hsu Hsin-liang's opposition to Taiwan independence, and his shift to "ensuring the status quo, and boldly opening up to the Mainland" was also a response to "changing times" in the global "big picture." Su and Tsai reversed themselves on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Are they unaware that "changing times" have affected the cross-Strait strategic picture as well, and that they should rethink their cross-Strait policy?

Hsu Hsin-liang must make full use of his five million NT presidential election registration fee. He has teetered on the edge for most of his political life, and almost become a joke. Now he finds himself on the same dais as Tsai and Su. The public no longer considers him a joke. Hsu Hsin-liang took the lead as he entered a "new era" in history. By doing so, he showed Su and Tsai up for what they were, "older generation" politicians mired in the past. Some in the DPP wept for Hsu Hsin-liang. They wept over the scars Hsu Hsin-liang accumulated over the years. They wept over the Democratic Progressive Party's inability to liberate itself from the self-imposed chains that bind its soul.

民進黨應知為許信良落淚
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.12

上周六民進黨總統初選的首場政見會中，許信良是形象及論述最最突出者。他在結辯時的一段生涯告白，震撼全場，甚至有人感動落淚。

資深的綠營人物，在現場聽了許信良的告白，若未曾濕了眼眶，那真是鐵石心腸。因為，許信良躓踣崎嶇的政治生涯，豈不也正是每一綠營要人自己的生命寫照？而許信良表達的思維辯證，不論綠營要人能否公開贊同，卻也皆應是他（她）自己在良知及理智上煎熬多年的題材。

許信良的「中壢事件」拉開了台灣政治反對運動的序幕，接下來的橋頭事件、機場事件、偷渡事件、土城事件，件件皆是里程碑；而許信良的政治主張，則由「讓國民黨從地球上消失」，至「台灣建國聯合陣線」、「都市游擊戰」、「大膽西進」、「反對正名制憲」、「紅衫軍」，一直到與蘇蔡同台，獨樹一幟地主張「確保現狀，大膽開放」。

環視周六的政見會場中，全場無一人較許信良為民進黨的犧牲更大，更無一人較許信良受民進黨的羞辱更深，尤無一人較許信良的思辨更真誠坦白；現場自發的掌聲及笑聲證明，許信良這個人不是完全不足取，許信良的政見亦非完全不可採，因為那皆是積三十餘年悲苦掙扎，而足以令人聞之落淚的政治生命結晶。

民進黨為何視許信良為叛徒？其實，連陳水扁都曾主張「四不一沒有」、「誓死捍衛中華民國」、「正名制憲是自欺欺人，做不到就是做不到」，則為何陳水扁不是叛徒？當許信良主張大膽開放陸資、陸客、陸生來台時，蔡英文竟然標榜她在陸委會任內實現小三通及包機；蘇貞昌則說，當時他正是行政院長，結果卻發現他當時只是台北縣長。這是多麼滑稽可笑的場景：蘇蔡竟然完全無視於扁政府在兩岸政策的「完全而徹底」的失敗，卻欲以小三通來證明他們的「政績」；此較諸許信良以「一中屋頂，各自獨立」來建立兩岸經貿交流的架構，誰在自欺欺人？

許信良的基本主張淺白易懂，那就是台灣的政治路線必須與經濟路線合轍，這也是本報的一貫主張。在此一準則下，許信良主張民進黨若執政，不可主張台獨（陳水扁也主張「四不一沒有」），不必推翻「一中原則」，不應推翻ＥＣＦＡ等交流機制，不要限制陸資、陸客、陸生來台；而應以兩岸經貿互動來拉升台灣經濟發展，用以改善社會公平。因而認為，只要「大膽開放」，不要「戒急用忍」，只須將台灣人民在兩岸間的經濟活力解放出來，經濟自然就能獲得動能。至於經濟交流所涉政治安全的問題，在許信良的眼中只是一個假議題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」，即足以維持「兩岸現狀」。

許信良的看法也許過於樂觀，但讓民間充分運用兩岸經貿資源，而由政府來處理政治安全的問題（例如，執政黨不主張台獨，堅持民主），應當是一平允的政經路線。現在，蘇蔡二人說不出反對台獨（連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」），已使他們自己就成了兩岸政治安全的最大負數，卻反而要以節制兩岸經貿來作為支撐他們台獨意識的代價，這若與許信良的思維體系相較，其實已是倒果為因。亦即：許主張，不台獨，交流就有政治安全；蘇蔡則既然說不出一句反台獨，則如何可能有大開大闔的兩岸經貿政策？連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」，蘇蔡二人難道準備將台灣帶入比陳水扁時代更痛苦的兩岸風暴？

談到核四及國光石化的出爾反爾，蘇蔡二人皆說「時空環境不同」；其實，許信良不主張台獨，而改採「確保現狀，大膽開放」，不啻也正是緣於全球大勢的「時空環境不同」。蘇蔡能在核四及國光石化翻案，卻為何不知兩岸關係也已「時空環境不同」，而應在兩岸政策上反省改革？

許信良應使自己這五百萬元值回票價。他在飄零反覆的一生幾乎變成一場笑話的邊緣，與蘇蔡站在同一講台上，令眾人不再以笑話視之。許信良走在歷史「新時代」的前沿，映襯出蘇蔡皆仍在「舊世代」中徘徊。民進黨應有人為許信良落淚，一哭許信良體無完膚地走到今日，再哭整個民進黨迄今仍是走不出心靈牢籠的自囚之困獸！