The Three Pillars of "Taiwan Next"

The Three Pillars of "Taiwan Next"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 2, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen's campaign platform is "Taiwan Next." Ma Ying-jeou calls his campaign headquarters "Taiwan's Gas Station/Taiwan's Cheering Section." Both focus attention on "Taiwan's future." But how should Taiwan cheer itself on? What must Taiwan do next?

"Taiwan's future" has three pillars. Since martial law was lifted on Taiwan, and Mainland China underwent reform and liberalization, Taiwan's future has depended upon on three pillars. One. Allegiance to the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. Two. Improved cross-Strait relations. Three. Economic development. These three are mutually linked.

Among these, cross-Strait relations is the key. Cross-Strait relations has a powerful influence on allegiance to the Republic of China, to its constitution, and to its economic development. Peaceful development is predicated upon allegiance to the nation and its constitution. Economic development is predicated upon freedom and openess. Therefore the Republic of China must ensure allegiance to the nation and its constitution, and freedom and openess. Only these can ensure the favorable development of cross-Strait relations.

Taiwan has paid a heavy price over the years. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian controlled the nation's fate for 20 years. They undermined peoples' national and constitutional allegiance. They convinced them to support Taiwan independence. In economics, they imposed their euphemistically named policy of "effective opening, active management." They forbade direct links. As a result, the two sides clashed repeatedly. Society became divided. Taipei and Washington found themselves at loggerheads. They practiced "war diplomacy." The economy slid into depression, and suffered repeated shocks. Taiwan lost its chance to become an Asia-Pacific operations center. This was simple cause and effect. A confused national and constitutional allegiance undermined cross-Strait relations and economic development.

Today most people realize that Lee and Chen era cross-Strait policy was a mistake and a failure. It was a mistake and a failure because they toyed with national and constitutional allegiance. This undermined the economy. By contrast, in 2008 Ma Ying-jeou won by a landslide, primarily because of his stance on national and constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait relations, and economic development. Cross-Strait policy has always been the issue on which Ma Ying-jeou has received the highest degree of public approval. One benefit has been increased allegiance to the nation and it constitution. Certainly no one is demanding that others jump into the Pacific Ocean. Another benefit has been increased economic momentum. See how enthusiastically Chen Chu welcomed the Free and Independent Travel Policy for Mainland tourists.

Tsai Ing-wen shouts "Taiwan Next." Ma Ying-jeou shouts "Go Taiwan." But before Tsai and Ma can implement their respective policies, they must clearly state their positions on these three pillars. First consider national and constitutional allegiance. Ma Ying-jeou's national and constitutional allegiance has never changed. He has always championed the 1992 Consensus, "one China, different interpretations," and "no reunification, no independence, no use of force," all under the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, has yet to explain what she meant by "The Republic of China is a government in exile." She still wants to return to the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But the Resolution on Taiwan's Future is nothing but "backdoor listing." Chen Shui-bian discredited the Resolution on Taiwan's Future years ago. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen must make clear which Republic of China she is referring to. Is it the Republic of China that has long existed, past, present, and future? Or is it the shell company mentioned in the Resolution on Taiwan's Future?

Now consider cross-Strait relations. As mentioned earlier, Ma champions the 1992 Consensus, "one China, different interpretations," and "no reunification, no independence, no use force." Beijing's bottom line is opposition to Taiwan independence, and commitment to the 1992 consensus. Tsai seems unwilling to utter "no independence." She also seems afraid to say "no reunification." She opposes "one China, different interpretations," and repudiates the 1992 consensus. In which case, we must ask the DPP, just what do you mean by "Taiwan Next?"

Now consider economic development. This is the era of globalization. Under Lee and Chen, Taiwan lost many economic opportunities. This inflicted serious damage to Taiwan's economic health. The Ma administration re-invigorated cross-Strait economic and trade relations. That is not a panacea of course. But it is undoubtedly essential to Taiwan's economic reconstruction. That much is plain to see. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen rails against "economic growth above all." She opposes an "export-oriented economy." She wants to reverse the "industry over agriculture policy." She wants a "localized economy." She would increase subsidies to workers, farmers, and the socially disadvantaged, and increase social welfare spending, She champions "globalization without the Chinese Mainland." Beijing has made clear that "all cross-Strait exchanges are based on the 1992 consensus." Yet Tsai Ing-wen has stated her intention to kill the 1992 consensus. Under these circumstances, what's "next" for Taiwan's economy?

Allegiance to the nation and the constitution, cross-Strait relations, and economic development, have a synergistic "three in one" effect in the real world. At its root is allegiance to the nation and the constitution. At its hub is cross-Strait relations. The reward is economic development. Ma Ying-jeou's "three in one" path runs no risk of "pandering to [Mainland] China, and selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen's "three in one" path however, does betray the nation and the constitution. It tears the nation apart. It leads to cross-Strait enmity. The fact is Taiwan cannot succeed in "globalization without the Chinese Mainland."

Ma Ying-jeou's "three in one" path does not risk "pandering to [Mainland] China, and selling out Taiwan." This path is consistent with the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. It is headed by the President of the Republic of China, who is democratically elected and overseen by the citizens of the Republic of China. It "puts Taiwan first" and it "benefits Taiwan's people." Tsai Ing-wen's "three in one" path on the other hand, promotes Taiwan independence. The "Republic of China" Tsai hopes to be elected president of is nothing more than a shell company for the Republic of Taiwan. Her national and constitutional allegiances, her cross-Strait policies, and her economic development policies will bring back the internal divisions that prevailed during the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian era.

The presidential election should be based on these three pillars for Taiwan's future. If the pillars are straight, all will remain in order. If the pillars are crooked, all will be plunged into chaos.

Ma Ying-jeou's strategy is to uphold these three pillars, to keep his eye on the ball. Tsai Ing-wen's strategy is to avoid these three pillars. She hopes to use other issues to distract from these three pillars. She hopes to use political and economic isolation to shift the focus. Ma Ying-jeou intends to uphold these three pillars. Tsai Ing-wen intends to evade them. But either way, both are affirming the importance of these three pillars for Taiwan's future.

Taiwan Next的三大支柱
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.08.02

蔡英文的競選主題是Taiwan Next，馬英九的競選總部取名「台灣加油讚」，都是著眼於對「台灣未來」的憧憬。然而，台灣應如何加油？要進入怎樣的Next？

「台灣未來」有三大支柱。自台灣解嚴及中國大陸改革開放之後，台灣的未來決定於三大支柱：一、國憲認同。二、兩岸關係。三、經濟發展。而且，三者互有連動效應。

其中，兩岸關係又居於樞紐地位。因為，兩岸關係強烈影響了台灣的國憲認同與經濟發展；也就是說，台灣必須建立一套足以因應兩岸關係和平發展的國憲認同體系與自由開放的經濟發展模式。亦即，台灣的國憲認同體系與經濟發展模式能夠因應兩岸關係則吉，不能則凶。

這是台灣付出了重大代價的經驗之談。李扁二任政府計達二十年，在國憲認同上趨向台獨操作，在經濟規劃上主張戒急用忍、「有效開放、積極管理」、反對三通直航；其結果是兩岸交惡、社會撕裂、台美反目、烽火外交、經濟低迷震盪，流失了亞太營運中心的契機。此一因果關係是：錯亂的國憲認同，搞壞了兩岸關係，也搞砸了經濟發展。

時至今日，多數國人皆認知，李扁二任的兩岸政策是錯誤與失敗的，這是因為他們玩弄國憲認同所致，所以也搞砸了經濟發展。相對而言，馬英九之所以在二○○八年高票當選總統，主要是因他「國憲認同／兩岸關係／經濟發展」的「三合一政策」贏得了民心所致；而「兩岸政策」始終是馬英九在民意支持度上最高的項目，其紅利則表現在國憲認同之較趨穩定（至少沒有人叫別人去跳太平洋），並為經濟發展添加了動能（看陳菊如何歡迎自由行）。

所以，蔡英文唱Taiwan Next，及馬英九喊台灣加油，一旦落實到具體的政見層次，皆必須對這三大支柱明確表態。先論國憲認同。馬英九之國憲認同的不變宗旨是「在中華民國憲法架構下」，「九二共識／一中各表」，「不統／不獨／不武」。蔡英文卻仍未對她所說的「中華民國是流亡政府」作出解釋，並想回到《台灣前途決議文》的論述，但《台灣前途決議文》只是「借殼上市」的手法，何況已被陳水扁撕碎；因而，蔡英文必須明白說出她競選的「中華民國總統」，究竟是過去、現在、未來始終一貫的中華民國？或只是《台灣前途決議文》中借用的一張殼？

再論兩岸關係。如前所述，馬英九的主張是「九二共識／一中各表」、「不統，不獨，不武」；北京的底線則是「反對台獨，堅持九二共識」。蔡英文似乎絕無可能說出「不獨」，也大概不敢明說「不統」；且既反對「一中各表」，又否定「九二共識」。那麼，請問民進黨，Taiwan Next的兩岸政策主軸是什麼？

再說經濟發展。現今是全球化的時代，台灣經歷李扁二任政府，失機僨事，對台灣的經濟體質造成重創；馬政府重新活化了兩岸經貿關係，當然這絕非重建台灣經貿角色的萬靈丹，卻無疑是不可或缺的藥引，此一事實有目共睹。相對而言，蔡英文揚言「反對成長掛帥」、「反對出口導向」，主張翻轉「重工輕農」，強調「在地經濟」，且又大力加碼抬高貼補工農及弱勢者的社會福利支出，更被指為倡議「沒有中國大陸的全球化」，何況北京已明言「兩岸交流一切成就皆以九二共識為基礎」，而蔡英文卻咬死反對「九二共識」；這樣的台灣經濟，將有怎樣的Next？

國憲認同、兩岸關係及經濟發展，實際上有「三合一」的連動效應；其根本是國憲認同，其樞紐是兩岸關係，其紅利是經濟發展。馬英九的「三合一」路線，疑慮在有否「傾中賣台」的風險？蔡英文的「三合一」路線，其疑慮則在國憲認同是否再告撕裂？兩岸關係是否就此反目？及台灣是否真要走向「沒有中國大陸的全球化」？

馬英九的「三合一」路線是否會傾中賣台？只要這條路線是在中華民國憲法的架構下，由民主選舉支持並監督的真正的中華民國總統所主持，「以台灣為主，對人民有利」，即無傾中賣台之可能。至於蔡英文的「三合一」路線，若是由主張台獨的主力選出一位「中華民國總統」，以「借殼上市」的心態來統治「中華民國」，其國憲認同、兩岸關係及經濟發展，則將一如李登輝與陳水扁執政時之鑿枘扞格，必使台灣回到Taiwan Past！

這次總統大選當然應以「台灣未來的三大支柱」為競爭主軸。支柱穩固，枝節易理；支柱傾頹，全局錯亂。

因此，馬英九的競選策略，是在守住這「三合一」的「三大支柱」，勿使失焦；但蔡英文的競選策略，則在迴避這「三合一」的「三大支柱」，設法用其他細碎議題去剝蝕這「三大支柱」，或政經分離，或轉移焦點。但宏觀而論，無論是馬英九的守，及蔡英文的躲，皆證實了這「三大支柱」對台灣未來的絕對重要性。