The DPP is a Taiwan Independence Party

The DPP is a Taiwan Independence Party
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2011

Summary: When Tsai Ing-wen says "I am Taiwanese," she means that "Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese." When Tsai Ing-wen says "Ma Ying-jeou is selling out Taiwan," she means "I on the other hand, am not selling out Taiwan." Such political rhetoric is laughable and ludicrous. But it has long been the DPP's stock in trade. Tsai Ing-wen has eagerly adopted it as her own.

When Tsai Ing-wen says "I am Taiwanese," she means that "Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese." When Tsai Ing-wen says "Ma Ying-jeou is selling out Taiwan," she means "I on the other hand, am not selling out Taiwan." Such political rhetoric is laughable and ludicrous. But it has long been the DPP's stock in trade. Tsai Ing-wen has eagerly adopted it as her own.

This argument however, contains two major holes. First of all, if Ma Ying-jeou is "selling out Taiwan," how is he doing it? Does the 1992 consensus sell out Taiwan? How? The Republic of China Constitution is a "one China, different interpretations" constitution. This constitution was amended seven times. Cross-strait policy is predicated upon this constitution. So is the 1992 consensus. This constitution was amended with the active participation of Lee Teng-hui and the DPP. The DPP upheld this constitution for eight years. One China, different interpretations is predicated upon this constitution. The 1992 consensus is predicated upon this constitution. How can it possibly "sell out Taiwan?" Does ECFA "sell out Taiwan?" ECFA can not solve all of Taiwan's political and economic problems. But it is the most significant political and economic achievement in recent years. Just look at how effusively the U.S. government has praised the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy. Just look at the recently signed trade agreement with Japan. These bear eloquent witness to its effectiveness. Besides, ECFA is the very cross-Strait policy that the Democratic Progressive Party must continue "if it returns to power." The DPP clearly appreciates its value. How can it claim that ECFA "sells out Taiwan?"

Secondly, the DPP says "Ma Ying-jeou is leaning toward [Mainland] China? That is beyond debate." But "leaning toward [Mainland] China" hardly implies "selling out Taiwan." If "leaning toward [Mainland] China" means championing win-win policies such as ECFA, how exactly does that "sell out Taiwan?" When the DPP equates peaceful exchanges with "selling out Taiwan" the charge is clearly spurious.

Such DPP rhetoric comes straight out and declares, "You are not Taiwanese." and "I, on the other hand, am Taiwanese." It then concludes "Therefore you are selling out Taiwan," whereas "I am not selling out Taiwan." Such one sided arguments cite no evidence and apply no logic. The DPP simply lays down the law. Tsai Ing-wen simply lays down the law.

The DPP is a Taiwan independence party. That is beyond debate. The DPP's mission is Taiwan independence nation-building, the rectification of names, and the authoring of a new constitution. So far Tsai Ing-wen has issued no denials about this. According to DPP logic, advocating the overthrow of the Republic of China and advocating the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution is not "selling out Taiwan." Conversely, upholding the Republic of China and one China, different interpretations is dismissed as "selling out Taiwan." DPP political logic is consistent. Supporting Taiwan independence is "loving Taiwan." Supporting the Republic of China is "selling out Taiwan." This is the DPP's unchanging yardstick for measuring "loving Taiwan" and "selling out Taiwan." It is now being used to distinguish between Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen.

Why is advocating Taiwan independence, or opposing cross-Strait exchanges, "loving Taiwan?" Why is upholding "one China, different interpretations," the ROC Constitution, cross-Strait exchanges, and peaceful development, "selling out Taiwan?" Is this all beyond debate? The DPP was founded 25 years ago. Since then it has always resorted to this logic. Tsai Ing-wen says "Reason will make democracy more effective." But even she resorts to this logic. This truly is regressive. The arrow in the "Taiwan Next" logo should be turned completely around until it is facing backwards.

The general election is almost upon us. The big question the public must ask itself, is whether Taiwan independence is "loving Taiwan" or harming Taiwan. Are cross-Strait exchanges and peaceful development loving Taiwan or harming Taiwan? The Democratic Progressive Party continues to demand Taiwan independence. It simultaneously issues threats. It says Beijing "may not unilaterally discontinue cross-Strait exchanges." Is this "loving Taiwan" or harming Taiwan? Tsai Ing-wen is hoping to repudiate the 1992 consensus in order to promote Taiwan independence and precipitate a showdown with Beijing. Is this "loving Taiwan" or harming Taiwan?

These political and economic disputes on Taiwan must be clarified. Otherwise, the DPP will continue to say "Ma Ying-jeou leans toward [Mainland] China. That is beyond debate." But the real question is whether Taiwan independence is "loving Taiwan" or harmng Taiwan. This question must be thoroughly hashed out. Otherwise, how will we know whether to support one China, different interpretations? How will we know whether to support ECFA? And of course, how will we know whether Ma Ying-jeou is "selling out Taiwan?"

Tsai Ing-wen says "Ma Ying-jeou is selling out Taiwan." She does not use the term "selling out Taiwan" per se. But she attempts to evade debate over whether peaceful cross-Strait exchanges harm Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen has repudiated the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations, from beginning to end. She is also attempting to evade debate over whether Taiwan independence is "loving Taiwan" or harming Taiwan. To hint that Taiwan independence might harm Taiwan, or worse, sell out Taiwan, is taboo. Only if this taboo is broken, can free and normal political and economic debate on Taiwan take place.

The DPP says Ma Ying-jeou leans toward [Mainland] China. It says this is beyond debate. But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party is a Taiwan independence party, and this fact is not being discussed. If the DPP is not a Taiwan independence party, how can one explain away the bizarre political and economic rhetoric one hears on Taiwan?

According to DPP rhetoric, Tsai Ing-wen is Taiwanese. Ma Ying-jeou is not. Ma Ying-jeou advocates one China, different interpretations, and cross-Strait peaceful development. Therefore he is "selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen advocates Taiwan independence. She wants to undo cross-Strait peaceful development. Therefore she "loves Taiwan." But is that really how it is?

民進黨是台獨黨還須辯論嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.09.27

當蔡英文說「我是台灣人」，她同時是在說「馬英九不是台灣人」；當蔡英文說「馬英九賣台」，她同時是在說「我不是賣台」。這樣的政治論述，荒唐可笑之至，但這卻正是民進黨的一貫伎倆，至今蔡英文仍如法炮製，樂此不疲。

此一論述有兩大缺口：一、若謂馬英九賣台，證據在哪裡？是「九二共識」嗎？但九二共識是依據經七次修憲後「一中各表」的中華民國憲法所執行的兩岸政策，而此部憲法係經李登輝主導及民進黨參與所修訂，且民進黨尚曾秉持這部憲法執政八年，則豈能謂根據「一中各表」的憲法所發展的「一中各表」的「九二共識」是賣台？或者，ＥＣＦＡ是賣台嗎？ＥＣＦＡ當然不能解決台灣所有的政經難題，卻是近年來最重大的政經成就，看美國盛譽馬政府的兩岸政策，及最近與日簽訂貿易協議，即知其效益，更何況ＥＣＦＡ顯然是「民進黨若再執政必欲延續的前朝兩岸政策」，亦即民進黨明明也知其效益，則豈能謂ＥＣＦＡ賣台？

二、民進黨稱「馬英九傾中還須辯論嗎？」然而，莫說「傾中」未必就能得到「賣台」的結論，且「傾中」若是指主張「交流雙贏」的兩岸政經政策（如ＥＣＦＡ），則豈能扣以「賣台」的罪名？民進黨將「交流論」等同「賣台論」，這擺明了是羅織成罪。

民進黨的此類論述，劈頭就說「你不是台灣人」，而「我是台灣人」；然後就跳躍出一個結論，「所以你賣台」，「我不賣台」。這類「單邊主義」的論述，完全不必證據及邏輯支撐，只要民進黨說了就算，如今則是蔡英文說了就算。

其實，民進黨是台獨黨，這才是一個不必辯論的題目。民進黨以「台獨建國」及「正名制憲」為宗旨，迄今蔡英文亦未加否認。在民進黨的邏輯中，主張推翻中華民國及「正名制憲」，不是「賣台」；反而是欲維持中華民國或「一中各表」，就被它斥為「賣台」。民進黨始終如一的政治邏輯就是：支持台獨就是愛台，支持中華民國就是賣台。這是民進黨對「愛台／賣台」的不可動搖的區別標尺，如今又用這只標尺來區別馬英九與蔡英文。

為什麼主張台獨或反對兩岸交流，就是愛台？為什麼主張維護「一中各表」的中華民國憲法及兩岸交流、和平發展，即是賣台？這難道皆是一個「不必辯論的題目」？民進黨創黨廿五年來，一貫使用此種論述伎倆，甚至到了宣稱「理性使民主更有力」的蔡英文也依然照本宣科，這真是大開倒車，那隻Taiwan Next的箭頭應當倒轉一百八十度！

這次大選，國人終究必須辯明的一個大題目是：台獨是愛台或害台？反對兩岸提升交流、和平發展是愛台或害台？民進黨一方面不放棄台獨主張，另一方面又威脅北京「不可片面停廢兩岸交流」，這是愛台或害台？更有甚者，蔡英文如今欲以「否定九二共識」的台獨路線，與北京攤牌對撞，這又是愛台或害台？

台灣政經的核心爭議，即在必須辯明這些問題。否則，就只會聽到民進黨說「馬英九傾中還須辯論嗎？」，但真正的問題在於「台獨究竟是愛台或害台」必須獲得通透的辯論。不如此，即不知應否支持一中各表，不知應否支持ＥＣＦＡ，當然亦不知馬英九是否賣台？

蔡英文喊出「馬英九賣台」，這是故意迴避她欲反轉兩岸和平交流的政策是否害台的辯論（即使不用「賣台」一詞）。另者，蔡英文一路否定「九二共識／一中各表」，則亦迴避了台獨路線是愛台或害台的辯論。不打破「台獨可能害台及賣台」的辯論禁忌，台灣的一切政經辯論皆無以正常開展。

民進黨說：馬英九傾中還須辯論嗎？真正的問題卻在於：民進黨是台獨黨還須辯論嗎？如果民進黨不是台獨黨，即無以解釋台灣的一切政經辯論竟會呈現出如下的面貌：

蔡英文是台灣人，馬英九不是台灣人；馬英九主張「一中各表」及兩岸和平發展是賣台，蔡英文主張台獨及欲反轉兩岸和平發展則是愛台。其然乎？其不然乎？