Fading Rays of Taiwan Independence Fall on Sunflowers

Fading Rays of Taiwan Independence Fall on Sunflowers
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 15, 2014

Summary: Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated Taiwan independence. Twenty-five years later, the Sunflower student movement is still belated advocating Taiwan independence? Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech. Who knew that 25 years later the Sunflower student movement would impose a Black Terror that permits only one viewpoint.

Full text below:

Roughly 25 years ago, Cheng Nan-jung said "I am Cheng Nan-jung, I advocate Taiwan independence." Today, 25 years later, others have said "I am Lin Fei-fan, I advocate Taiwan independence" and "I am Chen Wei-ting, I advocate Taiwan independence."

Cheng Nan-jung has become the student movement's latest Taiwan independence idol. But over the past 20 years, Cheng family memorial services changed. Now the family speaks only of Cheng's advocacy of "100% freedom of speech." They no longer speak of his advocacy of Taiwan independence. This is because freedom of speech is a universal value. Whereas Taiwan independence is merely a fleeting strategic option for national survival.

Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech and Taiwan independence. But he did so within a specif historical context. Martial law had just been lifted. Article 100 of the Criminal Code however, was still on the books. Advocacy of Taiwan independence was part and parcel of advocating 100% freedom of speech. Furthermore, when martial law was being lifted, its political aftershocks were still being felt. The Cold War continued. The Chinese mainland showed no signs of becoming a rising power. The United States had yet to be weakened by 9/11. Globalization was still a distant concept. As a result Taiwan independence became a political option for many intellectuals, including Cheng Nan-jung. In 1991 the DPP announced its Taiwan Independence Party Platform, two years after Cheng Nan-jung immolated himself in 1989.

Recent student movement protests have touched off a wave of Taiwan independence sentiment, eight years after the fall of the DPP's Taiwan independence regime. Even DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has acknowledged that the DPP "can no longer return to advocacy of Taiwan independence." If Cheng Nan-jung were alive today, would he still insist on Taiwan independence as the proper strategy for national survival? No one is in a position to speak for him.

In this regard, we must distinguish between freedom of speech and strategic options for national survival. A person may be exercising his right to free speech. But that hardly mean that his strategy for national survival is correct. Cheng Nan-jung demanded Taiwan independence. When martial law and Article 100 of the Criminal Code were in force, demands for Taiwan independence were a form of free of speech. Is Taiwan independence the right strategy for national survival? We will not pursue that in detail. When Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting advocate Taiwan independence today, it has nothing to do prohibitions against free speech. When one already enjoys 100% freedom of speech, then the accuracy of what one's utterances becomes more important than whether they were uttered freely. Upholding the right to advocate Taiwan independence, does no mean that Taiwan independence is the proper strategy for national survival. After all, "free" and "correct" are not synonyms. In fact, they are often at odds with each other.

Since Cheng Nan-jung's time, Taiwan independence has undergone over 20 years of trials and tribulations. Today even the DPP is considering whether to repeal or freeze its Taiwan Independence Party Platform. This has nothing to do with upholding the freedom to advocate Taiwan independence. The real issue is whether Taiwan independence is the correct strategy for national survival. Alas, Taiwan independence is akin to the setting sun. Its last rays are shining upon the sunflowers.

Li Ao said "A belated Party Outsider is not a Party Outsider." In other words, If one waits until there is 100% freedom of speech before becoming a Party Outsider, one is merely another political opportunist. Many young students today are belated Taiwan independence advocates. Some of them have political motives. Most of them are merely hot-blooded and naive. These belated Taiwan independence advocates feel increasingly bewildered and anxious, not because they lack freedom, but because they failed to exercise their freedom in a responsible manner, and use it to seek correct solutions.

We prefer to characterize Cheng Nan-jung as an advocate of 100% free speech, rather than as an advocate of Taiwan independence. Freedom of speech is a right. But those who advocate Taiwan independence or oppose the CSSTA, must assume responsibility for their exercise of freedom. After all, Cheng Nan-jung's 100% freedom of speech should mean 100% freedom of speech not just for oneself, but for others as well. Does this society tolerate only anti-CSSTA speech, while prohibiting pro-CSSTA speech? Does this society tolerate only pro-Taiwan independence speech, while prohibiting anti-Taiwan independence speech? Is this the Taiwan pursued by Cheng Nan-jung or the Sunflower student movement?

Student movement members must not forsake the freedom to dialogue with oneself. Does one agree with Taiwan independence? Does one oppose the CSSTA? These are strategic choices for national survival. They are matters of knowledge. If one blindly advocates Taiwan independence and blindly opposed the CSSTA, one has denied oneself the freedom to dialogue with oneself. One's unfree self has lost the freedom to know itself. It can no longer acquire correct knowledge. It can no longer formulate a proper strategy for national survival. One must not become an intellectual who has forsaken the freedom to dialogue freely with himself.

Finally, let us pose two questions. Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated Taiwan independence. Twenty-five years later, the Sunflower student movement is still belated advocating Taiwan independence? Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech. Who knew that 25 years later the Sunflower student movement would impose a Black Terror that permits only one viewpoint.
 
台獨夕照太陽花
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.15 02:04 am

約在廿五年前，鄭南榕說：「我是鄭南榕，我主張台灣獨立。」廿五年後的今日，換人說：「我是林飛帆，我主張台灣獨立。」「我是陳為廷，我主張台灣獨立。」

鄭南榕在學運中已成新的台獨偶像。但是，二十多年來，鄭的家屬及追思者漸漸只強調他所主張的是「百分之百的言論自由」，而早已不再凸出其「主張台灣獨立」的角色。這是因為「言論自由」為普世價值，而「台灣獨立」則為與時推移的國家生存戰略選項。

鄭南榕主張「百分之百的言論自由」與「台灣獨立」，皆有其時代背景。當年正值解嚴前後，是刑法第一百條仍在生效的年代，主張「台灣獨立」的本身，即是主張「百分之百言論自由」的表徵。再者，在解嚴前後的時際，台灣內部的戒嚴政治積澱漸趨沸騰、冷戰仍在僵持、中國尚看不出「大國崛起」的跡象、美國亦未經九一一以後的削弱，何況當年「全球化」的概念尚只是初露端倪；因而，「台灣獨立」遂成為許多台灣人思酌的政治選項，包括鄭南榕在內。於是，一九九一年民進黨公布了《台獨黨綱》，時在鄭南榕一九八九年自焚身亡後的第二年。

但是，這次學運掀起了台獨的風潮，卻是在民進黨八年執政操作台獨大敗之後，而連民進黨主席蘇貞昌也說「不能再走回頭路搞台獨」的時際。倘若鄭南榕尚活在今日，他會不會仍然堅持以「台灣獨立」為國家的生存戰略，恐怕已沒有人能替他代言。

在此，必須認真區分「言論自由」與「正確的國家生存戰略的選項」之間的區別；並非任何「自由表述的言論」，都是「正確的國家戰略論述」。在鄭南榕那個戒嚴及刑法一百條的年代，只要喊出「台灣獨立」，即是「言論自由」的伸張；至於「台灣獨立」是否為「正確的國家戰略論述」，尚不及細究。但在今天，林飛帆及陳為廷主張「台灣獨立」，已經完全無關「言論自由」的禁制；當有了「百分之百的言論自由」之後，言論的「正確性」自較言論的「自由度」重要。亦即，有主張「台灣獨立」的言論自由，並不代表「台灣獨立」即是今天正確的國家生存戰略之選項。畢竟，「自由」與「正確」不是同義字，而往往是相反詞。

在鄭南榕之後，台獨的思與行已歷經二十餘年的試煉，如今則已是連民進黨都在討論要不要廢止或凍結《台獨黨綱》的年代；這絕不是因為民進黨沒有堅持《台獨黨綱》的「自由」，而是必須思考「台獨」是否為「正確的國家生存戰略」。但是，當台獨已猶如西斜落日，最後一抹餘暉竟照在太陽花上。

李敖說：「遲來的黨外，不是黨外。」這是說，在「等到已有百分之百的言論自由」之後才投入「黨外」，每多政治投機分子。如今，卻見不少年輕學生變成「遲來的台獨」，其中除少數幾人顯有政治圖謀外，大多均是出自熱血天真，因而這些「遲來的台獨」愈發令人不解與心疼。他們不是沒有「自由」，問題是在能否「負責任地使用自由」。

我們寧可仍將鄭南榕定位在「主張百分之百的言論自由」，而不必凸顯其主張「台灣獨立」。因為「言論自由」是主觀的權利，但主張「台灣獨立」或「反服貿」者，卻需承當起「使用自由的客觀責任」。畢竟，鄭南榕所說的「百分之百的言論自由」，應是讓自己及自己以外的所有人皆有「百分之百的言論自由」；倘若這個社會竟成了只容反服貿、不容支持服貿，只容贊同台獨、不容質疑台獨，難道這是鄭南榕或太陽花所追求的台灣？

根本的問題在於：學運的附從者絕對不能失去「自我對話的言論自由」。是否贊同台獨，與是否支持服貿，皆是國家生存戰略的抉擇，在本質上即應是一種知識的抉擇。倘若先將自己釘死在「台獨」及「反服貿」的意識形態上，即形同使自己失去了「自我知識對話的真正自由」，則「不自由的自我」其實已失去了自我的主體，即不易獲得「知識的正確」，尤其不易建立「正確的國家生存戰略」。千萬不要淪為失去「自我對話自由」的知識人！

最後提出兩個問題。鄭南榕在廿五年前主張「台獨」，太陽花在廿五年後難道還要做「遲來的台獨」？鄭南榕在廿五年前主張「百分之百的言論自由」，誰料廿五年後竟會出現「太陽花黑色恐怖一言堂」？