Taiwan after the Turmoil

Taiwan after the Turmoil
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 14, 2014

Summary: The Sunflower student movement has ended. But calm has yet to be restored on the streets of Taipei. On the evening of the 11th, crowds laid siege to a police precinct station. We can expect continued struggles between Ma and Wang, between the ruling and opposition parties, and between the two sides of the Strait. The government's response to the mass protests was weak. The public has acquired an inflated sense of its own power. The Internet makes it easy to rally protestors. In the future similar siege and occupation activities could become the norm.

Full text below:

The Sunflower student movement has ended. But calm has yet to be restored on the streets of Taipei. On the evening of the 11th, crowds laid siege to a police precinct station. We can expect continued struggles between Ma and Wang, between the ruling and opposition parties, and between the two sides of the Strait. The government's response to the mass protests was weak. The public has acquired an inflated sense of its own power. The Internet makes it easy to rally protestors. In the future similar siege and occupation activities could become the norm.

Henceforth, we will use only terms such as "crowds" and "unrest." We will avoid such terms as "riots" and "student movements." We have our reasons for doing so. We must consider the matter carefully. Was the street unrest a student movement, or a social movement? Were they the result of poor communications or power struggles? Were they the result of opposition to black box operations, or were they the result of a dispute over reunification or independence? Were they opposition to the CSSTA, a struggle for democracy, or blanket opposition to Ma and Mainland China? Were they political issues or legal issues? Were they a struggle over generational justice, or merely a struggle between two political paths? We must do not be deceived by appearances. We must not ignore the real problem. Taipei, Beijing, and the international community must all arrive at an understanding about Taiwan. They must arrive at a professional, comprehensive, in-depth conclusion about a turbulent situation. Only then an they determine what sort of countermeasures are required.

Hundreds of thousands of people may take to the streets, spontaneously or through mobilization. These however cannot be simplistically defined as reunification vs. independence struggles. Society on Taiwan is concerned about other serious problems as well, including the economy. Taiwan has been losing economic momentum. Manufacturers have fled. The younger generation is worried about its future. It faces high unemployment, high prices, and growing disparities in wealth. Young people see no hope for the future. Their reasonable demands warrant compassion and understanding. Taiwan must make major changes in its government operations, tax policy, and educational policy.

Meanwhile, suspicions were reasonable and inevitable. Did certain leaders make superficially harmless, seemingly legitimate demands as part of a coordinated attack? Did they collude with certain political parties and politicians as part of a coordinated political struggle? Were they opposed only to black box operations and poor communications? Were they concerned not just about power-sharing, but also about reunification vs. independence? Was this an anti-democratic movement flying the banner of democracy? That is a good question.

Like anything else, the CSSTA has its pros and cons. Even the CSSTA, as signed with the Mainland, has its risks. But globalization and market liberalization are irresistible. They are megatrends that cannot be reversed. Time is not on Taiwan's side. Opportunities and markets, once lost, are hard to regain. Taipei must board the regional economic integration express train. Market opening is an iron law. It is the only way Taiwan can survive. The problem is how government and the people can reach a consensus, enhance competitiveness, maximize benefits, and minimize deficits. The CSSTA may be subjected to strict review. But it must not be annulled. Even more importantly, it must not reduced to a struggle over reunification vs. independence.

The Mainland is no longer poor and backward. It is no longer uninformed. In cross-strait political, economic, diplomatic, or strategic competition, time is not in Taiwan's side. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew said the main reason the Asian Tigers were able to develop successfully was that the Mainland blundered with a long string of political movements. Today the Mainland has risen. Taiwan must seize the moment, take full advantage of its achievements, in order to expand its own interests. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says the CSSTA is beneficial to Taiwan, and that refusing to sign it would be a waste. On the 11th, ROC representative to the US Shen Lu-hsun said the CSSTA concerns more than just trade in services. It concerns Taiwan future status in the world. Such wisdom is worth considering. But many on Taiwan persist in populist demagoguery. They prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than face reality. These important strategic choices are all up to us.

Consider current official data. Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, and the EU wish to sign free trade agreements with Taipei. Current rumors suggest that all negotiations have ground to a halt. We are unsure whether these rumors are correct. But from a management perspective, they cannot be ruled out. The public on Taiwan lacks determination. The government lacks ability. Other nations see limited benefits and have limited resources. Naturally they prefer to remain on the sidelines for the time being.

We must consider Taiwan's future. Once the CSSTA has been subject to strict review, we must demonstrate our commitment to market opening. This will help persuade the Mainland to reduce its constraints on Taiwan. This is the best alternative given the circumstances.

Taiwan is small. The Mainland is large. But experience has show that Taiwan's soft power should give it greater confidence during cross-strait exchanges. 

社論－動盪過後 明天的台灣
2014年04月14日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

太陽花「學運」結束後，台北街頭仍未恢復平靜，11日晚間果然又見群眾包圍警察分局。展望未來，不但馬王、朝野、兩岸都還將繼續爭鬥，由於政府應對群眾抗爭態度軟弱，群眾已養成意氣風發、自我膨脹的心態，而網路糾眾又極為容易，未來類似「路過」、「占領」等活動，恐將成為常態性現象。

在此，我們只用群眾、動盪，而避免使用騷亂與學運的字眼，是有特殊原因的。我們必須先慎思，這次街頭動盪的本質到底是學運或社運？是溝通不足還是權力鬥爭？是反對黑箱作業還是統獨之爭？是反對服貿、爭取民主還是逢馬、逢中必反？是政治問題還是法律問題？是追求世代正義還是兩條路線的鬥爭？大家不要只被事物的表象所迷惑，而忽略了問題的本質。不管是台灣、大陸及國際社會首先都要對台灣日來的動盪情勢做出一個專業性、有深度、全面的判斷與定位，然後才能決定究竟應該採取什麼樣的因應對策。

當然，動輒有十數萬人，甚至可能更多人，或自發或被動員上街抗議，就不是單純「統獨鬥爭」所能涵蓋，台灣社會必然出了一些其他嚴重的問題，經濟可能是其中之一。台灣早已逐漸喪失經濟的動能，製造業紛紛出走，年輕一代對於未來有很沉重的憂慮，眼見高失業率、高房價及貧富懸殊的現象日益嚴重，年輕人看不到未來的希望。我們對於年輕族群的合理訴求是抱持同情和理解的態度，台灣確實應該在政府運作、租稅、教育政策等方面大肆興革。

但於此同時，難免還是有人要合理的懷疑，是不是有些特定的所謂群眾領袖打著一些表面上無害、正當的要求，以分進合擊的方式，有意配合特定的政黨與政治人物在進行政治鬥爭，他們反對的不只是黑箱作業，在意的不全是溝通不足，要求的不是單純的分享權力，而實際上是一場經過包裝後的政治及統獨鬥爭。這是不是一場打著民主訴求反對民主體制的民主內戰，值得大家深思。

再回到服貿爭議，一如所知，任何事情都有利有弊，甚至是福禍相倚，與中國大陸簽署服貿協議當然仍有一定的風險，但如果說全球化及市場化是一個無法抗拒、不能逆轉的態勢，如果說時間確實已經不在台灣的一邊，而機會與市場一經失去就難贏回，台灣無論如何都必須及時搭上區域經濟整合的列車，如果說對外開放是個硬道理，而這也是台灣唯一的出路和活路，癥結就在政府及全民要如何集思廣議，提升自己的競爭能力，把利益最大化、傷害最小化，服貿的開放項目可以嚴審，但應非退回，更非把議題導向統獨爭議及政治鬥爭的層面。

大陸已非當年的貧窮落後，更非吳下阿蒙，在兩岸競逐的過程中，不管是從政治、經濟、外交、戰略、安全各個面向來看，時間與機會都已不在台灣的一邊，就像新加坡李光耀當年所說，亞洲四小龍當年之所以能夠成功發展，主要是出於中國一連串政治運動所犯的錯誤。如今面對大陸崛起，台灣是否應當再度把握機會，趁勢成就、擴大自己的利益？星國總理李顯龍日前表示，服貿對台灣有利，不簽可惜，而我國駐美代表沈呂巡也於11日指出，服貿不只是服貿，而是等於台灣未來在世界上的定位。這些真知卓見是否值得大家深思，台灣各界是否仍要繼續讓民粹當道，把頭埋在沙子裡，而不願面對現實，做出重要的戰略選擇，全在一念之間。

就目前的官方資料來看，至少香港、印度、印尼、菲律賓、澳洲、歐盟都曾有意與台灣研商、簽署自由貿易協定，但目前傳出的消息是，所有談判都已暫時喊停，我們雖然無法確定這種消息正確的程度，但若從事理來看，這種可能確實不能排除，台灣民眾沒有決心、政府當局沒有能力，各國在利益有限，資源有限的情況下，大家當然寧可暫持觀望態度。

展望未來，為了台灣的將來著想，嚴審過後早日簽署兩岸服貿協議，既對外展現台灣開放的決心，也有利於說服大陸不再對台灣掣肘，這仍是無可奈何下的最佳選擇。

台灣很小，大陸很大，但兩岸交流經驗卻證實，台灣可以對自己的軟實力更有信心。（本系列完）