Can Tsai Ing-wen Lead the Nation if She Will Not Say Where She Stands?

Can Tsai Ing-wen Lead the Nation if She Will Not Say Where She Stands?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 20, 2014

Summary: Taiwan society has moved on, to politicians who have the courage to say what they think. Old stereotypes and old thinking have been left behind. Candidates must offer new strategies and genuine substance.  They cannot avoid controversy. They cannot contradict themselves. They must declare what the problems are. They must be decisive in their actions. This is a new era. Taiwan society needs new political leaders. These political leaders cannot be afraid to champion their beliefs. They cannot be afraid to face those who oppose their beliefs. Only then can the people make their own choice about whom they want to represent them. Only then can they express fervent support for the candidate of their choice. Tsai Ing-wen has contemplated this problem for several years. But clearly she needs to contemplate it even more.

Full Text Below:

Earlier this year, Tsai Ing-wen went on FaceBook and promised to act responsibly. "In 2014, I will work with everyone during this critical year to help the DPP and the nation make the right choices." Her choice was to run for re-election as DPP chair. As she herself said, she wanted to reform the Democratic Progressive Party, to make sure that it was keeping pace with the times.

It was not that difficult for Tsai Ing-wen to make a personal decision. Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh had already withdrawn from the race. That "Xiaoying" would be leader of the DPP was a foregone conclusion. But the question is, can Tsai Ing-wen become Taiwan's leader as well? Can she become Taiwan's best choice as a leader over the coming years? That remains in serious doubt.

Tsai Ing-wen has been on the political stage and engaged in political activities for some time now. Her distinguishing trait has not been political courage or problem solving. It has not been a glowing record of accomplishments for the benefit of the common man, It has not been the resolute championing of any particular political path, on the way to any particular political goal. No. These are not Tsai Ing-wen's political trademark. Why? Because all of these require taking a stand. They require making choices between different ideas, different interests, and different groups, They require shining a light on one's political views and principles. They require championing a particular stance, which inevitably provokes a backlash from opponents of that particular stance. This is what Tsai Ing-wen habitually avoids.

As a result, Tsai In-wen's most distinctive trait has been her pretty catchphrases. She invariably uses the trendiest, most progressive, and most innocuous political rhetoric to package herself. But she never expresses an opinion on the all important key issues. She never explains her strategy. She never chooses sides. Politics is of course not black and white, not either-or. Often answers are found in the middle, midway between right and wrong. There is indeed is a gray area. There may be room for compromise and reconcilation. But this does not mean one can always avoid conflicts and sensitive issues. After all, one must first have a position, one must first have principles. Only then can one compromise and make concessions.

Tsai Ing-wen's New Year's Day FaceBook speech stated that "On certain issues, we must express the party's attitude and stance." It stated that "Politics is a kind of choice! It is a choice made in a rapidly changing external environment." Tsai Ing-wen has an image as someone who utters only empty rhetoric and pretty words. It would seem, to a greater or lesser degreee, that she wants to change that image. She is prepared to express her "attitude and stance." She is prepared to make choices on key issues. Unfortunately her performance at the DPP Chairmanship television debate showed that she has made no real change or progress. She remains vague and wavering. Any change was severely limited.

Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan can no longer follow the economic growth strategy of the previous century. She said she and her campaign committee were "trying to find a new model." Their "guidepost would be innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Economic development would be accompanied by the redistribution of wealth." Good. Given Taiwan's economic bottlenecks, not many people want to cling to the strageties of the previous century. Nobody opposes innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Tsai's platitudes are irrelevant. The real question is whether she can offer a convincing solution. One key issue is taxation. What system of taxation does Tsai Ing-wen propose, in order to "redistribute the wealth?" How does she plan to use the tax system to encourage "innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation?" So far, Tsai Ing-wen has not stated any positions or made any choices.

Tsai Ing-wen said we must maintain peace and stability in cross-Strait relations. She said cross-Strait exchanges should focus on "quality" instead of "quantity." She said we must return to democratization and transparency. Businesses and political parties must no longer hold monopolies. She said the cross-Strait economy was originally about individual commercial interests, but must instead be about larger national economic interests. Good. No one dares advocate cross-Strait exchanges that advance only the interests of monopolistic interests. No one thinks cross-Strait exchanges should be under the table deals. Tsai Ing-wen's catchphrases are all very pretty. But they cannot hide what actually matters in cross-Strait relations. For example, what kind of economic and trade agreements will result in "high quality" cross-Strait exchanges? For example, the DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus. It is unable to offer new ideas acceptable to both sides. Therefore how can the DPP "maintain peace and stability" in cross-Strait relations? 

Tsai Ing-wen has improved. She acknowledges that cross-Strait relations are important for "peace and stability." That is a step in the right direction. But she has not explained what cross-Strait policy agenda the DPP should set forward. She has not explained how the DPP will achieve "peace and stability," "democracy," "transparency," and "take into account the nation's larger economic interests?" Are we to understand that ECFA, the STA, and the GTA are really nothing more than "individual commercial interest-oriented?" Are we to understand that they harm "the nation's larger economic interests?" Shouldn't Tsai Ing-wen act responsibly and state her position more clearly?

Tsai Ing-wen is atypical for a Taiwanese politician. Her campaign committee has packaged her very cleverly. She utters pretty, progressive catchphrases. She markets herself by not adopting any clear policy positions. Her presentation is neutral, mild, with no sharp edges, and no clear policy positions. This enables her to cross the Blue/Green divide and seek over half the votes.

But she and her campaign committee have failed to realize something. Taiwan society has moved on, to politicians who have the courage to say what they think. Old stereotypes and old thinking have been left behind. Candidates must offer new strategies and genuine substance.  They cannot avoid controversy. They cannot contradict themselves. They must declare what the problems are. They must be decisive in their actions. This is a new era. Taiwan society needs new political leaders. These political leaders cannot be afraid to champion their beliefs. They cannot be afraid to face those who oppose their beliefs. Only then can the people make their own choice about whom they want to represent them. Only then can they express fervent support for the candidate of their choice. Tsai Ing-wen has contemplated this problem for several years. But clearly she needs to contemplate it even more.

社論－不表態的蔡英文 如何領導國家
2014年05月20日 04:10

今年年初，蔡英文在臉書上就表示要承擔責任，「2014年我會與大家一起努力，在這關鍵的一年幫民進黨，也幫這個國家做出正確的抉擇」。她的抉擇是再度出馬競選民進黨主席，就她本人的說法，是要推動民進黨的轉型，讓民進黨與時俱進。

蔡英文要做出個人的抉擇，還不算困難，從目前的局勢來看，在蘇貞昌、謝長廷退選之後，小英帶領民進黨，已毫無懸念，但是蔡英文能否成為台灣社會的抉擇，能成為帶領台灣未來幾年發展的最佳抉擇，則還非常需要謹慎的檢驗。

蔡英文真正走上檯面、從事政治活動以來，她個人最鮮明的特色，不是展現了什麼政治魄力，解決了重大政治難題，不是有什麼亮眼的執政成績，造福了廣大的黎民百姓，更不是堅定舉起某條政治路線的大旗，努力推進實現其政治主張。不是的，以上都不是蔡英文的政治品牌，因為要做到上述這些，都需要「表態」，需要在不同理念、不同利益、不同群體之間做出抉擇，也就是，因為要凸顯、展現個人的政治主張與方針，要成為某種立場的「正方」，因此，就必然會製造出「反方」。而這些，正是蔡英文所努力迴避的。

於是，蔡英文呈現在台灣政壇的最大特色，就是好說漂亮語彙，盡量用一切新潮的、進步的卻又「無害」的政治語言包裝自己，卻不對一切重要的、關鍵的課題表達自己的立場，說明自己的方略，也就是「拒絕選邊站」。政治，當然不是非黑即白的，不是非此即彼的，往往在是非黑白兩端的中間，確實有灰色的地帶，有可以調和妥協的空間。但是，這絕不代表可以永遠選擇迴避矛盾，迴避「敏感」問題，畢竟，總是要先有立場，先有原則，也才談得上妥協的底線、讓步的幅度。

本來，在蔡英文今年元旦的臉書發言中，她曾表明：「在某些議題上，我們必須展現黨的態度與立場」，她還強調「政治就是一種選擇！而且是一種在外在環境變動迅速的情況下所做的選擇」。看起來，蔡英文是多少想調整她光說空話、光說漂亮話的形象，準備展現「態度與立場」，準備在關鍵議題上做出「選擇」。可惜的是，從她在這次民進黨主席電視政見會上的表現來看，不是沒有調整，不是沒有進步，只是「模糊」、「游移」還是籠罩在她的政治形象之上，改變的幅度極為有限。

蔡英文說，台灣經濟成長策略不能再沿用上世紀的舊模式，她和團隊「試圖找出新模式」，「座標就是創新、創業及創造就業機會，經濟發展同時也達財富分配效果」。很好，面對台灣經濟瓶頸，沒有多少人想要守舊，更沒有人會反對創新、創業及創造就業，問題根本不在於口號與方向，而在於令人信服的作法。在這方面，一個關鍵的問題就是「稅制」，在達成「財富分配效果」上，蔡英文的稅制主張是什麼？又要如何運用稅制來鼓勵「創新、創業及創造就業機會」，我們至今看不到蔡英文的立場和選擇。

蔡英文說，兩岸關係要維持和平穩定，兩岸交往應從著重「量」變「優質」，並回歸民主化、透明化的常軌，不再被特定政商人士壟斷，兩岸經濟也要從以前個別商業利益導向整體國家經濟利益。很好，沒有誰敢公開主張讓特定集團壟斷兩岸交流利益，沒有人認為兩岸交往應該黑箱、獨斷，但是這些漂亮話，並無法掩蓋兩岸關係上的關鍵問題，比如，怎樣的經貿協定可以讓兩岸交流「優質化」，又比如，如果民進黨執政之後不承認「九二共識」，又提不出讓兩岸共同接受的新主張，兩岸關係又要如何「維持和平穩定」？

蔡英文是有在前進的，她認同兩岸關係的「和平穩定」很重要，這是正確的方向，但她欠缺的，是更清楚的說明，她心目中民進黨應該提出的整套兩岸政策綱領，這個綱領要如何同時做到「和平穩定」、「民主」、「透明」、「顧及整體國家經濟利益」？難道從ECFA到服貿、貨貿，真的就只是「個別商業利益導向」，真的就傷害了「整體國家經濟利益」嗎？蔡英文不應該負責任的說清楚嗎？

蔡英文這位台灣非典型的政治人物，在團隊的包裝下，選擇「說漂亮進步語言、迴避真實政策表態」的行銷手法，以為包裝成中性、溫和、不尖銳、不表態，就能夠跨越藍綠左右，攫取過半選票。

但她和團隊所不知道的是，台灣社會已經前進了，前進到需要政治人物勇於承擔，在突破舊窠臼、舊思維時候，要端出新方略、新牛肉，不迴避爭議，不繞過矛盾，直指要害，果斷解決，這是新時代台灣社會所要求於政治領袖的。政治領袖要不怕居於正方，不怕面對反方，人民才會做出自己的選擇，才會表達自己的熱切支持。「想想」了好幾年，蔡英文，還是應該好好想一想。