Nationality and Nationhood: The Great Debate of 2016

Nationality and Nationhood: The Great Debate of 2016
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2015

Executive Summary: All major national policies are currently deadlocked. A change in the ruling party may take place in 2016, and become a major turning point in Taiwan's future. DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen has proposed a National Affairs Conference. This could be the perfect occasion for a public debate on possible changes in 2016. We hope no one will forcibly occupy the podium during this national forum.

Full Text Below: 

All major national policies are currently deadlocked. A change in the ruling party may take place in 2016, and become a major turning point in Taiwan's future. DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen has proposed a National Affairs Conference. This could be the perfect occasion for a public debate on possible changes in 2016. We hope no one will forcibly occupy the podium during this national forum.

Perhaps no one will forcibly occupy the podium. But that does not mean that no one will attempt to stage-manage this forum in a one-sided manner. The composition of the forum, the setting, and the issues, should all be decided jointly, in an open and transparent manner. That is the proper way to convene a national policy forum.

Take the composition of the forum. It is Tsai Ing-wen's brainchild. Will it therefore be chaired by the DPP? One. Past national forums were presided over by the president. This elevated the status of the forums. It also linked the forum conclusions directly to the government. Will the president preside over this forum? If not, how will that affect its status? Two. If the president does not preside over this forum, will the president deliver the opening remarks? Three. Should the president and government officials attend in an unofficial capacity? Should they express policy views during the forum? Four. Will the guest list be one-sided? Five. Should groups such as the Sunflower Student Movement, anti-nuclear groups, Taiwan independence groups, and pro-reunification groups be invited?

We feel the conference should be a national level event with diverse representation. Therefore, any role for the president must be handled judiciously. Tsai Ing-wen must not be allowed to turn the forum into her presidential campaign rally. The public should perceive it as a national policy platform for the changes that may unfold in 2016. Tsai Ing-wen may insist on being the conference moderator. That need not be a deal-breaker. But the DPP has a record of attacking or evading national policy issues. If the DPP chairs the forum, then the forum's policy conclusions must be seen as representing the DPP and no one else.

The DPP may refuse to allow the president to preside over the forum. But the president and government officials can still state their policy views and take part in the debate. Forum attendees can attend in an unofficial capacity. But the government, political parties, and civic groups must be represented. In the past, party leaders often found it difficult to convene such debates. The public will surely expect Ma Ying-jeou to attend. They will expect Eric Chu and Tsai Ing-wen to personally participate in a policy debate. By the same token, the forum should not exclude the Sunflower Student Movement, anti-nuclear groups, Taiwan independence groups and others. These groups must be in attendance to ensure the integrity and diversity of the forum. Since the forum is being convened by the DPP, its allies must be allowed to attend.

Take the matter of the forum agenda. The situation may change in 2016. Therefore three major issues are unavoidable. One. Cross-Strait relations. For example, after 2016 should the government repudiate cross-Strait policies based on the 1992 consensus? Should it renew or repudiate the ECFA follow-up agreements? Should the "Taiwan independence party platform" be frozen, abolished, or retained? Such topics are taboo within the DPP. The views of the public should be aired during the forum. Two. The globalization of economic policy. Given globalization, should we rely on Beijing to take care of Taiwan's "Three Smalls and One Young" problem? Problems plague small and medium enterprises, middle and lower income families, citizens in central and southern Taiwan, and young people. Given the impact of globalization, how can we reform Taiwan's industrial structure? How can we ensure globalization-based cross-Strait coopetition? Given globalization, how can we reform Taiwan's energy policy? Globalization has exacerbated the wealth gap. Social justice must address this issue. Three. Amending the constitution. Does the DPP seek to amend the constitution? Does it seek to delete the preface, which reads, "In response to the need for national reunification"?  Does it seek to change "one country, two areas" to "one nation on each side"? Does it seek to repudiate the "one China Constitution"? Could such a constitution be the basis for coopetition with the Mainland?

Does the DPP seek a constitutional amendment abolishing presidential elections? Does it seek to restore Legislative Yuan approval of premiership appointments? Does the DPP seek to implement "executive power track change" to avoid minority government impasses? Should the constitutional amendment process be divided into two stages, one pre-2016 and one post-2016? Most importantly, should Legislative Yuan "political consultations" continue?

No topic should be taboo. Not topic should be evaded. Participants must be determied to get to the bottom of things. All cards must be laid on the table. Nothing must be omitted. Only that would constitute an adequate response to potential changes in 2016. National identity, amendments to the constitution, elimination of the one China clause, energy policy, globalization, the 1992 consensus, ECFA, economic development, social justice, and other major issues must all be addressed. The public expects to hear the views of the DPP, the KMT, community representatives, policy experts, and academics. It expects the forum to offer concrete policy recommendations just as other forums have in the past.

Changes may be coming in 2016. People on Taiwan cannot bury their heads in the sand, ostrich fashion. They cannot behave like frogs being cooked alive. We expect the KMT and the DPP to hold a debate on the changes expected in 2106. They must have both the responsibility and the desire to attend such a national conference. We hope that community organizations will share the results of this conference with the public. Therefore the conference should split into small groups addressing specific issues. The conference as a whole should then discuss the findings of these small groups. Participants need not fear complex debates. They should only fear barriers to free expression, and evasion of what is truly important.

We hope no one will forcibly occupy the podium during this forum. This forum should enable a multifaceted debate about potential changes in the nation's circumstances in 2016.

藉國是會議進行二○一六變局大辯論
2015-02-03 02:17:53 聯合報 社論

在幾乎所有重大國政皆陷僵局的此際，二○

一六年可能再出現政黨輪替，而成為台灣命運的大拐點。因而，由民進黨主席蔡英文倡議的國是會議，正是國人共商二○一六變局的最佳平台，可望提供一個應當不會有人霸占主席台的國是論壇。

沒有人霸占主席台，也是指沒有人可片面操控這場國是會議。無論是會議的組成，與議題的設定，皆應以共同參與、公開透明的方式進行，這才是一個公共國政論壇的應有風貌。

先論會議的組成。此會由蔡英文倡議，是否即由民進黨主持？一、過去歷次國是會議皆由總統主持，除了使會議提升至國家的高度，亦使會議的結論與政府直接連結。此次若非總統主持，會議如何定位？二、若此會不由總統主持，是否請總統致詞？三、應否邀請總統個人及政府官員參與會議，在會中表達政策觀點？四、邀請與會的名單是否由民進黨片面擇定？五、社會多元勢力如太陽花、反核團體、台獨社團、統派團體應否在邀請之列？

我們認為，會議的組成應以「國家高度／多元代表」為基準。因此，必須慎重安排總統與政府在會中的角色。蔡英文尤不宜將此會視為自己競選總統的政治嫁妝，而應將之視為全體國人共策因應二○一六變局的國政平台。蔡英文若堅持做為會議的主持人，或亦無不可；只是，過去民進黨對國政綱領皆持攻擊或閃躲的態度，若主持會議，即應負起公開民進黨政策立場並作成結論的責任。

我們認為，即使否決了由總統主持，也沒有理由排除總統及政府在會中表達政策觀點並參與辯論。亦因如此，會議出席者雖可能以「個人」為單位，但也必須照顧政府、政黨與社團的代表性；過去，政黨領袖辯論國是之事不易促成，但國人當然應當期待在國是會議中出現馬英九或朱立倫與蔡英文親身親口進行政策辯論。同理，會議亦不宜遺漏太陽花、反核團體、台獨社團等元素，這些社團若不出席將有傷會議的完整性與多元性，何況民進黨倡議的國是會議豈能使其盟友向隅？

再論議題的設定。面對二○一六變局，有三大議題不容迴避。一、兩岸關係：例如，後二○一六年，是否應採「否定九二共識」的兩岸政策？ＥＣＦＡ後續協議應當盡速續簽或廢約？民進黨的《台獨黨綱》應凍廢或保留？諸如此類在民進黨內的禁忌議題，應可藉國是會議聽一聽社會的多元意見。二、全球化下的經濟政策：在全球化的大方針下，是否只依賴北京來照顧台灣的「三中一青」？台灣如何在全球化的衝擊下，重整產業結構？又如何建立以全球化為導向的兩岸競合關係？再者，在全球化的新局下，如何擇定能源政策；而在全球化加劇貧富差距下，社會公平也是必須照顧的議題。三、修憲方案：是否要修憲刪除憲法序文中「為因應國家統一前的需要」一句？憲法中「一國兩區」的規範應否改為「一邊一國」的格局？是否要否定「憲法一中」？如何以這一部憲法作為與大陸競合的憑藉？

再者，是否要修憲廢止總統直選？是否要恢復「立法院的閣揆任命同意權」？是否要實施「行政權換軌制」，以免再發生「朝小野大」的僵局？此次修憲是否應分「二○一六前／二○一六後」兩階段？尤其重要者，立法院的「政黨協商」應否有所更張？

此次國是會議的議題不應再有任何忌諱與閃躲，必須以刮骨療傷的決志，露骨地討論、不留餘地地辯論；非此已不足因應二○一六的可能變局。舉凡對國家認同、修憲方案、憲法一中、能源政策、全球化、九二共識、ＥＣＦＡ及經濟發展、社會公平等重大議題，國人應當寄望在會中聽到民進黨、國民黨及社團代表與專家學者的政策主張，並期待大會能如過去幾次國是會議一般提出具體的政策結論。

面對二○一六的變局，台灣不能再做把頭埋在沙裡的鴕鳥，也不可再做冷水慢慢加溫中的青蛙。我們期望國民黨及民進黨以進行二○一六變局大辯論的責任感與企圖心來參加這次國是會議，也希望各社團的政策主張藉此會與國人分享。因此，會議應採分題分組進行，然後再由大會整合各分題分組的討論成果。不怕辯論繁複，只怕堵塞言路、避重就輕。

這若是一場無人霸占主席台的國是論壇，我們期盼：這次會議能在多元辯論中提出國人共同因應二○一六變局的國政綱領。