Sunflower Countercurrent: Reasonable Questions, Wrong Answers

Sunflower Countercurrent: Reasonable Questions, Wrong Answers
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2015

Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is  understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.

Full Text Below:

The Sunflower Student Movement exposed an undercurrent of intense anger among Taiwan youth. Alas, these youths have proposed the wrong answers for the right questions.

The Sunflower Student Movement was a reflection of social discontent. This is understandable. One. This generation feels deprived, as a result of social inequality, high prices, low wages, poor education, and job shortages. Two. This generation is concerned about cross-Strait relations, including the distribution of economic benefits, violations of legal process, the weakening of Taiwan centrism, cross-Strait power imbalances, and the prospect of Taiwan being swallowed up by the Mainland. Such concerns are understandable and reasonable.

Unfortunately the answers Sunflower Student Movement leaders have offered for these problems are the wrong ones. One. They fail to understand the distinction between revolution and democracy. Key players in the Sunflower Student Movement concede that they made revolutionary demands, and called for the government to be overthrown. But they hardly had grounds to occupy the Legislative Yuan. By doing so, they forfeited any democratic legitimacy. Two. They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and Taiwan interests. First they demanded a "line item consideration of STA regulations". They then rejected the STA altogether. The hidden agenda behind their opposition to the MTA and FPEZs was Taiwan independence. But does Taiwan independence actually equate with Taiwan interests? Do Taiwan interests equate with Taiwan independence? Three.  They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and economic policy. The Sunflower Student Movement is attempting to solve economic problems through Taiwan independence. They have mistakenly attributed Taiwan's economic problems to closer cross-Strait relations. Therefore they demand the suppression of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, and question globalization. But can Taiwan independence really solve Taiwan's economic problems? Won't Taiwan independence make Taiwan even more marginalized and economically isolated?

Here is something especially worth pondering. Many older generation DPP leaders now suggest forsaking Taiwan independence altogether. They have even urged freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. and revising the text of the "Resolution on the Republic of China". Yet this current generation of Sunflower Student Movement leaders have generated a new wave of Taiwan independence consciousness. Betrand Russell said that every individual's political awareness begins with the Stone Age. Over the past 30 years green camp elders have exhausted Taiwan independence. They have come to understand the futility of Taiwan independence. They have begun revising their stand on Taiwan independence. They have even begun jettisoning Taiwan independence. Now however, Sunflower Student Movement Taiwan independence “newbies” have dragged Taiwan independence thought back to the Stone Age. The DPP has become a captive of the Sunflower Student Movement. Is has been taken hostage by this resurgence of Taiwan independence. This shocking countercurrent has set the movement back three decades.

Tsai Ing-wen recently committed two fallacies. One. She said that “for the younger generation, Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient". But this new generation Taiwan independence thinking is merely the product of protracted viewing of the world in green camp/DPP fun house mirrors. It is the result of distortions to Taiwan history and Republic of China history. It is the result of decades of indoctrination. It is not natural, but artificial. For example, Taiwan independence zealots claim that "The Republic of China is a foreign regime". What is the ratio of “natural” and “artificial” behind that claim? Two. Tsai Ing-wen said that if the DPP wins by a large enough margin, [Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP. In fact, Xi Jinping recently said that if the 1992 consensus is destroyed "The foundation will be undermined and the ground will shake".  The Sunflower Student Movement's Stone Age Taiwan independence thinking is the product of its inexperience and naivete. Tsai Ing-wen's assertion that "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient” and that “[Mainland]  China will change to accommodate the DPP" are sheer folly. Over the past three decades. Taiwan independence zealots have learned painful lessons about the state of the world and the state of the nation. Do they actually intend to turn the clock back 30 years, merely to pander to the Sunflower Student Movement?

In fact, Taiwan independence is not a “natural ingredient". It is largely an artificial construct. Otherwise the DPP would never have proposed that the Taiwan independence party platform be frozen. Taiwan must deal with external factors such as the challenges of globalization and the threat of "the ground shaking". It is hardly assured that the Mainland will “change to accommodate the DPP ". This matter calls for a wise and rational response.

Tsai Ing-wen rejoices because she thinks "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredients" of the Sunflower Student Movement. But in reality, the DPP should be more worried about these newly-minted Taiwan independence zealots, replete with Stone Age political mindsets. Tsai Ing-wen assumes that "[Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP". But in reality the DPP should be worried that the "ground will shake". Tsai Ing-wen's two aforementioned fallacies make no distinction between reality and falsehood, between safety and danger. For someone with her mindset to return to power, is dangerous indeed.

Tsai Ing-wen sees Taiwan independence as a natural ingredient. This is tantamount to saying that she can only accept it and cannot change it. This amounts to fastening a Taiwan independence leash around her own neck. This is ostrich head in the sand behaviour. Taiwan independence could precipitate political and economic disaster. Tsai Ing-wen must bear political responsibility in the event she returns to power. Tsai Ing-wen is publicly pandering to Taiwan independence zealots. But she cannot govern the nation by means of Taiwan independence. If these contradictions precipitate catastrophe, upon Tsai Ing-wen, upon the DPP, and upon all Taiwan, who will apologize then?

The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is  understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence zealots may delight in the Sunflower Student Movement's primitive violence. They may believe they have found a Taiwan independence based solution for the economic and political problems confronting Taiwan. But they fail to realize these are mere relics of the Stone Age. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.

太陽花逆流：問題合理 答案錯誤
2015-03-19聯合報

太陽花事件揭露了台灣青年族群的強烈憤懣，卻為相關問題提供了一個錯誤的解答。

太陽花所反映的社會不滿情緒，誠然是可以理解的。一、世代剝奪：社會貧富不均、高房價、低薪資、對教育成果不滿意、就業困難……。二、對兩岸關係的疑慮：影響經濟利益分配、程序正義不周全、台灣主體性的流失、兩岸均勢失衡造成台灣可能被併吞的危機……。這些疑慮皆是可以理解的，亦是合理的。

但是，太陽花事件為這些問題提供的解答卻是錯誤的。一、革命與民主的錯亂：太陽花要角皆不否認其「革命性」及「推翻政府」的訴求；但占領立院的革命理由不足，而民主的倫理已失。二、台獨與台灣利益的錯亂：運動以主張「逐條審議服貿條例」之程序正義始，卻以推翻服貿協議、反對貨貿協議及抵制自由經濟示範區收尾，亦即是台獨立場的圖窮匕現。但台獨是否等於台灣利益？或台灣利益是否即是台獨？三、台獨與經濟政策的錯亂：太陽花欲以台獨路線來解決台灣的經濟難題，並把台灣經濟難題歸因於漸趨密切的兩岸關係；因此主張抑制兩岸經貿交流，並質疑全球化。但台獨能解決台灣的經濟難題嗎？或台獨反而將使台灣邊緣化而經濟更陷困境？

尤其值得深思的是：正當民進黨內的許多老一輩人物開始嘗試修正台獨路線，甚至主張「凍結《台獨黨綱》」及「改提《中華民國決議文》」之際，太陽花新世代竟然掀起了台獨意識的大回潮。西哲羅素嘗言：「每一個人的政治認知皆是從石器時代開始。」當綠營許多老輩人物三十多年來「用盡了台獨／認識了台獨」，而開始考慮「修正台獨／甩掉台獨」，竟被那些初嘗台獨思想的太陽花人物一舉又拖回到台獨的「石器時代」。而今民進黨已成太陽花的俘虜，被挾持著返回台獨，這是大約倒退三十年的大逆流，令人怵目驚心。

蔡英文最近有兩大謬論。一、她說：台獨已是「年輕世代的天然成分」。但是，台灣新世代的台獨思維，卻是長期在綠營及民進黨的哈哈鏡下，對台灣史及中華民國內涵的變造、扭曲及汙蔑中教育而成的。它不是「天然」，而是「人造」。比如說，台獨稱「中華民國是外來政權」，其中「天然／人造」的比例如何？二、蔡英文說：民進黨若選得好，中國也會向民進黨調整。但習近平卻說，如果九二共識被破壞，將是「基礎不牢／地動山搖」。可見，太陽花若沉溺台獨石器時代猶可說是涉世未深，但蔡英文竟也發表「台獨是天然成分／中國會向民進黨調整」的謬論，卻是匪夷所思。難道這三十年來台獨在世局及國情中的歷練，皆因一次太陽花又退回到三十年前？

事實上，台獨不是「天然成分」，其大部分皆是出自「人為構造」，否則民進黨中即不會出現「凍結台獨黨綱」的思維；而台灣的外在因素，如全球化的挑戰及「地動山搖」的威脅，也不見得會「向民進黨調整」，而須要以智慧及理性來因應。

蔡英文似以太陽花的「台獨天然成分」為喜，實則民進黨當以面對這群石器時代的新台獨為憂；蔡英文似以「中國會向民進黨調整」為傲，實則民進黨更當以「地動山搖」為慮。前述蔡英文的兩大謬論，幾至不識真偽、不辨吉凶的地步，以此心態而欲重返執政，豈非奔車朽索？

蔡英文將台獨視作天然成分，不啻明示她將只能接受之而無法改變之，這不啻在自己的脖子上套上台獨枷鎖，十足是一尾蓋頭鰻；而台獨方案可能面對的政經災難後果，則是蔡若重返執政必須承負的政治責任。蔡英文公開籠絡諂媚台獨，卻顯然不能以台獨為治國方案；其中的矛盾，若陷蔡英文、民進黨及整個台灣於「地動山搖」，試問將伊於胡底？

太陽花反映的民心不滿及國政疑慮皆是可理解的，但解決台灣世代剝奪、經濟困境、全球化挑戰及兩岸競合的方案絕非台獨路線。野人獻曝的太陽花或許猶可沾沾自喜於為台灣找到了台獨的政經方案，卻渾然不知這是石器時代的遺物；但蔡英文與民進黨不可不識其真偽吉凶，更不可隨波逐流，自欺欺人。