Tsai Ing-wen's Ability Compared to Wen-Je Ko

Tsai Ing-wen's Ability Compared to Wen-Je Ko
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 14, 2015

Executive Summary: With a single declaration that "One China is not a problem", Wen-Je Ko won the approval of Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office. Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, vowed to "maintain the cross-Strait status quo". Yet the Taiwan Affairs Office responded with, "If you cling to a "one country each side" Taiwan independence separatist stance, it will undermine the political foundation for peaceful development of cross-Strait relations."

Full Text Below:

With a single declaration that "One China is not a problem", Wen-Je Ko won the approval of Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office. Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, vowed to "maintain the cross-Strait status quo". Yet the Taiwan Affairs Office responded with, "If you cling to a "one country each side" Taiwan independence separatist stance, it will undermine the political foundation for peaceful development of cross-Strait relations."

When confronted with the 1992 consensus, Wen-Je Ko passed muster. Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, did not. Some say that Ko was more effective than Tsai. In fact, the two have very different roles. Such comparisons wrongly compare apples and oranges. Ko is a city mayor. He is not a DPP member. A little lip service is enough to earn him a free pass. But Tsai Ing-wen may become the next President of the Republic of China. She is bound by the Taiwan independence party platform. She has also a hostage of the Sunflower Student Movement. Therefore she cannot sweep the matter aside with a simple pledge to "maintain the status quo". Tsai and Ko have different roles. That is why Beijing has different strategies for dealing with them. They allow Ko to quickly pass muster, but make Tsai bear the brunt of responsibility.

A politician's abilities must be commensurate with his responsibiities. Ko is a city mayor, unconstrained by partisan loyalties. He was able to pass muster merely by proposing a "New Perspectives for 2015". HIs abilities were commensurate with his responsibilities. But Tsai Ing-wen aspires to be the next president of the Republic of China. Her perfunctory lip service to "maintaining the status quo", was intended to draw attention away from her rejection of the 1992 consensus. Instead they merely showed that her abilities fell short of her responsibilities as president.

One's abilities must be commensurate with one's responsibilities. A plumber must be able to fix a leaky faucet, but need not deal with a building's structural frame. A structural or civil engineer must deal with a building's structural frame, but need not repair a leaky faucet. Wen-Je Ko characterizes himself as "deep green". But he is not bound by the DPP's Taiwan independence party platform. He can ignore the DPP altogether. Nor is he competing for the ROC presidency. As long as he is willing to say that "One China is not a problem", he has done his duty. But Tsai Ing-wen is DPP Chairperson. She is also seeking the presidency. Beijing is exerting more pressure on her. The US is imposing tighter constraints on her. She must wear many hats. She must demonstrate many abilities. She cannot rattle off a pledge to "maintain the status quo". Naturally she cannot be compared with Wen-Je Ko.

A person's abilities must be commensurate with his or her responsibilities. Is Tsai Ing-wen a chairperson who can uplift and transform the DPP? Can she be an effective President of the Republic of China, and ensure peace? The answer hinges on two questions. One. Can Tsai Ing-wen be an effective DPP party chairperson? Two. Can Tsai Ing-wen be an effective ROC president in 2016?

A politician's ability must be commensurate with his or her responsibilities. A politician's responsibilities vary with the times. A current Chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party, and a future 2016 President of the Republic of China must face a major challenge. He or she must deal with 1992 consensus or the "one China premise". Tsai Ing-wen's general competence is not in doubt. But she must now deal with the 1992 consensus. If a faucet is leaking, Tsai Ing-wen must be able to stop the leak. Whether she can deal with a building's structural frame is irrelevant.

Tsai Ing-wen faces a test. One. The DPP must upgrade and transform itself. Two. The two sides of the Strait must not be destabilized. Over the years, Tsai Ing-wen has resorted to deception to secure her political status. For this, she has paid a price. She has been drawn, step by step, into the Ah-Bian supporters vortex. She has been taken hostage by the Sunflower Student Movement, and must parrot its Taiwan independence rhetoric. So far, Tsai Ing-wen has equivocated well enough to mollify her political support. But she has forfeited the ability to set the agenda and determine the direction taken by her political supporters. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen has the same limited ability that DPP leaders have always had. When addressing the party and the nation, she is unable to change with the times. Is this what the DPP expects of its chairperson at this critical moment in time? Is this what the nation expects of the President of the Republic of China in 2016? Wen-Je Ko need not be concerned about such matters. But Tsai Ing-wen must.

Ability involves gradations. Lee Teng-hui said the DPP "only knows how to campaign, not how to govern." Ma Ying-jeou has been blasted as "incompetent".  But what about Tsai Ing-wen's competence? Ma Ying-jeou's mistakes included gasoline price and electricity rate hikes and the capital gains tax. These were not mistakes in policy. They were merely mistakes in execution. Sometimes they merely revealed an inability to deal with the DPP. In particular, Ma's 1992 consensus and "one china, different interpretations" ought to be deemed policy achievements. The DPP found it difficult to undermine these achievements by citing technicalities. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen's ability, like that of past DPP leaders, is purely technical. Her shortcomings, by contrast, are often at the policy level. For example, Tsai Ing-wen successfully demanded the abolition of nuclear energy. But her "non-nuclear energy" policy is wanting. Tsai Ing-wen successfully blocked ECFA. Yet she has no choice but to "unconditionally accept the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration". Finally, the DPP has successfully stirred up Taiwan independence sentiment. But it has been unable to resolve the problems posed by the 1992 consensus. That is why Tsai Ing-wen's pledge to "maintain the cross-Strait status quo" has been dismissed by the other side as idle chatter.

Tsai Ing-wen has never been able to shake off her "content-free Tsai" nickname. Her abilities have proven inadequate relative to her responsibilities, whether as current chairperson or future president.

蔡英文的能力 從柯文哲談起

2015-04-14 聯合報

     

柯文哲以一句「一個中國不是問題」，贏得北京國台辦的「讚賞」。蔡英文宣示「維持兩岸現狀」，國台辦卻回稱：「如果堅持『一邊一國』的台獨分裂立場，勢必破壞兩岸關係和平發展的政治基礎。」



同是面對「九二共識」，柯文哲過關，蔡英文碰壁。有人說，柯比蔡強。其實，由於二人的角色不同，若以此評比，可能進入比擬不倫的誤區。柯是市長，不是民進黨員，所以嘴皮翻兩番，就過了關。但蔡可能當選下屆中華民國總統，一方面有台獨黨綱的捆綁，一方面受太陽花勢力的挾持，因此不易用一句「維持現狀」就交代了事。亦正因蔡柯的角色不同，所以北京對二人的對應策略不一，計在使柯草草過關，而讓蔡站回首當其衝的位置。



政治人物的能力，必須與其擔任的角色對應。柯做為一個不受黨派捆綁的市長，他能以「一五新觀點」過關，可謂其能力與角色相當；但蔡英文則是下屆中華民國總統的競逐者，若欲以「維持現狀」來敷衍「九二共識」，卻徒然暴露了其能力與角色不相當的軟肋。



能力必須與角色相當。水電工要會修水龍頭，但不一定要會扶正樑柱；土木工要會扶正樑柱，但不必會修水龍頭。柯文哲雖自稱「深綠」，但因不必背負台獨黨綱，不必理會民進黨，又未角逐中華民國總統位，因而他只要有說出「一個中國不是問題」的能力，即與其角色相當。但蔡英文是民進黨主席，又要角逐總統大位，北京給她的壓力不同，美國對她的牽制不同，人民對她的期待亦不同，因此她就必須具備與其角色相當的能力，不能只會說「維持現狀」，當然不能與柯文哲相提並論。



以角色與能力的對稱性而言，蔡英文若是一位沒有能力提升民進黨、帶民進黨轉型的黨主席，即無可能成為一位做好和平治理的中華民國總統。此中涉及兩個問題：一、蔡英文有否做好現階段民進黨黨主席的能力？二、蔡英文有否做好後二○一六中華民國總統的能力？



政治人物的能力必須與其角色有對稱性，而政治人物的角色又有其時代性。現階段民進黨黨主席及後二○一六中華民國總統的最大時代性考驗，可以說就是有無處理「九二共識」或「一個中國」的能力。蔡英文的綜合才能或許不必懷疑，但她的時代角色卻是在處理「九二共識」；正如水龍頭正在漏水，蔡英文必須有能力把它止住，這無關她是否具備能夠扶正樑柱的其他才能。



蔡英文所面對的時代考驗是：一、民進黨必須提升與轉型。二、兩岸不能出現「地動山搖」的局面。但是，蔡英文近年展現的能力，卻是用鄉愿作風來維繫其共主地位；她所付出的代價，則是一步步更加遷就黨內以挺扁為表徵的節操沉淪，並受太陽花勢力的挾制而困陷於台獨論述。當下所見，蔡英文確有能力以媚俗及蒙混手法組織起她的政治轎夫，但她卻失去了決定路途的能力，而由政治轎夫決定了方向。也就是說，蔡英文具備的能力，與民進黨傳統領袖並無不同；對黨及國家言，她似乎並不具備與其時代考驗相對稱的能力。這樣的能力，難道是時代對現階段民進黨主席所期待的嗎？又難道是時代對後二○一六中華民國總統所寄望的嗎？這些，都不必求諸柯文哲，但蔡英文必須面對。



能力亦有層次之分。李登輝說「只會選舉／不會治國」即是層次論。馬英九深受「無能」的指責，但我們何曾討論蔡英文的能力？馬英九的失誤大多非在政策層次，如油電漲價、證所稅等，而是在執行的技術層次，甚至只是在無能對付民進黨。尤其，馬的「九二共識／一中各表」應視為政策性的成就，民進黨不易用技術謀略加以推翻。相對而言，蔡的才能卻一如民進黨傳統領袖，是以技術層次取勝，卻常在政策層次出現大敗筆。例如，蔡英文炒作廢核的技術性能力極強，但對「非核能源」的政策論述仍付闕如；又如，蔡英文反ECFA的技術性抗爭極強，卻自陷於「概括承受／反對服貿」的政策性矛盾。尤其，民進黨炒作台獨的技術性能力極強，卻拿不出化解「九二共識」的政策性主張；所以，蔡英文一句「維持兩岸現狀」，被對岸說成「對空氣說話」。



蔡英文一直擺脫不去「空心蔡」的綽號，這正是對其能力的一貫質疑，可謂也是對其能力的角色性、時代性、層次性是否對稱的一種通俗評價。