United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
September 4, 2015
Executive Summary: We do not believe Tsai Ing-wen will repudiate the 1992 Consensus and allow 'the ground to move beneath our feet". If she becomes president, Tsai Ing-wen could repudiate the 1992 Consensus, even if it causes the ground to move beneath our feet. Let us hope she does not. But suppose Tsai Ing-wen is elected. Suppose she then succumbs to pressure to recognize the 1992 Consensus? What will Beijing think of her? What will deep greens think of her? Will the blue camp forgive her? Given Tsai Ing-wen's lack of personal integrity, and the loss of trust on both sides of the Strait, one can forget about hopes for an era of peace. Lee Teng-hui traded Diaoyutai for Japanese support for Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen loses all personal credibility, it will not matter whether she ends up in the presidential office. She will find herself sitting on pins and needles.
Full Text Below:
Lee Teng-hui is scrambling to define his legacy. Tsai Ing-wen must ask herself whether she really wants to continue flip-flopping and backing Lee Teng-hui.
Lee Teng-hui has reached the point where he knows only the realization of Taiwan independence will allow him to cling to his legacy. If Taiwan independence cannot be achieved, Lee Teng-hui will be relegated to the role of villain, both on Taiwan and China as a whole. Judging by the reaction from the United States, Lee's befuddled conduct has not been been received well internationally.
Japan has consequently become the sole fragment of driftwood Lee Teng-hui can cling to keep from drowning. Japan has become the only nation that might be able to preserve Lee's legacy. Therefore he has reaffirmed his status as a loyal subject of the Japanese emperor. He has presented Japan with Diaoyutai as a sacrificial offering. He has invoked old dreams of Japanese militarism. He is urging Japan to wage war against China in the hope that Japan will support his dream of Taiwan independence. He sees Japan as an international pillar providing support for Taiwan independence.
Lee Teng-hui is clearly trapped within a fantasy world of his own making. He desperately hopes the show he put on in Japan will gain him an audience on Taiwan. He is fostering illusions about the legitimacy of Taiwan independence among the Taiwan public. Lee Teng-hui spoke of how he "fought for the Japanese homeland". He proclaimed that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan". But such declarations can hardly induce Japan to support Taiwan independence. They can only tear Taiwan apart still more. Future global and cross-Strait circumstances leave even less room for Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui's words and deeds have torn Taiwan apart. But will they really enable him to achieve Taiwan independence?
Taiwan independence is no longer possible. Tearing Taiwan apart will only make Taiwan independence even less possible. Tearing Taiwan apart merely mires the public in mutual hatred and mutual destruction. How can it possibly lead to Taiwan independence? This is Lee Teng-hui's blind spot. This is the Taiwan independence movement's permanent blind spot. Is it Tsai Ing-wen's blind spot as well?
Lee Teng-hui is engaged in a last ditch struggle to secure his legacy. He is attempting to use Japanese rightwingers to reestablish himself as the standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen may choose to be just another fan of Lee Teng-hui. She may "tolerate" Lee Teng-hui. She may even "approve of" Lee Teng-hui. But Tsai Ing-wen may well become the next president of the Republic of China. Lee Teng-hui's "out with the old and in with the new" Taiwan independence rhetoric is not something that Tsai Ing-wen can "tolerate". She must unequivocally declare her approval or disapproval.
Lee Teng-hui declared that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan", in exchange for the opportunity to mouth rhetoric about "out with the old, in with the new" Taiwan independence thinking, and demand the "severing of relations with [Mainland] China". But the real question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has become Lee Teng-hui's fellow traveler in exchange for his endorsement?
Tsai Ing-wen may share Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan independence ideology. But does Tsai Ing-wen actually believe that Taiwan independence is feasible? We don't think so. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would not pledge to "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations", or "defend the current ROC constitutional framework", or "seek common ground on the 1992 Consensus". On the one hand Tsai Ing-wen "tolerates" Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan independence rhetoric. On the other hand she swears that she will "defend the Republic of China's constitutional framework". One can only wonder at her lack of political integrity.
Tsai Ing-wen denounced ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan". Not long afterwards however, she "unconditionally accepted it". She denounced the STA as a "black box operation". Not long aftewards however, she performed a 180 degree about face. Tsai Ing-wen persists in flip-flopping, in both words and deeds. She does not flip-flop once in a blue moon. She does so constantly, demonstrating that she is a politician utterly devoid of integrity who simply cannot be trusted.
Even more serious is Tsai Ing-wen's response to the 1992 Consensus. Tsai has an obligation to tell voters whether she intends to continue pursuing Taiwan independence. This is something people on both sides of the Strait have a right to expect from her. Tsai may may choose to continue pursuing Taiwan independence, or she may choose to help Taiwan independence elements undergo transformation. But Tsai Ing-wen may not simultaneously "tolerate" Taiwan independence movement "out with the old in with the new" rhetoric, while promoting "Taiwan independence in spirit". Promoting "Taiwan independence in spirit" will only exacerbate social divisions on Taiwan. It can serve as a long term strategy for Taiwan's governance. If Tsai persists in doing so in the face of knowledge to the contrary, then she is utterly devoid of personal integrity.
The Sunflower Student Movement has chosen to pursue Taiwan independence and a Closed Door Policy. Tsai Ing-wen did not dare to offer the movement any promises. She merely promised to "oppose black box operations". She averred that "For the younger generation, Taiwan independence comes naturally". Opponents of curriculum reform allege that "Japanese rule was not colonial rule", and that "The comfort women were not coerced". Tsai Ing-wen did not dare to endorse their claims. Instead she denounced curriculum reform as a "black box operation". She convened a conference of 13 green camp mayors, who vowed to continue using the old curriculum. Lee Teng-hui is promoting "out with the old, in with the new" Taiwan independence thinking. He boasted that he "fought for the Japanese homeland". Tsai Ing-wen did not dare criticize him. Instead she demanded "tolerance". No one is saying that Tsai Ing-wen cannot advocate Taiwan independence. But people on both sides of the Strait cannot allow Tsai Ing-wen to deceive voters. Tsai does not dare champion Taiwan independence. But she aids and abets Taiwan independence, exploits Taiwan independence, and manipulates Taiwan independence. This is more than a matter of policy. It is a matter of character.
We do not believe Tsai Ing-wen will repudiate the 1992 Consensus and allow 'the ground to move beneath our feet". If she becomes president, Tsai Ing-wen could repudiate the 1992 Consensus, even if it causes the ground to move beneath our feet. Let us hope she does not. But suppose Tsai Ing-wen is elected. Suppose she then succumbs to pressure to recognize the 1992 Consensus? What will Beijing think of her? What will deep greens think of her? Will the blue camp forgive her? Given Tsai Ing-wen's lack of personal integrity, and the loss of trust on both sides of the Strait, one can forget about hopes for an era of peace.
Lee Teng-hui traded Diaoyutai for Japanese support for Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen loses all personal credibility, it will not matter whether she ends up in the presidential office. She will find herself sitting on pins and needles.
他始可能保有其歷史定位。但是，台獨若不能實現， 李登輝在中國及台灣歷史上，將注定是一負面角色。 且李的錯亂反覆，在以美國為參考標尺的國際評價上亦無好評。
於是他向日本回售其皇民的忠貞，將釣魚台獻給日本， 召喚日本的軍國舊夢，挑唆日本與中國不惜一戰的心理； 在在皆寄望日本支撐其台獨幻想，將日本視為李記台獨的國際支柱。
使台灣人民對台獨的正當性產生幻想與錯覺。但是，憑李登輝幾句「 為日本祖國而戰」及「釣魚台是日本的」， 不僅絕無可能使日本支持台獨，反而使台灣更加撕裂。 且不說未來世局及兩岸情勢已無台獨的空間， 大家看一看這個被李登輝此類言行撕裂至此的台灣， 豈有可能實現台獨？
只有使台灣人陷於相互仇恨與毀滅，豈可能因此成就台獨？ 這是李登輝的盲點，也是向來台獨運動的盲點。然而， 這難道也是蔡英文的盲點？
欲藉日本右翼重建其台獨旗手的假象。 蔡英文若只是作為李登輝的一介粉絲，她自可「包容」李登輝， 甚至可「贊成」李登輝。 但如今蔡英文有可能在明年出任中華民國總統，對於李登輝的「 脫古改新」的台獨論述，蔡英文沒有「包容與否」的餘地， 她必須斬釘截鐵地說「贊成與否」。
但我們不認為蔡英文在理智上會認為台獨尚有任何一絲可行性。 否則，蔡英文就不會說「兩岸關係維持現狀」、「 現行中華民國憲政體制推動論」，「九二共識，就求同存異吧」。 但蔡英文一方面「包容」李登輝的台獨主張，一方面宣示「 中華民國憲政體制推動論」；試問：政治人格何在？
反服貿黑箱」。此類顛倒反覆，不斷出現在蔡英文的言行中， 已不能只視為政策上的偶一搖擺， 其實已呈現出一名政治領袖在政治人格上是否可堪信任的問題。
也就是必須對是否維持台獨路線作一交代。 這是兩岸對蔡英文很正當、也很公平的期待。 蔡英文可以繼續主張台獨，也可以引領台獨轉型。 但兩岸情勢不容蔡英文一手掌握執政權，一手「包容」台獨運動「 脫古改新」，進行「心靈台獨」。因為，「心靈台獨」 只能惡化台灣的撕裂，卻絕非可大可久的治國策略。 如果蔡英文在理智上明知此路不通，卻又不斷如此操作， 這是否為人格的問題？
但又稱「台獨是年輕人的天然成分」。反課綱者主張「 日本不是殖民統治」、「慰安婦不是被迫的」， 蔡英文不敢直言贊同，仍稱「反黑箱」， 但又率十三名綠色縣市長堅持採用舊課綱。如今李登輝倡言「 脫古改新」「為日本祖國而戰」，蔡英文亦未敢論斷，又以一句「 包容」帶過。沒有人說蔡英文不能主張台獨， 但兩岸皆不能容忍蔡英文這種「不敢台獨／迴護台獨／利用台獨／ 玩弄台獨」的投機心態。因為，這不但是政策問題，更是人格問題。
聽任地動山搖的發生」。蔡英文若當了總統，她的確可宣告， 本總統即使面對地動山搖，也要堅決否定九二共識。設非如此， 卻是在蔡英文倘若當選就任後， 在壓力下突然改口宣告接受九二共識。試問：教北京如何瞧得起她？ 教深綠如何容得下她？又教泛藍如何饒得過她？ 蔡英文若因此人格破產，失去兩岸信任，也就別妄想治理平順了。