United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 14, 2015
Executive Summary: It is now time for a showdown. Chu and Hung should participate in frank talks. They should acknowledge their past responsibility and assume future responsibility. They should each bear a share of responsibility. Some think that a Chu-Hung ticket is the answer. But if Chu eventually replaces Hung, we hope Chu will be able to mollify Hung. We hope that Hung will be able to touch the hearts of the public. If Hung Hsiu-chu withdraws with honor, if we see her campaigning enthusiastically on behalf of Chu and her party comrades, that would be a genuine sight to see. That would have quite an emotional impact.
Full Text Below:
The weekend Chu vs. Hung showdown is three and a half days away. No one knows what the outcome will be, or whether there is still room to maneuver.
How did this dilemma arise? How can it be dealt with? Four perspectives should be considered. One. The KMT now finds itself in a precarious situation. Who is to blame? Two. What are the pros and cons of replacing Hung? Three. Should Zhu and Hung meet privately, or hold a public debate? Four. What should happen after the showdown?
As matters stand, the KMT may be in for a major election defeat. Worse, the party could even disintegrate. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? The answer can be divided into two parts: before and after. First, the Ma government failed to win the hearts and minds of the people. The Ma vs. Wang internal power struggle divided the party. This is the reason the Kuomintang is where it is today. Next, Eric Chu left people with the impression he would run for president. But to everyone's astonishment, he backed out. Meanwhile KMT party princes were either fighting each other or too afraid to step up to the plate. Hung Hsiu-chu declared her candidacy to goad the party princes into throwing their hats in the ring. Who knew her campaign would catch fire? Later however, Hung Hsiu-chu's "air and ground campaigns" fell short of expectations. She was unable to fulfill the role of "centrist mainstay". She was unable to offer a coat tails effect. Her numbers remained low. Defeat appeared inevitable. Therefore responsibility falls on Ma Ying-jeou for his failed governance, on Eric Chu for his dithering, and on Hung Hsiu-chu for her campaign performance.
Now consider the pros and cons of replacing Hung. Hung Hsiu-chu must realize that if the situation were not critical, Eric Chu would probably not attempt to replace Hung. Eric Chu must realize that trashing party primary procedures to replace Hung might not resolve the current crisis. But it would definitely leave a black mark on the Republic of China's democratic history. Therefore Hung Hsiu-chu must realize that the KMT Central Committee's move to replace her is actually a last resort. Eric Chu must realize that replacing Hung and substituting himself will undermine both the KMT's election prospects and the nation's democratic values. It will probably not hurt the DPP. But it will probably inflict serious harm on the KMT.
Therefore, to resolve this impasse, both Chu and Hung must assume complete responsibility for this situation of their own making. They must not blame each other and refuse to acknowledge their own complicity. Only then can they begin to discuss whether to "replace Hung". and if so, how. As matters stand, the Kuomintang has no good moves in this chess game. The key remains Chu and Hung. What is in their hearts? What do they see for the future? In other words, what happens next depends on these two, and what they decide to do.
Rumor has it the two have arrived at an impass. Chu wants a dialogue in private. Hung wants a debate in public. She wants an opportunity to explain her cross-Strait policy.
Hung Hsiu-chu's election momentum stalled because her air and ground campaigns lost headway. Controversy denied her the opportunity to explain her cross-Strait policy stance. That is what Hung finds most intolerable.
Blue and green camp thinking on cross-Strait policy cover a broad spectrum. Presidential candidates from both parties seek to appeal to the broadest possible spectrum. They seek to differentiate themselves from the rival party's presidential candidate. Therefore, when they broaden their own appeal, they must seek the greatest consensus, within their own camp and among the public. Hung Hsiu-chu lost momentum not because her campaign rhetoric fell outside the blue camp spectrum. She lost momentum because how she positioned herself provoked controversy.
The green camp spectrum ranges from championing the Taiwan independence party platform, to citing the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, to "defending the Republic of China's existing constitutional framework", to "freezing the Taiwan independence party platform". The blue camp spectrum ranges from championing "eventual unification", to advocating "one China, same interpretation", to adhering to the "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations", to "no unification, no independence, no use of force", to citing a "de jure independent Taiwan". Tsai Ing-wen has chosen to "defend the current ROC constitutional framework". That is how she has positioned herself. That is no accident. But if Hung Hsiu-chu positioned herself as an advocate of "eventual reunification", that was an accident. Because Hung has said on other occasions, that "I am not pro-reunification". That shows that she understands the importance of her own positioning on Taiwan's political spectrum.
Lai Ching-teh can say, "Of course I advocate Taiwan independence!" But Tsai Ing-wen cannot. If at this juncture she were to make "Taiwan independence" her campaign theme, she could inspire a "replace Tsai" wave within the DPP. Lai Ching-teh has not demanded that Tsai Ing-wen wage an election campaign based on Taiwan independence. Nor has he demanded that Tsai debate him over whether Taiwan independence is "mainstream opinion". Hung Hsiu-chu however, has demanded that Eric Chu debate whether "one China, same interpretation" and "eventual reunification" are "mainstream opinion", in public, and have polls determine the winner. This suggests that Hung Hsiu-chu still does not understand her own role in her election plight.
It is now time for a showdown. Chu and Hung should participate in frank talks. They should acknowledge their past responsibility and assume future responsibility. They should each bear a share of responsibility. Some think that a Chu-Hung ticket is the answer. But if Chu eventually replaces Hung, we hope Chu will be able to mollify Hung. We hope that Hung will be able to touch the hearts of the public. If Hung Hsiu-chu withdraws with honor, if we see her campaigning enthusiastically on behalf of Chu and her party comrades, that would be a genuine sight to see. That would have quite an emotional impact.
Chu and Hung must not leave a scene of unbearable devastation in their wake. If they can understand and acknowledge their own responsibility in this affair and reach an accord, they can leave behind a legacy worthy of emulation, and the people of Taiwan will be moved.
朱立倫、洪秀柱如何感動台灣人民
2015-10-14 聯合報
本文見報時，距周末國民黨臨全會朱洪攤牌只有三天半。此際，
事態何以到此地步，及如何解決，可從四方面討論。一、
情勢至此，國民黨不但可能大選慘敗，且有亡黨之虞；誰的責任，
次論換柱操作的利害得失。洪秀柱方面應認知，
因此，若要化解困局，
據說，目前雙方卡在朱希望兩人私下會面，洪則主張兩人公開辯論；
洪秀柱的選情低迷至此，是因空戰陸戰皆不進反退，
藍綠兩個陣營的兩岸思維，各自是相當廣闊的光譜。
在綠的光譜上，從台獨黨綱，到台灣前途決議文，到「
在光譜上，賴清德可說「我當然主張台灣獨立」。
在這攤牌關頭，朱洪二人應當推心置腹好好會一面、談一下。
朱洪二人不要在台灣政治史上留下不堪的一幕，
No comments:
Post a Comment