DPP Adopts “Accessorization” Style Taiwan independence

DPP Adopts “Accessorization” Style Taiwan independence
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 23, 2016

Executive Summary: Sun Yat-sen used to relate an anecdote called "The Lottery Ticket and the Carrying Pole". A longshoreman kept his lottery ticket hidden in his carrying pole. When he won first prize, he was so ecstatic about no longer needing the carrying pole for work, he flung it into the sea. The story reminds people they must not forget their roots while chasing riches. The DPP has been able to assume power, only by virtue of the Republic of China's century old constitutional government. On the one hand, the DPP is protected by the ROC Constitution. On the other hand, it would undermine the Republic of China's legal foundation. Does this not remind us of the longshoreman who trashed his carrying pole the moment he hit the jackpot?

Full Text Below:

DPP legislator Kao Chi-peng recently proposed removing portraits of Sun Yat-sen from government buildings. He would repeal the Republic of China Flag and Emblem Law, and three other laws that affect the display of Sun Yat-sen's portrait. No one would need to bow before the portrait of Sun Yat-sen ever again. Kao Chi-peng said there is no legal definition of the Father of the Nation. Therefore he said, "We need not continue brainwashing the next generation". DPP legislator Wang Ting-yu, meanwhile, proposed amending the National Holiday and Holiday Implementation Regulations. He would make the day Cheng Nan-jung immolated himself a national holiday. The bill is current in its first reading.

The new government has yet to even take office. Yet DPP legislators have already begun rewriting history. What happened to Tsai Ing-wen's solemn promise to practice "humility, humility, and more humility"? After eight years in the opposition, with power nearly in hand, the only thing on DPP officials' minds is settling past scores, not working on behalf of the nation's citizens.

What do DPP legislators have in mind once they have successfully purged Republic of China founding father Sun Yat-sen? What will remain of the Republic of China? They would define Cheng Nan-jung as a martyr by law. What is their next step? Do they intend to make Cheng Nan-jung Taiwan's "founding father"?

Nor is that all. Green camp legislator Chen Chi-mai has plans for the 2-28 Incident. He would amend the penalty clause in the 2.28 Incident Handling and Compensation Regulations. Anyone who "distorts" or "glosses over the historical truth" about the 2-28 Incident, or who "insults the victims and their families", will be subject to five years imprisonment. This means that anyone who discusses the 2-28 Incident must parrot the DPP version, otherwise they may be convicted in a court of law and imprisoned. This dogmatic mindset not only denies people their right to free speech, it even dictates their understanding of history. This foreshadows a form of fascism more frightening even than that of the authoritarian era.

Furthermore, if hanging portraits of Sun Yat-sen constitutes "brainwashing," why isn't removing portraits of Sun Yat-sen not brainwashing? Isn't the deification of martyr Cheng Nan-jung brainwashing as well? Cheng Nan-jung championed freedom of speech. Isn't miscasting him as an advocate of Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation, falsification of history? Isn't dictating our understanding of history and suppressing our freedom of speech, trampling over democracy and human rights?

The world is watching to see how Tsai Ing-wen, who is unwilling to recognize the 1992 Consensus, plans to "promote cross-Strait relations under the constitutional framework of the Republic of China".  Take the DPP stance on the Cross-Strait Oversight Regulations. DPP members appear to be moving from the "two states" version to a "two regions" version. Observers consider this shift in positions opportunistic but pragmatic. Does Tsai intend to deal with cross-Strait relations pragmatically? If she does, the DPP cannot adopt an aggressive Taiwan independence stance. Kao Chi-peng would purged Sun Yat-sen, Wang Ting-yu would deify Cheng Nan-jung. Chen Chi-mai would dictate how the 2-28 Incident may be depicted. All of the above are nothing more than "acessorization style Taiwan independence". The DPP cannot embark on genuine independence. All it can do is engage in rhetorical sleight of hand, in order to mollify Taiwan independence supporters. All it can do is allow them to daydream about "virtual nation building" and score imaginary Ah Q "moral" victories. .

The green camp does not dare embark on genuine nation building, not when real bullets would fly. All it can do is act coy and play games. This is the dilemma that the soon to resume power DPP must face. These games may bring the DPP momentary comfort. The DPP is about to rule the nation and serve the people. Yet all it can think about is rewriting history? These actions can only lead to the loss of pubic confidence.

Take the purging of Sun Yat-sen for example. Kao Chi-peng says there has never be a legal definition of the "Father of his country". But as everyone knows, the preamble to the Constitution is quite clear. It reads, "The Republic of China National Assembly, commissioned by citizens in accordance with Sun Yat-sen's teachings upon the founding of the Republic of China, authored this Constitution in order to consolidate national authority, protect civil rights, ensure public safety, and promote public welfare... ". Never mind that revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen overthrew the monarchy and established a democratic republic. Not only did he pioneer democracy in Asia, he is also the source of democracy on Taiwan. Besides, isn't purging Sun Yat-sen while deifying Cheng Nan-jung just a wee bit self-contradictory?

Sun Yat-sen used to relate an anecdote called "The Lottery Ticket and the Carrying Pole". A longshoreman kept his lottery ticket hidden in his carrying pole. When he won the grand prize, he was so ecstatic about no longer needing the carrying pole, he flung it into the sea. The story reminds people that they must not forget their roots while chasing riches. The DPP assumed power only by virtue of the Republic of China's century old constitutional government. On the one hand, the DPP is protected by the ROC Constitution. On the other hand, the DPP would do away with the Republic of China's legal foundation. Does this not remind us of the longshoreman who trashed his carrying pole the moment he hit the jackpot?

民進黨改走「裝飾主義」台獨？

2016-02-23 聯合報

民進黨立委高志鵬最近提出「廢國父遺像」的主張，要修法廢除《中華民國國旗國徽法》等三法中有關「國父遺像」的規定，大家今後不必再向國父遺像鞠躬。高志鵬說，因為我國沒有法律定義「國父是誰」，因此「不必繼續洗腦下一代」。與此同時，該黨立委王定宇則提案修改《紀念日與節日實施條例》，要將鄭南榕自焚日列為「法定紀念日」，此案已付一讀。

新政府還沒正式上任，民進黨立委就開始大肆清洗與改寫歷史，這樣的表現，難道就是蔡英文一再叮嚀的「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」的出場秀？憋了八年在野，一旦政權到手，民進黨人心中念茲在茲的竟然只是這些歷史陳跡，而不是積極設想如何福國利民。

依民進黨立委的進程，在去除孫中山的國父地位後，中華民國已不知是甚麼「碗糕」；再以法律確認鄭南榕的「烈士」角色；那麼下一步，是否就要把鄭南榕奉為台灣的「新國父」？

不僅如此，綠委陳其邁也動起二二八事件的腦筋，要在《二二八事件處理及賠償條例》中增訂處罰條款，凡是扭曲或粉飾二二八歷史真相，羞辱受難者及其家屬者，將處五年以下有期徒刑。言下之意，任何人談論二二八，必須符合民進黨欽定之版本，否則即可入罪處刑。如此獨斷的思維，不僅剝奪人民的言論自由，更把自己的歷史認知視為一言堂之聖旨，這不僅是法西斯再世，簡直比威權年代還恐怖。

更何況，如果說懸掛國父遺像是「洗腦」，那麼移除國父遺像難道不是洗腦？把鄭南榕神格化為英雄烈士，難道不是洗腦？把鄭南榕追求的「言論自由」編造成追求「獨立建國」，難道不是偽造歷史？用單一的歷史詮釋權來箝制人民的言論自由，難道不是侵犯民主和人權？

外界正在觀察，不願承認九二共識的蔡英文，將如何落實她「在中華民國憲政體制下推動兩岸關係」的承諾。從民進黨在《兩岸協議監督條例》的態度看，似有意由「兩國論」移向「兩區論」；這項轉變，被外界認為是狡猾、但不失務實的作法。如果蔡英文處理兩岸關係選擇務實，即意味民進黨的台獨路線不可能採冒進主義；那麼，高志鵬要求「去孫中山」，王定宇要「尊鄭南榕」，陳其邁要「壟斷二二八論述」，恐怕只能視為一種「裝飾主義」式的台獨路線。亦即，民進黨無法走真正的台獨，卻利用旁門左道來敷衍及滿足獨派支持者，讓他們在「虛擬建國」的幻想中產生阿Ｑ式的精神勝利。

不敢真槍實彈邁向「建國之路」，只好忸忸怩怩改走曲徑幽巷，這正是即將執政的民進黨對其路線矛盾的粉飾之道。這種作法，或可帶來一時精神上的快慰，但聲稱執政要福國利民，卻立刻在這些歷史枝微末節上偷雞摸狗，恐將重挫民眾的信賴。

以「去國父」一案為例，高志鵬說，從無任何法律定義「誰是國父」。殊不知，憲法前言早有清楚說明：「中華民國國民大會受全體國民之付託，依據孫中山先生創立中華民國之遺教，為鞏固國權，保障民權，奠定社會安寧，增進人民福利，制定本憲法……。」更別說孫中山領導革命推翻帝制建立民主共和國，自來是亞洲民主的先驅，也是台灣民主之源。何況，一邊「去國父化」，一邊將鄭南榕神格化，不矛盾嗎？

孫中山說過「彩票與扁擔」的故事：碼頭工人把彩票藏在謀生的扁擔中，中了頭獎後，為不必再挑扁擔欣喜若狂，卻一舉將扁擔丟入大海。故事意在提醒世人，追逐理想不能捨本逐末。民進黨能重返執政，正是植基於中華民國百年憲政的民主歷程；民進黨一方面享受憲政的保護，另方面卻又處心積慮想刨中華民國的根，這不正像中了頭彩卻丟了扁擔的碼頭工人？