Su Tseng-chang Reaches a Dead End, Frank Hsieh Adrift at Sea

Su Tseng-chang Reaches a Dead End, Frank Hsieh Adrift at Sea
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 18, 2013

Summary: Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.

Full text below:

Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.

Su Tseng-chang established new bodies that he labeled the "China Affairs Division" and "China Affairs Committee." He sees the Chinese mainland not as "The Mainland," but as "China," as "The Other." In other words, he advocates "one country on each side." So far, the "China Affairs Committee" has remained stranded. On the surface, this is due to a power struggle within the party. But underneath, it is because the DPP cannot agree on a "China policy." Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang was supposed to lead DPP cross-Strait policy reform. Instead, he has become its biggest stumbling block.

Su Tseng-chang's reaction to the "I am a Singer" TV show left people incredulous. Anyone could see that the popularity of the show reflected a change in the two sides' perception of pop culture. Yet Su Tseng-chang simplistically characterized the show as part of a "war of reunification." He said it "used business to beseige the government." He accused the media of "flattering [Mainland] China while poor-mouthing Taiwan." His rant left people dumbfounded. Is this how an important party leader should express himself? No wonder this newspaper's editorial column "Black and White" wondered, "Su Tseng-chang, what were you thinking?"

Su Tseng-chang's mind is still in "ECFA mode." The two sides must engage in cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Therefore they need ECFA. But the DPP is terrified of "business beseiging the government." It insists that the Mainland will "deceive, feed, capture, then kill" Taiwan. As a result it characterizes exchanges as part of a "war of reunification," and as a "Trojan horse." It insists that if Taiwan accepts concessions from the Mainland, it will be "drinking poison to quench its thirst." Therefore its organizes protests and dismisses ECFA as a "forfeiture of sovereignty and a humiliation of the nation," and as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." DPP concerns over ECFA are not entirely unfounded. But DPP defeatism, fear, and opposition to ECFA swims against the tide and defies common sense.

Su Tseng-chang is applying the same logic to "I am a Singer" as it did to ECFA. Su Tseng-chang is right to be wary regarding cross-Strait relations. But does he really want to accuse singers who appeared on "I am a Singer" of "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?" Does he really want to accuse singers from Taiwan of "drinking poison to quench their thirst?" Does he really want to oppose "I am a Singer" the way he opposed ECFA? Does he really want to prohibit TV channels on Taiwan from broadcasting "I am a Singer?" Su Tseng-chang may be voicing concerns shared by many on Taiwan. But he failed to demonstrate the wisdom expected of an important party leader. He treated I am a Singer" as if it were ECFA, as another straw man to attack.

Su Tseng-chang finds himself at a dead end. Does that mean Frank Hsieh is home free? Not really. Frank Hsieh said, "The DPP's old cross-Strait policy was a failure." He said, "The DPP will not be an obstacle to world peace." To this extent, he differs from Su Tseng-chang. But Frank Hsieh's solutions are no better. Frank Hsieh advocated a "Constitutional One China." He argued that Kaohsuing and Xiamen are "two cities in the same nation." But party comrades have rejected these positions. He has been forced to change his position from a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi zhong)"to a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi hua)." But the KMT's "Republic of China" includes the Mainland. The DPP's "Republic of China" refers only to Taiwan, and does not include the Mainland. Since "China is legally divided," the DPP has in effect reverted to "backdoor listing." Will the Mainland really accept this? If Frank Hsieh fails to revert to a "Constitutional Republic of China," then what good is his "One Constitution, Different Interpretations?" To the DPP, Frank Hsieh's path is riskier than Su Tseng-chang's. Su Tseng-chang has remained frozen in place. Frank Hsieh wants to advance, but is afraid to. If he moves in the wrong direction, he can easily be taken advantage of. One false step could lead to his fall.

Even more interesting is Hsu Hsin-liang. His "10,000 Word Proclamation" stated that, "Taiwan cannot avoid political contacts, political dialogue, and even some sort of political understanding with the other side." Hsu reproached the Ma administration. He criticized Ma Ying-jeou for failure to act. But one must ask Hsu, this is not the policy advocated or implemented by the DPP. Therefore what right do you have to criticize the KMT? Are you not a DPP member?

The DPP has reached a dead end. The signs are everywhere: Su Tseng-chang visited Japan. He advocated a "democratic alliance." Tsai Ing-wen visited Indonesia. She initiated a "New Southern Strategy." Su's "democratic alliance" proposal was blasted all around. Tsai's "New Southern Strategy" became the butt of jokes. Both were lip service passing for national policy. Both were empty rhetoric passing for political achievements. Their advocates were either madmen, or con men. When did the DPP begin making such empty promises?

Su Tseng-chang has reached a dead end. Frank Hsieh is adrift at sea. Tsai Ing-wen has her head in the clouds. If this trio cannot save the DPP, who can? And if this trio cannot save the DPP, how can they save Taiwan? 

蘇貞昌走投無路 謝長廷苦海迷津
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.18 03:56 am

蘇貞昌不啻成了民進黨兩岸政策拒絕轉型的擋路石，謝長廷則彷彿成了推動轉型的旗手；但是，從他們二人的言論主張中，皆同樣看不到民進黨的出路，民進黨在兩岸政策上儼然已是走投無路。

蘇貞昌將他設置的新機構命名「中國事務部」及「中國事務委員會」，這是將「中國」視為「他者」，也就是主張「一邊一國」；迄今，「中國事務委員會」仍告擱淺，表面上是因黨內權力鬥爭所致，實質上卻是因無法整合出一個「中國政策」。原被期望能帶領民進黨兩岸政策轉型的黨主席蘇貞昌，如今卻成了最大的擋路石。

蘇貞昌對《我是歌手》的反應，令人覺得匪夷所思。其實，任何人皆可看到此一事件反映出兩岸在流行文化領域的此消彼長；但是，蘇貞昌將此簡化為「統戰」，又比擬為「以商圍政」，更稱媒體「過分褒揚中國、唱衰台灣」，簡直令人瞠目結舌。這豈是一個重要政黨領袖所應表達的器識與語言？難怪〈黑白集〉要問：「蘇貞昌，你腦子裡在想什麼啊？」

蘇貞昌的腦筋仍是「ＥＣＦＡ模式」。兩岸不得不進行經貿交流，因此亦不得不有ＥＣＦＡ；但民進黨因恐懼「以商圍政」，被大陸「騙、養、套、殺」，於是將交流逕指為「統戰」、「木馬屠城」，又將台灣接受「讓利」指為「飲鴆止渴」，於是就將ＥＣＦＡ斥為「喪權辱國」、「傾中賣台」，發動示威抗議。其實，不能說民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的顧慮是錯的；但民進黨訴諸失敗主義及恐懼心理而欲抵拒ＥＣＦＡ，卻是逆勢而為、逆理而行。

現在，蘇貞昌也用與對付ＥＣＦＡ一模一樣的邏輯來對付《我是歌手》。蘇貞昌對兩岸消長情勢的警覺是對的，但是他難道要將去參賽的歌手斥為「傾中賣台」嗎？難道也要把台灣歌手說成「飲鴆止渴」嗎？還是，也要像反對ＥＣＦＡ一樣反對《我是歌手》嗎？或者，要下令台灣電視禁播《我是歌手》嗎？蘇貞昌也許說出了許多台灣人心裡的一股淡淡的憂慮，卻未展現出一個重要政黨領袖應有的器識，他只是把《我是歌手》又看成了ＥＣＦＡ來展開對稻草人的攻擊而已。

蘇貞昌走投無路，但謝長廷就另闢蹊徑了嗎？其實未必。謝長廷說「民進黨過去兩岸政策失敗」，又稱「民進黨不要作世界和平的障礙與變數」；這些見解皆與蘇貞昌不同，但謝長廷提出的解決方案卻也無甚高論。謝長廷在民進黨中，連自己過去主張的「憲法一中」、「一中兩市」的立場都站不住腳；如今改稱「憲法一華」，而謂國民黨的中華民國及於大陸，但民進黨的中華民國只及於台灣，不及於大陸；如此，即是在法理上「分裂中國」，更豈不是又退回「借殼上市」的老路，如何叫「中國忍受」？但謝長廷如果不能回到原汁原味的「中華民國憲法」，其「憲法各表」何所憑藉？更如何取代「一中各表」？甚至可以這麼說，對於民進黨而言，謝長廷的路數可能較蘇貞昌更有風險；因為，蘇貞昌原地不動，謝長廷則是想動卻不敢一步到位，以致動錯了方向，更易為人所乘，馬步不穩，就會摔跤。

更麻辣的是許信良，他的「萬言書」稱：「台灣不可能不和對岸作政治接觸、進行政治對話，甚至達成某種政治諒解」，於是就對馬政府大加撻伐，指責馬英九何以沒有作為？但是，請問老許，如果這不是民進黨贊成及執行的政策，你有何資格以此責成國民黨？難道你迄今仍是一個「黨外人士」？

民進黨走投無路的徵象，可謂觸目皆是：蘇貞昌走一趟日本，即倡「民主同盟」；蔡英文走一趟印尼，就冒出一個「新南向政策」。「民主同盟」被叮得滿頭包，「新南向政策」則成笑柄。這儼然是用信口開河來作為國策，亦不啻是將口水痰沫化作政績。若非瘋子，即是騙子。民進黨何時能走出這種信口雌黃的層次？

蘇貞昌走投無路，謝長廷苦海迷津，蔡英文雲山霧罩；如果三人連自己都救不回來，又如何救民進黨？更如何救台灣？