Lee Teng-hui Past and Present:
Clinging to Tsai Ing-wen, Distancing Himself from Chang Rong-fa
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 10, 2011
Summary: Lee Teng-hui has endorsed Tsai Ing-wen. This shows that Tsai Ing-wen remains a captive of the Taiwan independence movement. Tsai Ing-wen has chosen Lee Teng-hui's path. She has repudiated the 1992 Consensus. She has chosen the path of Taiwan independence. Others however, have chosen Chang Rong-fa's path. They have chosen to support the 1992 Consensus. They have chosen to oppose Taiwan independence.
Full Text Below:
Everyone is wondering how Lee Teng-hui will show his support for Tsai Ing-wen this election season. Will he get down on his knees? Will he appear before the public in a wheelchair? Will he weep openly? Will he appear before the public gaunt and unshaven?
Meanwhile, in Taipei, during a KMT led march on Saturday, EVA Air Chairman Cheng Kuang-yuan made his way through a sea of red, white, and blue Republic of China flags, followed by a dozen or so people holding high Evergreen company banners.
Evergreen CEO Chang Rong-fa, once a staunch supporter of Lee Teng-hui, issued a statement. He expressed unreserved support for the 1992 Consensus. He said "If following the election the victor insists that there is no 1992 Consensus, Taiwan's economy will be in serious trouble." He added even more bluntly, that the so-called "Taiwan consensus" is merely Taiwan independence under another name. He said Taiwan must not declare independence. If it does, the economy will collapse.
Chang Rong-fa now stands in diametric opposition to Tsai Ing-wen and Lee Teng-hui. When Chang Rong-fa said "If following election the victor insists that there is no 1992 Consensus, Taiwan's economy will be in serious trouble," he was talking to Tsai Ing-wen. Lee Teng-hui is currently sick and bed-ridden, Yet he has repeatedly issued statements maintaining that there was never any 1992 Consensus.
Few people are as outspoken as Chang Rong-fa. He bluntly noted that the so-called "Taiwan consensus" is merely Taiwan independence by another name. Tsai Ing-wen is not about to admit that her "Taiwan consensus" is merely Taiwan independence under another name. She will insist instead that her "Taiwan consensus" is merely "the democratic process" under another name. She will insist instead that eventual reunification or one China, different interpretations are also options. But she will not dare to suggest that the DPP's Taiwan independence party platform, its Resolution for a Normal Nation, one nation on each side, or Taiwan independence, are also options. This reveals her embarrassment. As we all know, Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus" has only one purpose -- to enable Taiwan independence advocates to reject the 1992 Consensus. The only purpose of Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus" is to provide Taiwan independence advocates with rhetorical cover. Its only purpose is to allow her to avoid directly rejecting the 1992 Consensus. This is a fact that Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP cannot deny.
Chang Rong-fa's criticisms are well warranted. As he astutely noted, Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus because she remains committed to Taiwan independence. But she is afraid to openly acknowledge that she is promoting Taiwan independence. Therefore she is using her "Taiwan consensus" as a smokescreen.
Chang Rong-fa said that "If following the election the victor insists that there is no 1992 Consensus, Taiwan's economy will be in serious trouble." He said that "Taiwan must not seek independence. If it does, the economy will collapse." He was speaking his mind then as well. Most commentators are mealy-mouthed. Chang is markedly different. He punctured Tsai Ing-wen's balloon by pointing out the contradiction of honoring ECFA but simultaneously rejecting the 1992 Consensus.
When Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "Standing behind President Ma are people with money," she was referring to Chang Rong-fa. But Chang Rong-fa is concerned about more than his own businesses. He is concerned about Taiwan as a whole. He said that next to other economies the world over, Taiwan is relatively secure. He emphasized that "A key factor is the Mainland." Only the 1992 Consensus enables Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan and spend money. Only the 1992 consensus enables fruits and vegetables from Taiwan to be exported to the Mainland. In Chang Rong-fa's eyes, the spillover benefits of the ten trillion dollar ECFA production chain, directly or indirectly encompass every industry on Taiwan and all walks of life. So-called "people with money" are definitely not the only ones who benefit. Tsai Ing-wen tried to depict the 1992 Consensus as a "forfeiture of our sovereignty and a humiliation of our nation." She tried to depict it as "sugar-coated poison" or "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan."
If we use Lee Teng-hui as a reference point. Chang Rong-fa has been steadily drifting away from him. The two men are now poles apart. They have totally parted ways. But Tsai remains inextricably linked with Lee Teng-hui. She finds it impossible to shake off Lee Teng-hui. As a result, all she can do is embrace Lee Teng-hui, cling to Lee Teng-hui, and cling to Taiwan independence. What we see before us is Chang Rong-fa standing behind Ma Ying-jeou, and Lee Teng-hui standing behind Tsai Ing-wen.
This tableau is a microcosm of the presidential election. It represents our options in the presidential election. Chang Rong-fa has supported democracy on Taiwan since the "dang wai" era. Later he unreservedly supported Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. No one can accuse him of not "seeing the world through Taiwanese eyes." But the world has changed. Our circumstances have changed. Chang Rong-fa obviously has new opinions about Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. He obviously has new opinions about their policies as well as their character. That is why since 2008 he has been following the same path as Ma Ying-jeou.
Chang Yung-fa advocates adopting a "Taiwan perspective." But he opposes Taiwan independence. As a result, he has parted company with Lee and Chen. As Chang Rong-fa sees it, Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus" is merely another euphemism for Taiwan independence.
Chang Rong-fa's perspective is reminiscent of what Chiang Pai-li wrote about a recent editorial. He wrote that Taiwan's political path must be congruent with its economic path. The more one departs from the other, the more swiftly Taiwan will perish.
The 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations is just that. It is congruency between Taiwan's political path and its economic path. Repudiation of the 1992 Consensus and advocacy of Taiwan independence, means a lack of congruence between Taiwan's political path and its economic path.
Lee Teng-hui has endorsed Tsai Ing-wen. This shows that Tsai Ing-wen remains a captive of the Taiwan independence movement. Tsai Ing-wen has chosen Lee Teng-hui's path. She has repudiated the 1992 Consensus. She has chosen the path of Taiwan independence. Others however, have chosen Chang Rong-fa's path. They have chosen to support the 1992 Consensus. They have chosen to oppose Taiwan independence.
李登輝今昔：蔡英文緊抱，張榮發遠離
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.01.10
眾人皆在猜測李登輝將在選季最後如何出面挺蔡英文，他會不會下跪？會不會坐輪椅？會不會流淚？會不會面容憔悴、不把鬍渣刮乾淨？
正當此際，在周六的台北遊行中，長榮航空董事長鄭光遠率隊擎著十餘面長榮旗幟，行走在青天白日滿地紅的國旗長河中。
早年力挺李登輝的長榮集團總裁張榮發出面稱，他力挺「九二共識」，「如果有人當選之後說沒有九二共識，台灣的經濟會很悽慘」。他甚至直截了當地說：台灣共識就是台獨；但台灣不可能獨立，否則經濟就會倒。
張榮發站在蔡英文與李登輝的對立面。因為，張榮發所指的「有人如果當選之後說沒有九二共識」，這個「有人」就是指蔡英文；而李登輝抱病臥床，還三番兩次發表聲明稱，沒有九二共識。
很少人能像張榮發這樣心直口快，他直指「台灣共識就是台獨」。蔡英文當然不會承認「台灣共識就是台獨」，她將「台灣共識」說成是一個「民主程序」，還說「終極統一或一中各表也可納入討論」，但她卻不敢提「台獨黨綱、正常國家決議文、一邊一國、台獨也可納入討論」，即可見其欲蓋彌彰的窘態；眾所共見，「台灣共識」是因台獨拒絕接受「九二共識」而發，且想作為台獨抵拒「九二共識」的障眼法或緩衝器，這卻是民進黨及蔡英文所無以否認的。
張榮發的批判有其理路，他是在指出：蔡英文因台獨而否定「九二共識」；卻又不敢直接主張台獨，所以改以「台灣共識」作為煙幕。
張榮發說，「如果說沒有九二共識，台灣的經濟會很悽慘」，又說「台灣不可能獨立，否則經濟就會倒」。這也是心直口快之論，與一般輿論文縐縐的迂迴矯情大異其趣；更是直接點破了蔡英文「反對九二共識／延續ＥＣＦＡ」之類的矛盾論調。
張榮發是蔡英文口中的「站在馬總統背後的有錢人」，但張榮發的關懷絕不只在他的自家產業，而是關切全台灣。他說，相較全球經濟環境，目前台灣算是比較安定，「很重要的原因是大陸」；在九二共識下，陸客才能來台觀光消費，台灣的蔬菜水果才能銷到大陸。也就是說，在張榮發眼中，這個總產值達十兆元的「ＥＣＦＡ產業鏈」的溢出效益，直接或間接地涵蓋了台灣各種行業，各個階層，絕非只對「有錢人」有利，更非蔡英文口中的「喪權辱國」、「糖衣毒藥」或「傾中賣台」。
以李登輝為基準，張榮發與李的距離是漸行漸遠，如今更已是南轅北轍、分道揚鑣；但蔡英文卻與李登輝難分難解，她因根本甩不掉李登輝，所以只能回過頭來抱住李登輝；抱住了李登輝，也就被台獨抱住。眼前的畫面是：站在馬英九背後的是張榮發，而站在蔡英文背後的是李登輝。
此一畫面其實正是此次總統大選的縮影，也正是這次總統大選的抉擇。張榮發自黨外時期即支持台灣民主運動，後來亦力挺李登輝及陳水扁，無人可以否定他的「台灣觀點」；但是，隨著世局及國情的變遷，張榮發顯然對李扁二人的政策及人格皆有新的思考，因此他自二○○八後選擇了馬英九的路線。
張榮發支持「台灣觀點」，但反對「台獨」，所以他向李扁二人揮手告別；在張榮發眼中，蔡英文的「台灣共識」，也只是在玩「台獨」的另一種花樣而已。
張榮發的觀點，與日前社論改用蔣百里的名言所見略同，那就是：台灣的政治路線必須與經濟路線合轍；兩者相合則強，相離則弱，相反則亡。
準此以言，「九二共識／一中各表」，就是政治路線與經濟路線相合；否定九二共識及主張台獨，則是政治路線與經濟路線相離及相背。
李登輝為蔡站台，證實了蔡無力擺脫台獨的挾持。此次大選，蔡英文選擇了李登輝「否定九二共識／挺台獨」的路，但也有人會選擇張榮發「支持九二共識／反台獨」的路吧！
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Scrapping the 1992 Consensus Would Harm Everyone on Taiwan
Scrapping the 1992 Consensus Would Harm Everyone on Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 9, 2011
Summary: What will the repercussions of the presidential election be in the event one or the other candidate is elected? The answer is crystal clear. If one or the other political party is elected, economic policy, specifically income redistribution, will not undergo any immediate and significant changes. Cross-Strait relations however, will face a major watershed. We will either continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation and cooperation, as we have for the past several years. Or, we will clash head on with the Mainland and cross-Strait relations will suffer a major setback. Reality is staring us in the face. When voters make their decision, they must not ignore reality. They must not indulge in wishful thinking.
Full Text Below:
What will the repercussions of the presidential election be in the event one or the other candidate is elected? The answer is crystal clear. If one or the other political party is elected, economic policy, specifically income redistribution, will not undergo any immediate and significant changes. Cross-Strait relations however, will face a major watershed. We will either continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation and cooperation, as we have for the past several years. Or, we will clash head on with the Mainland and cross-Strait relations will suffer a major setback. Reality is staring us in the face. When voters make their decision, they must not ignore reality. They must not indulge in wishful thinking.
Every nation seeks to survive, prosper, and ensure that its citizens are treated with dignity. But merely wishing will not make it so. Every nation must adopt practical policies appropriate to its circumstances. We must understand our own situation before we can adopt the appropriate measures. Only then can we safeguard our nation's interests and promote our nation's prosperity.
President Ma Ying-jeou is seeking reelection. He and DPP presidential challenger Tsai Ing-wen, represent diametrically opposite cross-Strait policy paths. Ma Ying-jeou seeks continued reconciliation, exchanges, and cooperation; predicated upon the 1992 Consensus. Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus and any opposes any changes resulting from its recognition.
The public on Taiwan wants to survive, prosper, and be treated with dignity. This is an aspiration shared by all the people. Increasing national prosperity means their own lives will also get better and better. The public on Taiwan faces a stark reality. In terms of history, culture, geography, economy, trade, non-governmental exchanges, and even sovereignty disputes, Taiwan and the Mainland are inseparable. This was true in the past. This is true in the present. And this will be true in the future. Particularly given the Mainland's growing international political power and economic influence, When Republic of China citizens on Taiwan determine their national destiny, the Mainland will always remain a factor.
Ma Ying-jeou seeks cross-strait reconciliation, based on the 1992 consensus and the ROC Constitution. The two sides may differ in their interpretations of the 1992 Consensus. One side may speak of "one China, different interpretations." The other side may speak of "different interpretations of one China." One side may speak of the Peoples Republic of China. The other side may speak of the Republic of China, But what is truly important, what is truly relevant to people's well-being, is that both sides are willing to reach some sort of consensus. Both sides are willing to allow the other to express its position, Both sides are willing to set aside disputes over sovereignty which cannot be currently resolved, and instead actively promote exchanges to improve relations.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen has on the one hand painted a rosy scenario. She has promised that, if elected, she will build a "Taiwan consensus." She has promised to continue holding consultations with the other side. She has promised to continue promoting cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, She has promised to continue improving cross-Strait relations. She has promised to avoid stagnation and backpedaling. On the other hand, Tsai Ing-wen has blasted Ma Ying-jeou for ahdering to the 1992 Consensus and to the other side's one China principle. She says "eventual reunification is the price we will have to pay." Her categorical repudiation of the 1992 Consensus tells us she would pull the basis for cross-Strait reconciliation from under our feet.
What would be the result? The Chen regime sealed Taiwan off from the Mainland for eight years. In the end, just how much did he promote our national interests, enhance our dignity, and bolster our sovereignty? The answer is still fresh in our memories. If Tsai Ing-wen has an alternative better than the 1992 Consensus we would of course welcome it. But so far we do not see how Tsai Ing-wen can abandon the 1992 Consensus and still persuade the Mainland to honor existing efforts at reconcilation.
Cross-Strait policy cannot be limited to building castles in the air, Everyone has pipe dreams, What matters is what is feasible in reality. When the Mainland authorities make decisions, they too must cope with internal pressures. If they mishandle the Taiwan issue, they could go down in infamy. By handling matters in accordance with the 1992 Consensus, the Mainland authorities can at least offer the Mainland public an accounting. But if the foundation for exchanges is demolished, it will undermine existing cooperation. It will mean a serious setback for the doves in the Chinese Communist Party. Achieving smooth cross-Strait relations has not been easy. One can only imagine how far they might be set back.
Recently, many entrepreneurs have expressed support for the 1992 Consensus and for cross-Strait peace, Nevertheless Tsai Ing-wen blasted Ma Ying-jeou, and accused him of chummying up to wealthy conglomerates. This was an attempt to incite class hatred, an attempt to distract the public from its concerns about the potentially catastrophic impact on cross-Strait relations. Entrepreneurs hope that Taiwan can continue to enjoy a peaceful and stable environment. They hope to enjoy greater opportunities for economic prosperity. How are their concerns any different from the general public's?
No one wants to relinquish national sovereignty. This determination is shared by everyone on Taiwan. But national sovereignty and the dignity enjoyed by a nation's citizens depend upon national strength. A weak and isolated nation will find survival and prosperity difficult to maintain, It will find it difficult to be treated with respect in the international community. Those at a disadvantage need greater wisdom, ingenuity, and courage than those in a position of strength. They cannot ignore reality. They cannot act blindly and rashly. The past three and a half years have offered countless opportunities for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges and business opportunities. The Republic of China has achieved visa free travel status with over 100 different countries. The nation's survival, prosperity, and the dignity of its citizens have all been enhanced. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policy has proven effective and practicable in a real world context. Does Tsai Ing-wen really believe she can win over voters merely by painting the rosy scenarios described above, without bothering to offer a better alternative?
廢棄九二共識 傷害台灣全民
2012-01-09中國時報
這次總統大選的抉擇究竟會帶來什麼影響，已經相當清楚，在經濟政策與所得分配上，不同的政黨執政未必會立即看到明顯的改變，但兩岸關係卻是面對著一個重大的分水嶺。或是繼續近年來和解合作的路線，或是陷入衝擊震盪與倒退。現實擺在眼前，選民在做決定時，不能有無視現實的一廂情願想法。
任何國家都要追求生存、發展與尊嚴。但願望歸願望，任何國家也都要在其所處的環境中操作，選擇適當可行的政策。因此，正確認識自我條件與外在環境，因應現實選擇合適措施，才能有效維護國家利益增進發展。
尋求連任的馬英九總統與民進黨總統候選人蔡英文，恰是代表了兩岸關係兩條方向不同的路線。馬英九提出的，是延續他以「九二共識」為基礎的和解、交流與合作；蔡英文代表的，則是不接受「九二共識」，及任何因之而來的變化。
台灣需要生存、發展與尊嚴，這是所有人共同的願望；大家也都希望，在國家愈來愈繁榮茁壯的同時，自己的生活也能愈來愈好。而台灣面對的現實環境是，無論在歷史、文化、地理、經貿、民間交流乃至主權爭議上，台灣與中國的關係千絲萬縷，過去、現在、未來，都不可能徹底切斷。尤其以中國日益增長的政經力量與國際影響力，台灣在決定國家走向時，都必須考慮並處理中國大陸這個變數。
馬英九以「九二共識」、中華民國憲法為架構，為兩岸和解找到了立足基礎。雖然兩岸對「九二共識」的解讀不同，一邊是「一中各表」一邊是「各表一中原則」，一邊是中華人民共和國一邊是中華民國，但真正重要、並攸關人民福祉的是，雙方願意在一個最起碼的模糊共識下，以容許對方各說各話的態度，放下目前解決不了的主權爭執，轉而積極推動交流改善關係。
相對的，蔡英文一方面畫出願景，表示若當選，會建立台灣共識，持續與對岸協商，讓兩岸經貿等交流持續推展，兩岸關係只會持續前進，不會停滯或倒退；但另一方面，又指責馬英九堅持九二共識是附和對岸的一中原則，將以「終極統一」為代價。這種全盤否定「九二共識」存在的立場，意味著將把現在兩岸和解的重要立足基礎，從我們的腳下抽走。
結果會如何？扁政府八年鎖國，到底增進了哪些國家利益與主權尊嚴，大家記憶猶新。蔡英文如果提得出一個比「九二共識」更好的處理方案，大家當然很歡迎，但是到目前為止，完全看不到廢棄了「九二共識」後，蔡英文有什麼足以說服中國延續現行和解政策的方案或論述。
兩岸政策不能只是空中樓閣，夢想人人會做，重點在於在現實中有效可行。中共當局在決策時，也必須面對自己內部的壓力與角力，如果台灣問題處理失了立場，豈非成了千古罪人？以「九二共識」模式處理，至少中共當局對內部交待得過去。如果毀棄了這個交流基礎，不只勢將衝擊現行各項合作交流，而且讓中共內部和解派受到挫折，好不容易獲致良性發展的兩岸關係，又不知要倒退到什麼地步。
近來許多企業家紛紛表態支持「九二共識」與兩岸和平，蔡英文卻批評為馬英九和大財團在一起，這是藉挑起階級對立掩蓋民間對兩岸衝擊的憂心。企業家希望台灣能繼續在和平穩定的環境下擴大發展機會，其心情與一般民眾有什麼不同？
沒有人願意出讓國家主權，這個骨氣，每個台灣人都有，然而，主權尊嚴是要靠國力支撐的，一個孱弱孤立的國家，生存發展既困難，又難以在國際間受到正視。國家尊嚴固然必須維護，但處於劣勢者，更需要智慧、手腕與勇氣，不能無視現實一味蠻幹。驗諸三年半來兩岸經貿交流的蓬勃商機、台灣在國際社會的參與乃至百國免簽的達成，國家的生存、發展、尊嚴都得到了強化，證明馬英九的兩岸政策是在現實環境中有效可行的。光是描繪空洞願景，卻端不出更好的替代方案，如何說服選民？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 9, 2011
Summary: What will the repercussions of the presidential election be in the event one or the other candidate is elected? The answer is crystal clear. If one or the other political party is elected, economic policy, specifically income redistribution, will not undergo any immediate and significant changes. Cross-Strait relations however, will face a major watershed. We will either continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation and cooperation, as we have for the past several years. Or, we will clash head on with the Mainland and cross-Strait relations will suffer a major setback. Reality is staring us in the face. When voters make their decision, they must not ignore reality. They must not indulge in wishful thinking.
Full Text Below:
What will the repercussions of the presidential election be in the event one or the other candidate is elected? The answer is crystal clear. If one or the other political party is elected, economic policy, specifically income redistribution, will not undergo any immediate and significant changes. Cross-Strait relations however, will face a major watershed. We will either continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation and cooperation, as we have for the past several years. Or, we will clash head on with the Mainland and cross-Strait relations will suffer a major setback. Reality is staring us in the face. When voters make their decision, they must not ignore reality. They must not indulge in wishful thinking.
Every nation seeks to survive, prosper, and ensure that its citizens are treated with dignity. But merely wishing will not make it so. Every nation must adopt practical policies appropriate to its circumstances. We must understand our own situation before we can adopt the appropriate measures. Only then can we safeguard our nation's interests and promote our nation's prosperity.
President Ma Ying-jeou is seeking reelection. He and DPP presidential challenger Tsai Ing-wen, represent diametrically opposite cross-Strait policy paths. Ma Ying-jeou seeks continued reconciliation, exchanges, and cooperation; predicated upon the 1992 Consensus. Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus and any opposes any changes resulting from its recognition.
The public on Taiwan wants to survive, prosper, and be treated with dignity. This is an aspiration shared by all the people. Increasing national prosperity means their own lives will also get better and better. The public on Taiwan faces a stark reality. In terms of history, culture, geography, economy, trade, non-governmental exchanges, and even sovereignty disputes, Taiwan and the Mainland are inseparable. This was true in the past. This is true in the present. And this will be true in the future. Particularly given the Mainland's growing international political power and economic influence, When Republic of China citizens on Taiwan determine their national destiny, the Mainland will always remain a factor.
Ma Ying-jeou seeks cross-strait reconciliation, based on the 1992 consensus and the ROC Constitution. The two sides may differ in their interpretations of the 1992 Consensus. One side may speak of "one China, different interpretations." The other side may speak of "different interpretations of one China." One side may speak of the Peoples Republic of China. The other side may speak of the Republic of China, But what is truly important, what is truly relevant to people's well-being, is that both sides are willing to reach some sort of consensus. Both sides are willing to allow the other to express its position, Both sides are willing to set aside disputes over sovereignty which cannot be currently resolved, and instead actively promote exchanges to improve relations.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen has on the one hand painted a rosy scenario. She has promised that, if elected, she will build a "Taiwan consensus." She has promised to continue holding consultations with the other side. She has promised to continue promoting cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, She has promised to continue improving cross-Strait relations. She has promised to avoid stagnation and backpedaling. On the other hand, Tsai Ing-wen has blasted Ma Ying-jeou for ahdering to the 1992 Consensus and to the other side's one China principle. She says "eventual reunification is the price we will have to pay." Her categorical repudiation of the 1992 Consensus tells us she would pull the basis for cross-Strait reconciliation from under our feet.
What would be the result? The Chen regime sealed Taiwan off from the Mainland for eight years. In the end, just how much did he promote our national interests, enhance our dignity, and bolster our sovereignty? The answer is still fresh in our memories. If Tsai Ing-wen has an alternative better than the 1992 Consensus we would of course welcome it. But so far we do not see how Tsai Ing-wen can abandon the 1992 Consensus and still persuade the Mainland to honor existing efforts at reconcilation.
Cross-Strait policy cannot be limited to building castles in the air, Everyone has pipe dreams, What matters is what is feasible in reality. When the Mainland authorities make decisions, they too must cope with internal pressures. If they mishandle the Taiwan issue, they could go down in infamy. By handling matters in accordance with the 1992 Consensus, the Mainland authorities can at least offer the Mainland public an accounting. But if the foundation for exchanges is demolished, it will undermine existing cooperation. It will mean a serious setback for the doves in the Chinese Communist Party. Achieving smooth cross-Strait relations has not been easy. One can only imagine how far they might be set back.
Recently, many entrepreneurs have expressed support for the 1992 Consensus and for cross-Strait peace, Nevertheless Tsai Ing-wen blasted Ma Ying-jeou, and accused him of chummying up to wealthy conglomerates. This was an attempt to incite class hatred, an attempt to distract the public from its concerns about the potentially catastrophic impact on cross-Strait relations. Entrepreneurs hope that Taiwan can continue to enjoy a peaceful and stable environment. They hope to enjoy greater opportunities for economic prosperity. How are their concerns any different from the general public's?
No one wants to relinquish national sovereignty. This determination is shared by everyone on Taiwan. But national sovereignty and the dignity enjoyed by a nation's citizens depend upon national strength. A weak and isolated nation will find survival and prosperity difficult to maintain, It will find it difficult to be treated with respect in the international community. Those at a disadvantage need greater wisdom, ingenuity, and courage than those in a position of strength. They cannot ignore reality. They cannot act blindly and rashly. The past three and a half years have offered countless opportunities for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges and business opportunities. The Republic of China has achieved visa free travel status with over 100 different countries. The nation's survival, prosperity, and the dignity of its citizens have all been enhanced. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policy has proven effective and practicable in a real world context. Does Tsai Ing-wen really believe she can win over voters merely by painting the rosy scenarios described above, without bothering to offer a better alternative?
廢棄九二共識 傷害台灣全民
2012-01-09中國時報
這次總統大選的抉擇究竟會帶來什麼影響，已經相當清楚，在經濟政策與所得分配上，不同的政黨執政未必會立即看到明顯的改變，但兩岸關係卻是面對著一個重大的分水嶺。或是繼續近年來和解合作的路線，或是陷入衝擊震盪與倒退。現實擺在眼前，選民在做決定時，不能有無視現實的一廂情願想法。
任何國家都要追求生存、發展與尊嚴。但願望歸願望，任何國家也都要在其所處的環境中操作，選擇適當可行的政策。因此，正確認識自我條件與外在環境，因應現實選擇合適措施，才能有效維護國家利益增進發展。
尋求連任的馬英九總統與民進黨總統候選人蔡英文，恰是代表了兩岸關係兩條方向不同的路線。馬英九提出的，是延續他以「九二共識」為基礎的和解、交流與合作；蔡英文代表的，則是不接受「九二共識」，及任何因之而來的變化。
台灣需要生存、發展與尊嚴，這是所有人共同的願望；大家也都希望，在國家愈來愈繁榮茁壯的同時，自己的生活也能愈來愈好。而台灣面對的現實環境是，無論在歷史、文化、地理、經貿、民間交流乃至主權爭議上，台灣與中國的關係千絲萬縷，過去、現在、未來，都不可能徹底切斷。尤其以中國日益增長的政經力量與國際影響力，台灣在決定國家走向時，都必須考慮並處理中國大陸這個變數。
馬英九以「九二共識」、中華民國憲法為架構，為兩岸和解找到了立足基礎。雖然兩岸對「九二共識」的解讀不同，一邊是「一中各表」一邊是「各表一中原則」，一邊是中華人民共和國一邊是中華民國，但真正重要、並攸關人民福祉的是，雙方願意在一個最起碼的模糊共識下，以容許對方各說各話的態度，放下目前解決不了的主權爭執，轉而積極推動交流改善關係。
相對的，蔡英文一方面畫出願景，表示若當選，會建立台灣共識，持續與對岸協商，讓兩岸經貿等交流持續推展，兩岸關係只會持續前進，不會停滯或倒退；但另一方面，又指責馬英九堅持九二共識是附和對岸的一中原則，將以「終極統一」為代價。這種全盤否定「九二共識」存在的立場，意味著將把現在兩岸和解的重要立足基礎，從我們的腳下抽走。
結果會如何？扁政府八年鎖國，到底增進了哪些國家利益與主權尊嚴，大家記憶猶新。蔡英文如果提得出一個比「九二共識」更好的處理方案，大家當然很歡迎，但是到目前為止，完全看不到廢棄了「九二共識」後，蔡英文有什麼足以說服中國延續現行和解政策的方案或論述。
兩岸政策不能只是空中樓閣，夢想人人會做，重點在於在現實中有效可行。中共當局在決策時，也必須面對自己內部的壓力與角力，如果台灣問題處理失了立場，豈非成了千古罪人？以「九二共識」模式處理，至少中共當局對內部交待得過去。如果毀棄了這個交流基礎，不只勢將衝擊現行各項合作交流，而且讓中共內部和解派受到挫折，好不容易獲致良性發展的兩岸關係，又不知要倒退到什麼地步。
近來許多企業家紛紛表態支持「九二共識」與兩岸和平，蔡英文卻批評為馬英九和大財團在一起，這是藉挑起階級對立掩蓋民間對兩岸衝擊的憂心。企業家希望台灣能繼續在和平穩定的環境下擴大發展機會，其心情與一般民眾有什麼不同？
沒有人願意出讓國家主權，這個骨氣，每個台灣人都有，然而，主權尊嚴是要靠國力支撐的，一個孱弱孤立的國家，生存發展既困難，又難以在國際間受到正視。國家尊嚴固然必須維護，但處於劣勢者，更需要智慧、手腕與勇氣，不能無視現實一味蠻幹。驗諸三年半來兩岸經貿交流的蓬勃商機、台灣在國際社會的參與乃至百國免簽的達成，國家的生存、發展、尊嚴都得到了強化，證明馬英九的兩岸政策是在現實環境中有效可行的。光是描繪空洞願景，卻端不出更好的替代方案，如何說服選民？
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Businesses Hope the Government and Opposition will Value Cross-Strait Relations
Businesses Hope the Government and Opposition will Value Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 6, 2011
Summary: The 1992 Consensus makes subtle use of the term "one China, different interpretations" to set aside a half a century of cross-Strait political controversy, even while it helps maintain historical, cultural, and familial links. It is precisely these links that make peace and stability between Taiwan and Mainland China possible. It is the hope of the Chinese people as a whole, It is the hope of Chinese people on Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
Evergreen Group Chairman Chang Yung-fa has publicly endorsed the 1992 Consensus in no uncertain terms. Liao Ching-siang Liao, chairman of the Chi Mei Corporation, has also come forward and expressed his support. Soon after the candidates registered for the presidential election, one prominent business leader after another has expressed high hopes for cross-Strait relations. Ruling and opposition leaders vying for high office cannot afford to ignore the feelings of these business leaders, That is because these business leaders do not represent only "people with money." They are responsible for the livelihood of tens of thousands of their employees. DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen in particular, who still refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, must not overlook the interests of the people.
Liao Ching-siang is DPP candidate Lin Chia-lung's father in law. He is the right hand man of Hsu Wen-lung, founder of the Chi Mei corporation. During the 2000 ROC presidential election, Chi Mei and Eva were leading members of Chen Shui-bian's national policy advisory group. By any standard, whether "love of Taiwan" or the DPP's favorites, "nativist consciousness" and "Taiwanese consciousness," they qualify in spades. Their hearts are filled to overflowing with such sentiments. It is precisely because they have such strong feelings for Taiwan, that they understand what is most beneficial for Taiwan, The genuine and intense feelings they have for Taiwan, is not something politicians seeking election can fathom.
The DPP ruled for eight years, It had an historic opportunity to do something good for Taiwan. It had an opportunity to fulfill the expectations of the people of Taiwan. It had an opportunity to create a new cross-Strait relationship. Chen Shui-bian was prepared to accept Academia Sinica head Lee Yuan-tse's recommendations. He was prepared to recognize the "spirit of the 1992 talks." Unfortunately chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Tsai Ing-wen prevented him from doing so. Lee Yuan-tse's bipartisan cross-Strait group came to nothing. As a result, cross-Strait relations remained tense and frozen, wracked by controversy.
The Lee Teng-hui era "spirit of the 92 talks" was interrupted during the eight year long Chen administration. But in 2005 KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan and Mainland General Secretary Hu Jintao reaffirmed the 1992 Consensus. This enabled the Ma administration to reestablish smooth relations with the Mainland soon after the KMT's return to power,
Without the 1992 Consensus, we would not have increasingly frequent cross-Strait direct flights, We would not have countless cottage industries, catering to wave upon wave of Mainland tourists, We would not have ECFA, which has enabled Taiwan products to flood the Mainland. We would not have the high-tech panel and appliance industries as bright spots in Taiwan's economy. When the financial tsunami struck, Mainland orders for home appliances kept us alive. These are all hard realities that Tsai Ing-wen cannot wish out of existence merely by closing her eyes.
Tsai Ing-wen may be determined to promote her "Taiwan consensus." But one cannot promote cross-Strait relations merely by wishful thinking. Taiwan may be divided by political differences. But consultations and negotiations with the outside requires one voice. This one voice must also be something the other can accept, Tsai Ing-wen wants to repudiate the 1992 Consensus. She even wants to repudiate the Republic of China, the one thing that the pro-reunification Blue Camp and the pro-independence Green Camp can agree on. Instead, she insists on underscoring how much her "Republic of China" and KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's "Republic of China" differ. If this is Tsai Ing-wen's notion of national identity, then it is unacceptable even to most people on Taiwan, let alone the Mainland. Given her position, how can she possibly win the trust of Beijing? How can she possibly promote peaceful cross-Strait dialogue?
Mainland China may not recognize the Republic of China. But it recognizes the 1992 Consensus. It agrees that the "one China" recognized on Taiwan is the Republic of China. It is willing to refrain from repudiating the Republic of China, As far as Taiwan is concerned, this is a trivial distinction, and this is a highly advantageous situation. Why is the Mainland willing to make concessions to us, based on the 1992 Consensus? The reason is simple. It is because the two sides accept the "one China" premise, We merely express it differently. This preserves the historical connections between the two sides. It also opens up new possibilities for the future of cross-Strait relations.
Put simply, the two sides were both part of one China in the past, before the advent of divided rule in 1949. The two sides may well be reunited as one China again in the future. For this there is no timetable. The 1992 Consensus reaffirms that the two sides do not see each other as outsiders. It is precisely because the 1992 Consensus reaffirms that the two sides are one people, that the Mainland is willing and able to offer terms more favorable than it offers to foreigner. It is willing to offer Taiwan a wide range of concessions. It is willing to offer concessions Taiwan businessmen. It is willing to make it easier for the general population on Taiwan to enter and exit the Mainland. If the people on Taiwan and the people on Mainland China were not one people, the Mainland would have to treat people from Taiwan the way it treats people from Japan, South Korea, Europe, or the US. There would be no concessions whatsover.
Politically, Taiwan and the Mainland have different national allegiances. But culturally, Taiwan cannot pretend it does not share a common heritage with the Mainland. Lest we forget, except for Taiwan's Aborigines, the ancestors of everyone on Taiwan came from the Mainland. The only difference is when. Taiwan's folk customs all come from "China Proper." Not only do we celebrate the same folk festivals, we even hold the same holidays, and worship the same gods. What beliefs did not originate on the Mainland?
The 1992 Consensus makes subtle use of the term "one China, different interpretations" to set aside a half a century of cross-Strait political controversy, even while it helps maintain historical, cultural, and familial links. It is precisely these links that make peace and stability between Taiwan and Mainland China possible. It is the hope of the Chinese people as a whole, It is the hope of Chinese people on Taiwan.
企業對兩岸關係期待 朝野應重視
2012-01-06中國時報
繼長榮集團總裁張榮發公開力挺「九二共識」後，奇美實業董事長廖錦祥也出面表態，大選登記起跑後，國內知名企業紛紛表明他們對於兩岸關係的期待，競逐大位的朝野領袖不能無視於企業主的心聲，因為他們不只是「有錢人」，他們的肩上扛的是數以萬計的員工生計，特別是迄今猶否認「九二共識」的民進黨總統候選人蔡英文，萬萬不可輕忽人民的利益。
眾所周知，廖錦祥是民進黨立委候選人林佳龍的岳丈、奇美創辦人許文龍最重要的左右手，奇美與長榮都曾經是二千年總統大選時，陳水扁國政顧問團的龍頭成員，不論是愛台灣的心或民進黨最喜歡標榜的「本土意識」或「台灣意識」，他們不但不缺，甚至還充盈於心，正因為他們對台灣強烈的感情，讓他們更能體會什麼才是對台灣最有利的做法，這份對台灣真摰而強烈的感情，絕非政治人物的選舉算計可以比擬。
民進黨執政八年，本來很有機會為台灣、為曾經肩負台灣人民重大期待的民進黨創造一個歷史契機，帶領台灣開創一個嶄新的兩岸關係和進程，很遺憾的，當年陳水扁接受前中研院長李遠哲建議。準備接受「九二年對話的精神」，卻硬生生被時任陸委會主委的蔡英文擋下，李遠哲主持的跨黨派兩岸小組從此無疾而終。兩岸關係就此在緊張與持續的爭議中僵滯。
李登輝執政時期奠下的「九二精神」，在扁執政八年中斷，直到二○○五年才由國民黨榮譽主席連戰與大陸國家主席胡錦濤確認，並創造了「九二共識」這個名詞，國民黨重返執政後，馬政府得以在這個基礎下，順利開展兩岸關係。
沒有「九二共識」，就沒有如今愈見頻繁的兩岸直航航班、就沒有養活無數餐飲精品業的大陸觀光客、更沒有攸關台灣產品輸陸的兩岸經貿架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）、而台灣高科技亮點的面板和家電，在金融海嘯之際，亦拜大陸家電下鄉政策下大量採購而維繫生機，凡此種種，都不是蔡英文視而不見就不存在的事實。
蔡英文或許有心推動她心目中的「台灣共識」，但是，要知道兩岸關係不是台灣一廂情願說了算，台灣內部不論有任何政治上的歧見，對外協商談判都得找出一套說法，而這個說法還得對方能夠接受，蔡英文為了否定「九二共識」，甚至挑戰台灣不分藍綠和統獨的最大共識就是中華民國，反而強調自己的中華民國與國民黨總統候選人馬英九的中華民國不一樣，如果這是蔡英文的國家定位，連多數台灣人民都無法認同，又如何取信於北京她是能推展兩岸和平發展的對話對象？
大陸即使不承認中華民國，卻認可「九二共識」，同意台灣認知的「一個中國」就是中華民國，形同不否認中華民國，對台灣而言，以小事大，這是最有利的處境。大陸為什麼願意在「九二共識」的基礎下「讓利」，原因很簡單，因為雙方接受了「一個中國」的前提，但表述方式不同，既延續了兩岸的歷史淵源，也開啟了兩岸關係的未來遠景。
用最直接的方式表述，兩岸不論是過去曾經有過的一個中國（一九四九年兩岸分治前），或是（未來可能完成的一個中國）沒有時間表，在「九二共識」的基礎下，確認了兩岸都沒將彼此視為外人。也正因為兩岸是自己人，大陸才可以用較其他國際各國更優惠的條件，給予台灣各種方便，不論是對台商的優惠措施或者一般人民出入境的便利，如果台灣和大陸不是一家人，大陸對待台灣彷彿對待日韓或歐美，還有何讓利可言？
在政治上，台灣和大陸有不同的國家認同，但在文化上，台灣卻不能切斷與大陸之間相連的血脈。不要忘了，除了原住民之外，在台灣所有住民的祖先無不是自大陸渡海而來，只是時間先後有別；台灣民間習俗無不源自大陸中原，不但過的民俗節日相同，連我們逢年過節祭祀的神明，哪一尊不是來自大陸的信仰？
「九二共識」微妙地用「一個中國，各自表述」擱置兩岸對峙半世紀之外的政治爭議，維繫歷史、文化、血脈的繼續相連，並因為這樣的連結，讓台灣和大陸能夠和平穩定共榮，這是中國人的希望，更是台灣人的希望。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 6, 2011
Summary: The 1992 Consensus makes subtle use of the term "one China, different interpretations" to set aside a half a century of cross-Strait political controversy, even while it helps maintain historical, cultural, and familial links. It is precisely these links that make peace and stability between Taiwan and Mainland China possible. It is the hope of the Chinese people as a whole, It is the hope of Chinese people on Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
Evergreen Group Chairman Chang Yung-fa has publicly endorsed the 1992 Consensus in no uncertain terms. Liao Ching-siang Liao, chairman of the Chi Mei Corporation, has also come forward and expressed his support. Soon after the candidates registered for the presidential election, one prominent business leader after another has expressed high hopes for cross-Strait relations. Ruling and opposition leaders vying for high office cannot afford to ignore the feelings of these business leaders, That is because these business leaders do not represent only "people with money." They are responsible for the livelihood of tens of thousands of their employees. DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen in particular, who still refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, must not overlook the interests of the people.
Liao Ching-siang is DPP candidate Lin Chia-lung's father in law. He is the right hand man of Hsu Wen-lung, founder of the Chi Mei corporation. During the 2000 ROC presidential election, Chi Mei and Eva were leading members of Chen Shui-bian's national policy advisory group. By any standard, whether "love of Taiwan" or the DPP's favorites, "nativist consciousness" and "Taiwanese consciousness," they qualify in spades. Their hearts are filled to overflowing with such sentiments. It is precisely because they have such strong feelings for Taiwan, that they understand what is most beneficial for Taiwan, The genuine and intense feelings they have for Taiwan, is not something politicians seeking election can fathom.
The DPP ruled for eight years, It had an historic opportunity to do something good for Taiwan. It had an opportunity to fulfill the expectations of the people of Taiwan. It had an opportunity to create a new cross-Strait relationship. Chen Shui-bian was prepared to accept Academia Sinica head Lee Yuan-tse's recommendations. He was prepared to recognize the "spirit of the 1992 talks." Unfortunately chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Tsai Ing-wen prevented him from doing so. Lee Yuan-tse's bipartisan cross-Strait group came to nothing. As a result, cross-Strait relations remained tense and frozen, wracked by controversy.
The Lee Teng-hui era "spirit of the 92 talks" was interrupted during the eight year long Chen administration. But in 2005 KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan and Mainland General Secretary Hu Jintao reaffirmed the 1992 Consensus. This enabled the Ma administration to reestablish smooth relations with the Mainland soon after the KMT's return to power,
Without the 1992 Consensus, we would not have increasingly frequent cross-Strait direct flights, We would not have countless cottage industries, catering to wave upon wave of Mainland tourists, We would not have ECFA, which has enabled Taiwan products to flood the Mainland. We would not have the high-tech panel and appliance industries as bright spots in Taiwan's economy. When the financial tsunami struck, Mainland orders for home appliances kept us alive. These are all hard realities that Tsai Ing-wen cannot wish out of existence merely by closing her eyes.
Tsai Ing-wen may be determined to promote her "Taiwan consensus." But one cannot promote cross-Strait relations merely by wishful thinking. Taiwan may be divided by political differences. But consultations and negotiations with the outside requires one voice. This one voice must also be something the other can accept, Tsai Ing-wen wants to repudiate the 1992 Consensus. She even wants to repudiate the Republic of China, the one thing that the pro-reunification Blue Camp and the pro-independence Green Camp can agree on. Instead, she insists on underscoring how much her "Republic of China" and KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's "Republic of China" differ. If this is Tsai Ing-wen's notion of national identity, then it is unacceptable even to most people on Taiwan, let alone the Mainland. Given her position, how can she possibly win the trust of Beijing? How can she possibly promote peaceful cross-Strait dialogue?
Mainland China may not recognize the Republic of China. But it recognizes the 1992 Consensus. It agrees that the "one China" recognized on Taiwan is the Republic of China. It is willing to refrain from repudiating the Republic of China, As far as Taiwan is concerned, this is a trivial distinction, and this is a highly advantageous situation. Why is the Mainland willing to make concessions to us, based on the 1992 Consensus? The reason is simple. It is because the two sides accept the "one China" premise, We merely express it differently. This preserves the historical connections between the two sides. It also opens up new possibilities for the future of cross-Strait relations.
Put simply, the two sides were both part of one China in the past, before the advent of divided rule in 1949. The two sides may well be reunited as one China again in the future. For this there is no timetable. The 1992 Consensus reaffirms that the two sides do not see each other as outsiders. It is precisely because the 1992 Consensus reaffirms that the two sides are one people, that the Mainland is willing and able to offer terms more favorable than it offers to foreigner. It is willing to offer Taiwan a wide range of concessions. It is willing to offer concessions Taiwan businessmen. It is willing to make it easier for the general population on Taiwan to enter and exit the Mainland. If the people on Taiwan and the people on Mainland China were not one people, the Mainland would have to treat people from Taiwan the way it treats people from Japan, South Korea, Europe, or the US. There would be no concessions whatsover.
Politically, Taiwan and the Mainland have different national allegiances. But culturally, Taiwan cannot pretend it does not share a common heritage with the Mainland. Lest we forget, except for Taiwan's Aborigines, the ancestors of everyone on Taiwan came from the Mainland. The only difference is when. Taiwan's folk customs all come from "China Proper." Not only do we celebrate the same folk festivals, we even hold the same holidays, and worship the same gods. What beliefs did not originate on the Mainland?
The 1992 Consensus makes subtle use of the term "one China, different interpretations" to set aside a half a century of cross-Strait political controversy, even while it helps maintain historical, cultural, and familial links. It is precisely these links that make peace and stability between Taiwan and Mainland China possible. It is the hope of the Chinese people as a whole, It is the hope of Chinese people on Taiwan.
企業對兩岸關係期待 朝野應重視
2012-01-06中國時報
繼長榮集團總裁張榮發公開力挺「九二共識」後，奇美實業董事長廖錦祥也出面表態，大選登記起跑後，國內知名企業紛紛表明他們對於兩岸關係的期待，競逐大位的朝野領袖不能無視於企業主的心聲，因為他們不只是「有錢人」，他們的肩上扛的是數以萬計的員工生計，特別是迄今猶否認「九二共識」的民進黨總統候選人蔡英文，萬萬不可輕忽人民的利益。
眾所周知，廖錦祥是民進黨立委候選人林佳龍的岳丈、奇美創辦人許文龍最重要的左右手，奇美與長榮都曾經是二千年總統大選時，陳水扁國政顧問團的龍頭成員，不論是愛台灣的心或民進黨最喜歡標榜的「本土意識」或「台灣意識」，他們不但不缺，甚至還充盈於心，正因為他們對台灣強烈的感情，讓他們更能體會什麼才是對台灣最有利的做法，這份對台灣真摰而強烈的感情，絕非政治人物的選舉算計可以比擬。
民進黨執政八年，本來很有機會為台灣、為曾經肩負台灣人民重大期待的民進黨創造一個歷史契機，帶領台灣開創一個嶄新的兩岸關係和進程，很遺憾的，當年陳水扁接受前中研院長李遠哲建議。準備接受「九二年對話的精神」，卻硬生生被時任陸委會主委的蔡英文擋下，李遠哲主持的跨黨派兩岸小組從此無疾而終。兩岸關係就此在緊張與持續的爭議中僵滯。
李登輝執政時期奠下的「九二精神」，在扁執政八年中斷，直到二○○五年才由國民黨榮譽主席連戰與大陸國家主席胡錦濤確認，並創造了「九二共識」這個名詞，國民黨重返執政後，馬政府得以在這個基礎下，順利開展兩岸關係。
沒有「九二共識」，就沒有如今愈見頻繁的兩岸直航航班、就沒有養活無數餐飲精品業的大陸觀光客、更沒有攸關台灣產品輸陸的兩岸經貿架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）、而台灣高科技亮點的面板和家電，在金融海嘯之際，亦拜大陸家電下鄉政策下大量採購而維繫生機，凡此種種，都不是蔡英文視而不見就不存在的事實。
蔡英文或許有心推動她心目中的「台灣共識」，但是，要知道兩岸關係不是台灣一廂情願說了算，台灣內部不論有任何政治上的歧見，對外協商談判都得找出一套說法，而這個說法還得對方能夠接受，蔡英文為了否定「九二共識」，甚至挑戰台灣不分藍綠和統獨的最大共識就是中華民國，反而強調自己的中華民國與國民黨總統候選人馬英九的中華民國不一樣，如果這是蔡英文的國家定位，連多數台灣人民都無法認同，又如何取信於北京她是能推展兩岸和平發展的對話對象？
大陸即使不承認中華民國，卻認可「九二共識」，同意台灣認知的「一個中國」就是中華民國，形同不否認中華民國，對台灣而言，以小事大，這是最有利的處境。大陸為什麼願意在「九二共識」的基礎下「讓利」，原因很簡單，因為雙方接受了「一個中國」的前提，但表述方式不同，既延續了兩岸的歷史淵源，也開啟了兩岸關係的未來遠景。
用最直接的方式表述，兩岸不論是過去曾經有過的一個中國（一九四九年兩岸分治前），或是（未來可能完成的一個中國）沒有時間表，在「九二共識」的基礎下，確認了兩岸都沒將彼此視為外人。也正因為兩岸是自己人，大陸才可以用較其他國際各國更優惠的條件，給予台灣各種方便，不論是對台商的優惠措施或者一般人民出入境的便利，如果台灣和大陸不是一家人，大陸對待台灣彷彿對待日韓或歐美，還有何讓利可言？
在政治上，台灣和大陸有不同的國家認同，但在文化上，台灣卻不能切斷與大陸之間相連的血脈。不要忘了，除了原住民之外，在台灣所有住民的祖先無不是自大陸渡海而來，只是時間先後有別；台灣民間習俗無不源自大陸中原，不但過的民俗節日相同，連我們逢年過節祭祀的神明，哪一尊不是來自大陸的信仰？
「九二共識」微妙地用「一個中國，各自表述」擱置兩岸對峙半世紀之外的政治爭議，維繫歷史、文化、血脈的繼續相連，並因為這樣的連結，讓台灣和大陸能夠和平穩定共榮，這是中國人的希望，更是台灣人的希望。
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Taiwan's Economic Future Can Hardly be built on Pipe Dreams
Taiwan's Economic Future Can Hardly be built on Pipe Dreams
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen boasts that "We will set the agenda within multilateral organizations. We will increase Taipei's space on the international stage." Is the ignorant? Is she naive? Or is she merely attempting to deceive outsiders and the general public? Tsai Ing-wen may have a dream. But Taiwan's economic future cannot be built on her personal, impracticable, unrealizable pipe dreams. She wants multilateral negotiations to replace bilateral and regional negotiations. In the end however, she will merely increase Taiwan's economic marginalization and isolation.
Full Text Below:
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen has issued numerous public statements during the recent presidential debates and policy presentations. Her ideas for Taiwan's economic future all call for organizing a negotiating team to "set the agenda" during negotiations within multilateral organizations. Is this a realistic solution? Is it practicable? Can it actually be implemented? Or is it all flash and no substance? Is it mere self-aggrandizement and self-deception? Will it put Taiwan's economy in grave danger?
Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly stressed the importance of multilateral organizations. Her goal is to get rid of the KMT created bilateral framework known as ECFA. When Ma and Tsai debated ECFA last year. Tsai Ing-wen harped on the importance of negotiations within multilateral organizations. She sternly rebuked Ma Ying-jeou. She said her scenario could be achieved during the WTO Doha Development Round negotiations. Her boast was of course nonsense. During the recent policy presentations, she once again vowed, "We will organize a strong negotiating team. The government will take the lead. It will work together with industry. We will strike in the international arena. We will set the agenda with multilateral organizations. We will increase Taiwan's international breathing space." She unquestionably has thing for negotiations within multilateral organizations.
Unfortunately, the global trend is running counter to Tsai Ing-wen's Goldilocks scenario. A number of multilateral economic and trade organizations have relations with us. The most important of course are the WTO (World Trade Organization) and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). We have yet to become members. The United States is promoting the TPP (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement). APEC remains a loose networking organization, irrelevant to our current discussion. The United States is promoting the TPP. Both Ma and Tsai say they intend to seek membership. But the TPP is an economic tool of Washington, designed to contain Beijing's influence in Asia. Its prospects remain uncertain. It is bound to become an arena in which the two giants, Beijing and Washington, jockey with each other for economic influence. Taipei cannot possibly hope to "set the agenda" here.
The WTO Doha Development Round of multilateral negotiations are still ongoing. They began in November 2001. Progress over the past decade has been slow. Results have been inconclusive. Over the past decade, negotiations were suspended twice. Negotiations were originally supposed to conclude in January 2005. But the deadline has been extended several times. No one knows when the talks will adjourn. In June this year, the Doha Development Round was changed. A compromise was reached. The rounds would be completed in phases. But WTO Secretary General Pascal Lamy says that only when agreement is reached on all issues will the talks be considered a success.
Compared this against the successful completion of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The Doha Development Round negotiations have encountered difficulties caused by external factors. The Uruguay Round negotiations were led by a small number of developed nations. The rest were mere followers. The Doha Development Round negotiations meanwhile, are subject to the growing strength of emerging countries. This has made already complex decision-making processes even more difficult. Agricultural and non agricultural market access are among the most divisive issues. The problems appear insoluble. Lamy described the impasse in negotiations as a Gordian Knot. An agreement was originally expected by the end of 2011. But this has once again been postponed.
The inescapable fact is that the Doha Development Round negotiations have stalled. Governments have switched to bilateral and regional trade agreements, and to various free-trade agreements (FTAs). As of this year, over 300 FTAs have been signed the world over, and the number continues to increase. South Korea and the European Union, India, the United States and other important countries have all signed FTAs. The Chinese Mainland and ASEAN's "East Asia Free Trade Area" has taken shape. It is being followed by Japan and South Korea's "ASEAN plus three." Tsai Ing-wen is enamored with negotiations within multilateral organizations. But such negotiations have made no progress. They have stalled across the board. Tsai Ing-wen's economic prescription reveals her utter ignorance of the strategic picture. If implemented, her economic prescription would leave Taiwan in dire straits.
Tsai Ing-wen is not merely ignorant about bilateral and regional negotiations around the globe. She is oblivious to the harsh international reality. Negotiations in multilateral organizations, as we all know, are conducted by the Big Guns. The major items on the agenda are always set by the major players. During such talks, the smaller countries can only nod in agreement. In future negotiations within multilateral organizations, the advanced nations of Europe and America will inevitably take the lead, along with the emerging BRIC economies and other countries with international influence. They will be the stars of the show. These countries have at least a trillion dollars or more in assets. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an economy valued at $400 billion. By what stretch of the imagination can it "set the agenda" during negotiations within multilateral organizations? When has Taipei ever set the agenda during negotiations within multilateral organizations over the past several decades?
The DPP was in power for eight years. Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier for a year and a half. During that time, Taipei participated in negotiations within multilateral organizations. When did it ever "set the agenda?" Are we to understand that Taiwan's economic strength and international influence has suddenly grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. Are we to understand that Taipei is now one of the Big Guns in the international arena, one able to "set the agenda?" Tsai Ing-wen boasts that "We will set the agenda within multilateral organizations. We will increase Taiwan's space on the international stage." Is the ignorant? Is she naive? Or is she merely attempting to deceive outsiders and the general public? Tsai Ing-wen may have a dream. But Taiwan's economic future cannot be built on her personal, impracticable, unrealizable pipe dreams. She wants multilateral negotiations to replace bilateral and regional negotiations. In the end however, she will merely increase Taiwan's economic marginalization and isolation.
台灣經濟前景不能建立在夢想上
2012-01-05中國時報
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文在多次公開發言中─包括辯論會與政見發表會上，對其未來的經濟主張，都曾提出要組織談判團，在多邊組織中「主導議題」。這到底是一個好藥方、可務實推動執行；還是一個華而不實、甚至自我膨脹、自我欺騙，反而置台灣經濟於險地的政策？
蔡英文所以再三強調多邊組織的重要，目的是破除國民黨主導的雙邊架構的ＥＣＦＡ。馬、蔡前年在ＥＣＦＡ辯論時，蔡英文就不斷強調多邊談判的重要，當時她更很權威的提醒馬英九，說當年ＷＴＯ的杜哈回合談判就可望成功─當然事實非如此。這次政見發表會時，她也再次提出「我們將會組織強而有力的談判團隊，由政府帶頭，跟企業一起打拚，在國際上衝鋒陷陣；我們會在多邊組織裡主導議題，創造台灣的空間。」她對多邊組織談判的確是情有獨鍾。
遺憾的是世界的趨勢顯然不是蔡英文腦中的圖像。在與我國有關的多邊經貿組織中，最重要的當然是ＷＴＯ（世界貿易組織）與ＡＰＥＣ（亞太經合會），勉強加一個我國尚未加入、美國力推中的ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋經濟夥伴協定）。ＡＰＥＣ猶是鬆散的對話聯誼組織，在此可略而不談。ＴＰＰ則雖然有美國力推，馬、蔡兩位候選人也都說要爭取加入，但實際情況則是ＴＰＰ是美國用以牽制大陸在亞洲經濟影響力的利器，前景未定，且註定是中、美兩大經濟體角力的場合，台灣要在其中「主導議題」，幾無可能。在此，我們還是看看ＷＴＯ的情況吧。
ＷＴＯ進行中的多邊談判─杜哈回合，從二○○一年十一月開始，至今冉冉十年過去，仍無結果。這十年間，曾有兩次談判中止，原訂二○○五年一月完成談判的最後期限也一延再延、終而不知何年可終止。今年六月，杜哈回合只好改以選擇分階段完成的妥協方案；但ＷＴＯ祕書長拉米也說，只有全部議題達成協議才算成功。
相較於烏拉圭回合談判順利完成，杜哈回合談判有其外在環境變化產生的困難。烏拉圭回合談判時，主要由少數幾個發達國家成員主導談判，其餘國家都是追隨者。但杜哈回合中，新興國家的力量日益壯大，讓決策過程變更複雜、更困難。其中農業與非農產品市場准入更是成員分歧最大之處，幾乎陷入無解困境。拉米就以「三角死結」形容談判僵局。原訂要在二○一一年底達成協議，結果還是要再延期。
擺在眼前的事實是，由於杜哈回合談判停滯難前，各國紛紛改採雙邊與區域性的貿易協定談判─即各類型的自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）為主。到今年為止，全球的ＦＴＡ已經有三百個之多了，而且還在持續增加中。看看南韓與歐盟、印度、美國等重要國家的ＦＴＡ紛紛上路，還有大陸與東協之間的「東亞自由貿易區」成型，隨後又啟動加上日本、韓國的「東協加三」，蔡英文獨鍾的多邊組織談判，卻毫無進展、全面停滯。蔡英文開出這帖昧於時勢的經濟藥方，豈不陷台灣於絕境？
蔡英文不僅昧於全球雙邊與區域談判的時勢，更完全昧於國際現實。坦白說，即使在多邊組織談判中，大家都知道，只有「大咖」才有下場玩的資格，永遠是主要大國在主導議題、談判角力，其它小國只有追隨附和的份。未來多邊組織中的要角，必然是歐美先進國家、及新興的金磚四國與其它經濟規模與國際影響力較大的國家，才是上場表演的主力。這些國家的經濟規模至少在一兆美元以上，經濟規模四千多億的台灣何德何能、能在多邊組織談判中主導議題？過去幾十年，台灣何時曾在多邊組織中主導議題過？
民進黨執政八年中、或是蔡英文任行政院副院長的一年半中，台灣在多邊組織談判中，發揮過什麼「主導議題」的角色？台灣的經濟實力與國際影響力，難道在這幾年中突飛猛進，有資格成為國際合縱連橫場上的「大咖」，所以能「主導議題」了？蔡英文承諾的「我們會在多邊組織裡主導議題，創造台灣的空間。」到底是不明世事、過於天真，還是說說用來騙外行人與一般民眾？蔡英文或許有此夢想，但台灣的經濟前景不能建立在她個人不切實際、完全不可能達到的夢想上。想以多邊組織談判取代雙邊與區域談判，最後可能讓台灣經濟更形邊緣、孤立化。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen boasts that "We will set the agenda within multilateral organizations. We will increase Taipei's space on the international stage." Is the ignorant? Is she naive? Or is she merely attempting to deceive outsiders and the general public? Tsai Ing-wen may have a dream. But Taiwan's economic future cannot be built on her personal, impracticable, unrealizable pipe dreams. She wants multilateral negotiations to replace bilateral and regional negotiations. In the end however, she will merely increase Taiwan's economic marginalization and isolation.
Full Text Below:
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen has issued numerous public statements during the recent presidential debates and policy presentations. Her ideas for Taiwan's economic future all call for organizing a negotiating team to "set the agenda" during negotiations within multilateral organizations. Is this a realistic solution? Is it practicable? Can it actually be implemented? Or is it all flash and no substance? Is it mere self-aggrandizement and self-deception? Will it put Taiwan's economy in grave danger?
Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly stressed the importance of multilateral organizations. Her goal is to get rid of the KMT created bilateral framework known as ECFA. When Ma and Tsai debated ECFA last year. Tsai Ing-wen harped on the importance of negotiations within multilateral organizations. She sternly rebuked Ma Ying-jeou. She said her scenario could be achieved during the WTO Doha Development Round negotiations. Her boast was of course nonsense. During the recent policy presentations, she once again vowed, "We will organize a strong negotiating team. The government will take the lead. It will work together with industry. We will strike in the international arena. We will set the agenda with multilateral organizations. We will increase Taiwan's international breathing space." She unquestionably has thing for negotiations within multilateral organizations.
Unfortunately, the global trend is running counter to Tsai Ing-wen's Goldilocks scenario. A number of multilateral economic and trade organizations have relations with us. The most important of course are the WTO (World Trade Organization) and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). We have yet to become members. The United States is promoting the TPP (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement). APEC remains a loose networking organization, irrelevant to our current discussion. The United States is promoting the TPP. Both Ma and Tsai say they intend to seek membership. But the TPP is an economic tool of Washington, designed to contain Beijing's influence in Asia. Its prospects remain uncertain. It is bound to become an arena in which the two giants, Beijing and Washington, jockey with each other for economic influence. Taipei cannot possibly hope to "set the agenda" here.
The WTO Doha Development Round of multilateral negotiations are still ongoing. They began in November 2001. Progress over the past decade has been slow. Results have been inconclusive. Over the past decade, negotiations were suspended twice. Negotiations were originally supposed to conclude in January 2005. But the deadline has been extended several times. No one knows when the talks will adjourn. In June this year, the Doha Development Round was changed. A compromise was reached. The rounds would be completed in phases. But WTO Secretary General Pascal Lamy says that only when agreement is reached on all issues will the talks be considered a success.
Compared this against the successful completion of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The Doha Development Round negotiations have encountered difficulties caused by external factors. The Uruguay Round negotiations were led by a small number of developed nations. The rest were mere followers. The Doha Development Round negotiations meanwhile, are subject to the growing strength of emerging countries. This has made already complex decision-making processes even more difficult. Agricultural and non agricultural market access are among the most divisive issues. The problems appear insoluble. Lamy described the impasse in negotiations as a Gordian Knot. An agreement was originally expected by the end of 2011. But this has once again been postponed.
The inescapable fact is that the Doha Development Round negotiations have stalled. Governments have switched to bilateral and regional trade agreements, and to various free-trade agreements (FTAs). As of this year, over 300 FTAs have been signed the world over, and the number continues to increase. South Korea and the European Union, India, the United States and other important countries have all signed FTAs. The Chinese Mainland and ASEAN's "East Asia Free Trade Area" has taken shape. It is being followed by Japan and South Korea's "ASEAN plus three." Tsai Ing-wen is enamored with negotiations within multilateral organizations. But such negotiations have made no progress. They have stalled across the board. Tsai Ing-wen's economic prescription reveals her utter ignorance of the strategic picture. If implemented, her economic prescription would leave Taiwan in dire straits.
Tsai Ing-wen is not merely ignorant about bilateral and regional negotiations around the globe. She is oblivious to the harsh international reality. Negotiations in multilateral organizations, as we all know, are conducted by the Big Guns. The major items on the agenda are always set by the major players. During such talks, the smaller countries can only nod in agreement. In future negotiations within multilateral organizations, the advanced nations of Europe and America will inevitably take the lead, along with the emerging BRIC economies and other countries with international influence. They will be the stars of the show. These countries have at least a trillion dollars or more in assets. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an economy valued at $400 billion. By what stretch of the imagination can it "set the agenda" during negotiations within multilateral organizations? When has Taipei ever set the agenda during negotiations within multilateral organizations over the past several decades?
The DPP was in power for eight years. Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier for a year and a half. During that time, Taipei participated in negotiations within multilateral organizations. When did it ever "set the agenda?" Are we to understand that Taiwan's economic strength and international influence has suddenly grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. Are we to understand that Taipei is now one of the Big Guns in the international arena, one able to "set the agenda?" Tsai Ing-wen boasts that "We will set the agenda within multilateral organizations. We will increase Taiwan's space on the international stage." Is the ignorant? Is she naive? Or is she merely attempting to deceive outsiders and the general public? Tsai Ing-wen may have a dream. But Taiwan's economic future cannot be built on her personal, impracticable, unrealizable pipe dreams. She wants multilateral negotiations to replace bilateral and regional negotiations. In the end however, she will merely increase Taiwan's economic marginalization and isolation.
台灣經濟前景不能建立在夢想上
2012-01-05中國時報
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文在多次公開發言中─包括辯論會與政見發表會上，對其未來的經濟主張，都曾提出要組織談判團，在多邊組織中「主導議題」。這到底是一個好藥方、可務實推動執行；還是一個華而不實、甚至自我膨脹、自我欺騙，反而置台灣經濟於險地的政策？
蔡英文所以再三強調多邊組織的重要，目的是破除國民黨主導的雙邊架構的ＥＣＦＡ。馬、蔡前年在ＥＣＦＡ辯論時，蔡英文就不斷強調多邊談判的重要，當時她更很權威的提醒馬英九，說當年ＷＴＯ的杜哈回合談判就可望成功─當然事實非如此。這次政見發表會時，她也再次提出「我們將會組織強而有力的談判團隊，由政府帶頭，跟企業一起打拚，在國際上衝鋒陷陣；我們會在多邊組織裡主導議題，創造台灣的空間。」她對多邊組織談判的確是情有獨鍾。
遺憾的是世界的趨勢顯然不是蔡英文腦中的圖像。在與我國有關的多邊經貿組織中，最重要的當然是ＷＴＯ（世界貿易組織）與ＡＰＥＣ（亞太經合會），勉強加一個我國尚未加入、美國力推中的ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋經濟夥伴協定）。ＡＰＥＣ猶是鬆散的對話聯誼組織，在此可略而不談。ＴＰＰ則雖然有美國力推，馬、蔡兩位候選人也都說要爭取加入，但實際情況則是ＴＰＰ是美國用以牽制大陸在亞洲經濟影響力的利器，前景未定，且註定是中、美兩大經濟體角力的場合，台灣要在其中「主導議題」，幾無可能。在此，我們還是看看ＷＴＯ的情況吧。
ＷＴＯ進行中的多邊談判─杜哈回合，從二○○一年十一月開始，至今冉冉十年過去，仍無結果。這十年間，曾有兩次談判中止，原訂二○○五年一月完成談判的最後期限也一延再延、終而不知何年可終止。今年六月，杜哈回合只好改以選擇分階段完成的妥協方案；但ＷＴＯ祕書長拉米也說，只有全部議題達成協議才算成功。
相較於烏拉圭回合談判順利完成，杜哈回合談判有其外在環境變化產生的困難。烏拉圭回合談判時，主要由少數幾個發達國家成員主導談判，其餘國家都是追隨者。但杜哈回合中，新興國家的力量日益壯大，讓決策過程變更複雜、更困難。其中農業與非農產品市場准入更是成員分歧最大之處，幾乎陷入無解困境。拉米就以「三角死結」形容談判僵局。原訂要在二○一一年底達成協議，結果還是要再延期。
擺在眼前的事實是，由於杜哈回合談判停滯難前，各國紛紛改採雙邊與區域性的貿易協定談判─即各類型的自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）為主。到今年為止，全球的ＦＴＡ已經有三百個之多了，而且還在持續增加中。看看南韓與歐盟、印度、美國等重要國家的ＦＴＡ紛紛上路，還有大陸與東協之間的「東亞自由貿易區」成型，隨後又啟動加上日本、韓國的「東協加三」，蔡英文獨鍾的多邊組織談判，卻毫無進展、全面停滯。蔡英文開出這帖昧於時勢的經濟藥方，豈不陷台灣於絕境？
蔡英文不僅昧於全球雙邊與區域談判的時勢，更完全昧於國際現實。坦白說，即使在多邊組織談判中，大家都知道，只有「大咖」才有下場玩的資格，永遠是主要大國在主導議題、談判角力，其它小國只有追隨附和的份。未來多邊組織中的要角，必然是歐美先進國家、及新興的金磚四國與其它經濟規模與國際影響力較大的國家，才是上場表演的主力。這些國家的經濟規模至少在一兆美元以上，經濟規模四千多億的台灣何德何能、能在多邊組織談判中主導議題？過去幾十年，台灣何時曾在多邊組織中主導議題過？
民進黨執政八年中、或是蔡英文任行政院副院長的一年半中，台灣在多邊組織談判中，發揮過什麼「主導議題」的角色？台灣的經濟實力與國際影響力，難道在這幾年中突飛猛進，有資格成為國際合縱連橫場上的「大咖」，所以能「主導議題」了？蔡英文承諾的「我們會在多邊組織裡主導議題，創造台灣的空間。」到底是不明世事、過於天真，還是說說用來騙外行人與一般民眾？蔡英文或許有此夢想，但台灣的經濟前景不能建立在她個人不切實際、完全不可能達到的夢想上。想以多邊組織談判取代雙邊與區域談判，最後可能讓台灣經濟更形邊緣、孤立化。
Is Tsai Ing-wen "People with Money?" Is Chang Rong-fa "People of Taiwan?"
Is Tsai Ing-wen "People with Money?" Is Chang Rong-fa "People of Taiwan?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 4, 2011
Summary: After a number of business leaders openly endorsed Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen said: The people behind President Ma are all "people with money." The people behind Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, are "the people of Taiwan." Tsai was attempting to incite both "ethnic" conflict and class conflict. She was attempting to set "people with money" and "people without money" at each other's throats. She was attempting to set "the people of Taiwan" and "people not of Taiwan" at each others' throats.
Full Text Below:
After a number of business leaders openly endorsed Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen said: The people behind President Ma are all "people with money." The people behind Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, are "the people of Taiwan."
Tsai was attempting to incite both "ethnic" conflict and class conflict. She was attempting to set "people with money" and "people without money" at each other's throats. She was attempting to set "the people of Taiwan" and "people not of Taiwan" at each others' throats. Tsai even racheted up her demagoguery. Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric was a case of "two for the price of one." She insinuated that "people with money" are not "people of Taiwan." She insinuated that "the people of Taiwan" are "people without money." She insinuateed that "people with money" only know how to curry favor with the president, and are indifferent to "people without money."
Tsai Ing-wen's demagoguery reminds us of her very first tv ad: "I am Tsai Ing-wen, I am Taiwanese!" That was the opening shot in a campaign to demagogue "ethnic" identity. Now Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is "two for the price of one." The public however would like to ask Tsai Ing-wen a question: Are you yourself "people with money," or "people without money?"
Tsai Ing-wen is the pampered princess of a wealthy family. Of course she is "people with money." Of course she is "Taiwanese." Therefore Tsai Ing-wen herself has shown that "Taiwanese" can also be "people with money." How many "people with money" on Taiwan, are "not people of Taiwan?" Why is Tsai Ing-wen stooping to such sleazy rhetoric? Why is she pitting those "people with money" who support Ma Ying-jeou's political and economic views against "Taiwanese?"
Given Tsai Ing-wen's "two for the price of one" rhetoric, we may wish to examine the long-standing relationship between political leaders and business tycoons. Chiang Ching-kuo dedicated his life to establishing a framework within which free enterprise could thrive. But he scrupulously avoided cultivating personal relationships with business leaders. Under Lee Teng-hui, all that changed. Lee was very chummy indeed with business people. Evergreen's Chang Rong-fa, Chi Mei's Hsu Wen-lung, and Yi Mei's Kao Chi-shang all publicly supported Lee. By the time Chen Shui-bian came to power, wealthy businessmen were driving up to Chen Shui-bian's Official Residence and delivering up cardboard boxes stuffed with cash. Under Ma Ying-jeou, the relationship between government officials and business leaders reverted to the way it was under Chiang Ching-kuo. Ma srcupulously avoided private contacts with business people. He became even warier of such contacts after taking flak for dining with Fubon Bank officials.
Ma's interaction with business leaders is limited to shared political and economic convictions regarding how to bolster the nation's economy. Ma's interaction with business leaders is as different from Chen Shui-bian's as night and day. Just listen to the entrepreneurs who have endorsed Ma Ying-jeou. They all offer the same reason for endorsing Ma: he is squeaky clean. The entrepreneurs who supported Chen Shui-bian and the DPP could never say that about their candidate.
Tsai Ing-wen says the people behind President Ma are all "people with money." Her implication is that the Ma administration is guilty of government business collusion. This accusation is unfair, not just to Ma Ying-jeou, but to the entrepreneurs Tsai has contemptuously labeled "ma you you" (a play on the name of famed cellist Yo-Yo Ma, meaning "friends of Ma"). Did they endorse Ma out of greed? Are they seeking backroom deals? Or did they endorse Ma simply because they fear for Taiwan and its people? The public knows they are far more concerned about saving Taiwan than they are about backing Ma Ying-jeou. Does Tsai Ing-wen really have no qualms about pitting "people with money" against "the people of Taiwan?"
When it comes to relations between government officials and business leaders, Ma Ying-jeou is the cleanest, most honest president since the lifting of martial law. He has virtually no private contacts with business leaders. This year is the first time since direct presidential elections were instituted that industry and business leaders have endorsed candidates so openly. Their shared motive for endorsing Ma is summed up in the newspaper ad posted by Ruentex Industries chief Yin Yan-liang: "Taiwan needs an open and stable policy environment. Taiwan can not afford stagnation and uncertainty in cross-Strait relations."
Evergreen's Chang Rong-fa was once a generous benefactor to Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. This is common knowledge. But Chang Rong-fa now says "Ma Ying-jeou has his shortcomings. But he is a leader with personal integrity who can be trusted." Such views cannot be dismissed as merely the views of "people with money." Such views reflect the views of "the people of Taiwan."
Every society has a pyramidal rich to poor hierarchy. Large corporations boast tens of thousands of employees. SMEs proliferate in the middle and lower reaches of the production chain. Any disturbance can easily increase or decrease GDP growth one to two percent. These employees, who number in the millions, are breadwinners for entire families. These business leaders are not merely seeking conditions favorable for themselves. They also speak for pineapple cake and night market vendors. Tsai Ing-wen has demonized these "people with money." She has depicted them as enemies of "the people of Taiwan." She has depicted them as enemies of "people without money."
Tsai Chieh-sheng, Tsai Ing-wen's father, started out as an auto repairman. He is a perfect example of how "people without money" in the Republic of China became "people with money" over the past 60 years. He is a perfect example of how Tsai Ing-wen became a "Taiwanese person with money." Why is Tsai classifying "people with money" who do not share her political and economic views as "not Taiwanese?" After all, Ma Ying-jeou is a presidential candidate who enjoys the support of approximately half the electorate. The vast majority of his supporters are not "people with money." Tsai Ing-wen cannot characterize any of them as "not Taiwanese."
It is normal for people to hold different political and economic views in a democratic society. But it is not normal to stoop to sleazy demagoguery. It is not normal to incite "ethnic" and class hatred. Tsai Ing-wen is "people with money." She is also "Taiwanese." But isn't Chang Rong-fa? Isn't Wang Wen-yuan? Isn't Yan Kai-tai? Aren't Bruce Cheng and Terry Gou?
Tsai Ing-wen, if you are elected president, which of these "people with money" will you denounce as "not Taiwanese?"
蔡英文是否有錢人？張榮發是否台灣人？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.01.04
多名企業領袖相繼公開挺馬之後，蔡英文說：站在馬總統後面的都是有錢人，站在我蔡英文後面的是台灣人。
這是極不入流的族群及階級操作。階級操作，是把「有錢人」和「無錢人」對立起來；族群操作則是將「台灣人」與「非台灣人」對立起來。變本加厲的是，在蔡英文的此次「雙料操作」中，她要暗示的是：「有錢人」不是「台灣人」，「台灣人」都是「無錢人」；「有錢人」只會巴結總統，不知顧惜台灣的「無錢人」。
這樣的操作，令人想起了蔡英文的首支電視廣告說：「我是蔡英文，我是台灣人！」這是族群操作的起身砲；然而，如今又見蔡英文的「雙料操作」，國人可不可以問：蔡英文，妳是有錢人，還是無錢人？
蔡英文是富家千金，當然是有錢人；但蔡英文也當然是台灣人。由此可見，至少在蔡英文這個例子上，「台灣人」也可以是「有錢人」，而「有錢人」又誰不是「台灣人」？然而，為何蔡英文竟要如此不入流地將支持馬英九政經觀點的「有錢人」，與所謂的「台灣人」對立起來？
從蔡英文的「雙料操作」，不妨檢視歷來政治領袖與企業鉅子的關係。蔣經國一生為企業創造經營環境，但他與企業領袖幾無私交；李登輝與企業人物的往來密切，長榮張榮發、奇美許文龍、義美高志尚等皆曾公開力挺；至陳水扁時代，富商巨賈更是裝滿整車整箱的現鈔絡繹不絕地運往玉山官邸。到了馬英九，則從未聞他和企業人士的私密接觸；與富邦吃了幾餐飯被叮到滿頭包後，他更是高壘深溝，避之若浼。
大體而言，馬與企業領袖的互動，皆因政經觀點相同而相互拉抬國家經濟大局，此與陳水扁時代的政商勾結、狗苟蠅營，大相逕庭；只要看每一位出面力挺馬英九的企業家，第一個理由就指馬「清廉」，這就是當年挺扁挺民進黨的企業家絕對說不出口的理由。
蔡英文指馬英九背後站的都是有錢人，不外就是在暗示官商勾結、狗苟蠅營那回事。但這種說法，非但對馬英九不公平，也是對那些她口中的「馬友友」企業家的人格汙辱，難道他們挺馬，是因貪求私相授受，而不是為了台灣經濟全局與國家前途而為全民請命？任人皆知，他們救台灣的用心其實比挺馬更殷切，蔡英文何忍將這些「有錢人」與「台灣人」對立起來？
馬英九可謂是戒嚴後與企業領袖關係最清白廉潔的總統，彼此大多無私交密往；但今年卻也是歷屆總統直選中，工商領袖公開表態最踴躍的一次，他們共同的理由大致如潤泰尹衍樑在報上登的挺馬廣告所說：「台灣需要一個開放穩定的政策環境，……台灣不能再承受兩岸關係的停滯與不確定。」
例如，長榮張榮發過去挺李、挺扁是人所共知的；但如今張榮發卻說：「馬英九難免有缺點，卻是人格可信任的領導人。」這樣的觀點不能只視之為「有錢人」的觀點，自然也是反映了「台灣人」的信念。
當然，就經濟面看，任何社會皆呈貧富差異的金字塔狀；但現今每一個大企業，動輒均有數萬員工，中下游的中小企業更是瓜瓞綿延，動輒可牽動零點幾至一、二個ＧＤＰ的消長；而這些數以百萬計的員工，每一位都是一個家庭的經濟支撐；何況，這些企業領袖，不止為工商業力爭良好的政策環境，他們也為賣鳳梨酥者及六合夜市的攤商發言。這類的「有錢人」卻被蔡英文操作成與「台灣人」及「無錢人」站在對立面。
蔡英文的父親蔡潔生，是從修車工人起家，見證了中華民國六十餘年來「有錢人」與「無錢人」的流變；因而，蔡英文自己今天成了「有錢的台灣人」，卻何必將所有只因與其政經政見相左的其他「有錢人」打成「非台灣人」；何況，馬英九至少亦是擁有約半數選票支持的總統候選人，那些挺馬者絕大多數皆不是「有錢人」，但沒有一個可以被蔡英文斥以「不是台灣人」。
政經見解不同，是民主社會的常態，但不可玩弄成不入流的族群操作及階級操作。蔡英文是有錢人，也同時是台灣人；但難道張榮發不是？王文淵不是？嚴凱泰不是？鄭崇華、郭台銘不是？
請問蔡英文：若當選總統，妳能把這些「有錢人」哪一個不當成「台灣人」？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 4, 2011
Summary: After a number of business leaders openly endorsed Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen said: The people behind President Ma are all "people with money." The people behind Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, are "the people of Taiwan." Tsai was attempting to incite both "ethnic" conflict and class conflict. She was attempting to set "people with money" and "people without money" at each other's throats. She was attempting to set "the people of Taiwan" and "people not of Taiwan" at each others' throats.
Full Text Below:
After a number of business leaders openly endorsed Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen said: The people behind President Ma are all "people with money." The people behind Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, are "the people of Taiwan."
Tsai was attempting to incite both "ethnic" conflict and class conflict. She was attempting to set "people with money" and "people without money" at each other's throats. She was attempting to set "the people of Taiwan" and "people not of Taiwan" at each others' throats. Tsai even racheted up her demagoguery. Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric was a case of "two for the price of one." She insinuated that "people with money" are not "people of Taiwan." She insinuated that "the people of Taiwan" are "people without money." She insinuateed that "people with money" only know how to curry favor with the president, and are indifferent to "people without money."
Tsai Ing-wen's demagoguery reminds us of her very first tv ad: "I am Tsai Ing-wen, I am Taiwanese!" That was the opening shot in a campaign to demagogue "ethnic" identity. Now Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is "two for the price of one." The public however would like to ask Tsai Ing-wen a question: Are you yourself "people with money," or "people without money?"
Tsai Ing-wen is the pampered princess of a wealthy family. Of course she is "people with money." Of course she is "Taiwanese." Therefore Tsai Ing-wen herself has shown that "Taiwanese" can also be "people with money." How many "people with money" on Taiwan, are "not people of Taiwan?" Why is Tsai Ing-wen stooping to such sleazy rhetoric? Why is she pitting those "people with money" who support Ma Ying-jeou's political and economic views against "Taiwanese?"
Given Tsai Ing-wen's "two for the price of one" rhetoric, we may wish to examine the long-standing relationship between political leaders and business tycoons. Chiang Ching-kuo dedicated his life to establishing a framework within which free enterprise could thrive. But he scrupulously avoided cultivating personal relationships with business leaders. Under Lee Teng-hui, all that changed. Lee was very chummy indeed with business people. Evergreen's Chang Rong-fa, Chi Mei's Hsu Wen-lung, and Yi Mei's Kao Chi-shang all publicly supported Lee. By the time Chen Shui-bian came to power, wealthy businessmen were driving up to Chen Shui-bian's Official Residence and delivering up cardboard boxes stuffed with cash. Under Ma Ying-jeou, the relationship between government officials and business leaders reverted to the way it was under Chiang Ching-kuo. Ma srcupulously avoided private contacts with business people. He became even warier of such contacts after taking flak for dining with Fubon Bank officials.
Ma's interaction with business leaders is limited to shared political and economic convictions regarding how to bolster the nation's economy. Ma's interaction with business leaders is as different from Chen Shui-bian's as night and day. Just listen to the entrepreneurs who have endorsed Ma Ying-jeou. They all offer the same reason for endorsing Ma: he is squeaky clean. The entrepreneurs who supported Chen Shui-bian and the DPP could never say that about their candidate.
Tsai Ing-wen says the people behind President Ma are all "people with money." Her implication is that the Ma administration is guilty of government business collusion. This accusation is unfair, not just to Ma Ying-jeou, but to the entrepreneurs Tsai has contemptuously labeled "ma you you" (a play on the name of famed cellist Yo-Yo Ma, meaning "friends of Ma"). Did they endorse Ma out of greed? Are they seeking backroom deals? Or did they endorse Ma simply because they fear for Taiwan and its people? The public knows they are far more concerned about saving Taiwan than they are about backing Ma Ying-jeou. Does Tsai Ing-wen really have no qualms about pitting "people with money" against "the people of Taiwan?"
When it comes to relations between government officials and business leaders, Ma Ying-jeou is the cleanest, most honest president since the lifting of martial law. He has virtually no private contacts with business leaders. This year is the first time since direct presidential elections were instituted that industry and business leaders have endorsed candidates so openly. Their shared motive for endorsing Ma is summed up in the newspaper ad posted by Ruentex Industries chief Yin Yan-liang: "Taiwan needs an open and stable policy environment. Taiwan can not afford stagnation and uncertainty in cross-Strait relations."
Evergreen's Chang Rong-fa was once a generous benefactor to Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. This is common knowledge. But Chang Rong-fa now says "Ma Ying-jeou has his shortcomings. But he is a leader with personal integrity who can be trusted." Such views cannot be dismissed as merely the views of "people with money." Such views reflect the views of "the people of Taiwan."
Every society has a pyramidal rich to poor hierarchy. Large corporations boast tens of thousands of employees. SMEs proliferate in the middle and lower reaches of the production chain. Any disturbance can easily increase or decrease GDP growth one to two percent. These employees, who number in the millions, are breadwinners for entire families. These business leaders are not merely seeking conditions favorable for themselves. They also speak for pineapple cake and night market vendors. Tsai Ing-wen has demonized these "people with money." She has depicted them as enemies of "the people of Taiwan." She has depicted them as enemies of "people without money."
Tsai Chieh-sheng, Tsai Ing-wen's father, started out as an auto repairman. He is a perfect example of how "people without money" in the Republic of China became "people with money" over the past 60 years. He is a perfect example of how Tsai Ing-wen became a "Taiwanese person with money." Why is Tsai classifying "people with money" who do not share her political and economic views as "not Taiwanese?" After all, Ma Ying-jeou is a presidential candidate who enjoys the support of approximately half the electorate. The vast majority of his supporters are not "people with money." Tsai Ing-wen cannot characterize any of them as "not Taiwanese."
It is normal for people to hold different political and economic views in a democratic society. But it is not normal to stoop to sleazy demagoguery. It is not normal to incite "ethnic" and class hatred. Tsai Ing-wen is "people with money." She is also "Taiwanese." But isn't Chang Rong-fa? Isn't Wang Wen-yuan? Isn't Yan Kai-tai? Aren't Bruce Cheng and Terry Gou?
Tsai Ing-wen, if you are elected president, which of these "people with money" will you denounce as "not Taiwanese?"
蔡英文是否有錢人？張榮發是否台灣人？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.01.04
多名企業領袖相繼公開挺馬之後，蔡英文說：站在馬總統後面的都是有錢人，站在我蔡英文後面的是台灣人。
這是極不入流的族群及階級操作。階級操作，是把「有錢人」和「無錢人」對立起來；族群操作則是將「台灣人」與「非台灣人」對立起來。變本加厲的是，在蔡英文的此次「雙料操作」中，她要暗示的是：「有錢人」不是「台灣人」，「台灣人」都是「無錢人」；「有錢人」只會巴結總統，不知顧惜台灣的「無錢人」。
這樣的操作，令人想起了蔡英文的首支電視廣告說：「我是蔡英文，我是台灣人！」這是族群操作的起身砲；然而，如今又見蔡英文的「雙料操作」，國人可不可以問：蔡英文，妳是有錢人，還是無錢人？
蔡英文是富家千金，當然是有錢人；但蔡英文也當然是台灣人。由此可見，至少在蔡英文這個例子上，「台灣人」也可以是「有錢人」，而「有錢人」又誰不是「台灣人」？然而，為何蔡英文竟要如此不入流地將支持馬英九政經觀點的「有錢人」，與所謂的「台灣人」對立起來？
從蔡英文的「雙料操作」，不妨檢視歷來政治領袖與企業鉅子的關係。蔣經國一生為企業創造經營環境，但他與企業領袖幾無私交；李登輝與企業人物的往來密切，長榮張榮發、奇美許文龍、義美高志尚等皆曾公開力挺；至陳水扁時代，富商巨賈更是裝滿整車整箱的現鈔絡繹不絕地運往玉山官邸。到了馬英九，則從未聞他和企業人士的私密接觸；與富邦吃了幾餐飯被叮到滿頭包後，他更是高壘深溝，避之若浼。
大體而言，馬與企業領袖的互動，皆因政經觀點相同而相互拉抬國家經濟大局，此與陳水扁時代的政商勾結、狗苟蠅營，大相逕庭；只要看每一位出面力挺馬英九的企業家，第一個理由就指馬「清廉」，這就是當年挺扁挺民進黨的企業家絕對說不出口的理由。
蔡英文指馬英九背後站的都是有錢人，不外就是在暗示官商勾結、狗苟蠅營那回事。但這種說法，非但對馬英九不公平，也是對那些她口中的「馬友友」企業家的人格汙辱，難道他們挺馬，是因貪求私相授受，而不是為了台灣經濟全局與國家前途而為全民請命？任人皆知，他們救台灣的用心其實比挺馬更殷切，蔡英文何忍將這些「有錢人」與「台灣人」對立起來？
馬英九可謂是戒嚴後與企業領袖關係最清白廉潔的總統，彼此大多無私交密往；但今年卻也是歷屆總統直選中，工商領袖公開表態最踴躍的一次，他們共同的理由大致如潤泰尹衍樑在報上登的挺馬廣告所說：「台灣需要一個開放穩定的政策環境，……台灣不能再承受兩岸關係的停滯與不確定。」
例如，長榮張榮發過去挺李、挺扁是人所共知的；但如今張榮發卻說：「馬英九難免有缺點，卻是人格可信任的領導人。」這樣的觀點不能只視之為「有錢人」的觀點，自然也是反映了「台灣人」的信念。
當然，就經濟面看，任何社會皆呈貧富差異的金字塔狀；但現今每一個大企業，動輒均有數萬員工，中下游的中小企業更是瓜瓞綿延，動輒可牽動零點幾至一、二個ＧＤＰ的消長；而這些數以百萬計的員工，每一位都是一個家庭的經濟支撐；何況，這些企業領袖，不止為工商業力爭良好的政策環境，他們也為賣鳳梨酥者及六合夜市的攤商發言。這類的「有錢人」卻被蔡英文操作成與「台灣人」及「無錢人」站在對立面。
蔡英文的父親蔡潔生，是從修車工人起家，見證了中華民國六十餘年來「有錢人」與「無錢人」的流變；因而，蔡英文自己今天成了「有錢的台灣人」，卻何必將所有只因與其政經政見相左的其他「有錢人」打成「非台灣人」；何況，馬英九至少亦是擁有約半數選票支持的總統候選人，那些挺馬者絕大多數皆不是「有錢人」，但沒有一個可以被蔡英文斥以「不是台灣人」。
政經見解不同，是民主社會的常態，但不可玩弄成不入流的族群操作及階級操作。蔡英文是有錢人，也同時是台灣人；但難道張榮發不是？王文淵不是？嚴凱泰不是？鄭崇華、郭台銘不是？
請問蔡英文：若當選總統，妳能把這些「有錢人」哪一個不當成「台灣人」？
Monday, January 2, 2012
Democracy's Lament: The Theory that Policy Achievements are Useless
Democracy's Lament: The Theory that Policy Achievements are Useless
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 3, 2011
Summary: Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are in a tug of war. Observers are puzzled. They are trying to understand voter sentiment by examining the candidates' character, the accuracy of the polls, the voters' political coloration, and the rival political parties' campaign strategies. One of the most peculiar explanations for voter sentiment is Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu's "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory," which concludes that voters really do not care about the candidate's record of policy achievements.
Full Text Below:
Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are in a tug of war. Observers are puzzled. They are trying to understand voter sentiment by examining the candidates' character, the accuracy of the polls, the voters' political coloration, and the rival political parties' campaign strategies. One of the most peculiar explanations for voter sentiment is Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu's "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory," which concludes that voters really do not care about the candidate's record of policy achievements.
Jason Hu's theory is based on his own experience as mayor last year, and on Ma Ying-jeou's lack of momentum this year. These led him to his current "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory." He says elections today are perverse, Voters turn a blind eye to performance. In the past, if a candidate's past performance was good, he stood a good chance of being reelected. But voters today are "unmoved" by a candidate's policy achievements. Consider Ma and Tsai for example. One of them has a glowing record of policy achievements. The other has absolutely nothing to show for her years in office. Yet a majority of the voters perceive "no difference" between the two.
Hu's interpretation, his personal experience, and his subjective judgments, are not necessarily accurate. But judging by the current campaign, this "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" contains more than a kernel of truth. No matter how much President Ma does, no matter how his administration's policy path has benefited Taiwan, many voters simply do not care. In other words, amidst Blue vs. Green political rivalry, party loyalty far outweighs concern for policy achievements. An infamous Green Camp expression, "Even though our bellies may be empty, we still intend to vote for Ah-Bian" is the best evidence of this. The Chen family corruption scandals had absolutely no impact on voters' party loyalties. Swing voters meanwhile, became increasingly cynical. This was probably the biggest change for Taiwan's democracy.
Leave aside the question of whether Ma Ying-jeou or Tsai Ing-wen is more likely to win the election for the moment. If the "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" is true, then what voters care about is not the candidate's performance or integrity. If true, what is the point of democracy on Taiwan? What is its purpose? What is its significance?
Leave aside the validity of the "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" for the moment. Ma Ying-jeou has the power of the incumbency. Yet he continues to fight an uphill battle. This amounts to a wake-up call. Ma Ying-jeou has governed for the past three years. He has been harshly criticized not for his policy decisions, but for being "too wimpy," and for excessive concern for details at the expense of the Big Picture. On the one hand, this has not won him any fans in the Green Camp. On the other hand, this has lost him fans in the Blue Camp. Ma Ying-jeou earnestly aspires to be a "president for all the people." But his efforts have been for naught. Blue vs. Green polarization on Taiwan has not softened as a result of his moderate temperament. On the contrary, it has led to cease identifying with him. This is something he must consider.
Consider Ma's performance. President Ma promoted cross-Strait peace and negotiations. He enabled the ROC to avoid domestic struggle and provided it with international breathing room. He has obtained visa free treatment for ROC citizens in over 100 foreign countries. He promoted justice system reforms, residential tax reform, and even the abolition of tax exemption for military and civil service employees. He ensured stable development during the international financial crisis. These achievements may not warrant the term "brilliant successes." But compare it to the Chen era's Closed Door Policy, to its bull in a china shop diplomacy, to its endless domestic struggles, to its total inability to govern the nation, to its ubiquitous slogans. The Ma administration has at least put the country back on track. How should a normal political party govern? Are the voters "unmoved?" Do they wish to return to internecine struggles, to an endless succession of premiership appointments? Is that what the people consider "vitality?"
That said, a presidential election does not merely elect a national leader. More importantly, the electorate applies its collective intelligence during this political process. This is how the electorate establishes a sounder, more pluralistic society for itself and for the next generation. Democracy on Taiwan has undergone many changes. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Advances are followed by retreats. The road is strewn with tears. The fear is that people will not be able to withstand the heat, and will abandon the kitchen. That they will become cynical and lose heart. That they will conclude it "makes no difference" who wins. That they will conclude "crows the world over are equally black." Such disillusionment, such a loss of voters with minds of their own, is the greatest threat to democracy on Taiwan.
The "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" is not a prediction, It is a curse. If people do not believe in performance, if politicians do not care about performance, then a political process without purpose will lead to nihilism. Democracy will leave behind only sadness. Tsai's policy achievements cannot be compared to Ma's. But let us compare them anyway. Let us compare the Ma administration's four years in office with the Chen administration's eight years in office. Both the quality and quantity offer concrete bases for comparison. The TaiMed biotech subsidies scandal has exposed Tsai Ing-wen's corrupt underbelly. She is no longer tabula rasa. She is no longer a dream candidate. Voters now have a basis by which they can assess the two candidates' character and integrity.
The current election appears calm on the surface. But beneath the surface, lurks frustration with the status quo and anxiety about the future. Will the future be better? The answer will not emerge from the mouths of politicians. Voters must subject the candidates' achievements and character to rigorous scrutiny. Only then can the future be better.
政績無用論：民主的詭異與哀愁
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.03 02:46 am
對於馬英九和蔡英文之間的選情拉鋸，外界都相當好奇，也試圖從人格特質、民調準確度、選民色彩及政黨選戰策略等方面尋找答案。其中最奇特的解讀，莫過於台中市長胡志強提出的「政績無用論」，認為選民根本不在乎政績。
胡志強是根據他自己去年市長選舉及今年馬英九的選情，推出「政績無用」的結論。他說，現在選舉很詭異，選民不看政績；以往候選人政績好，很容易勝出，但現在選民覺得什麼都「無感」。就像馬英九和蔡英文，一個政績如山，一個掛零，但多數選民卻覺得「沒差」。
胡志強的解讀，包含了他個人的經驗和主觀判斷，未必準確；但就選情觀察，這個「政績無用論」作為一種後設推論，卻隱然成立。不管馬總統做了多少事，他領導的團隊走的路線如何有利於台灣，許多選民就是不在乎。亦即，在藍與綠的競爭中，選民對政黨的認同強度遠大過對政績的認知。當年綠營那句名言「肚子扁扁，也要投阿扁」，就是最佳佐證。而歷經扁家貪瀆風暴，兩端選民的政黨偏好基本上沒有改變，中間選民卻變得更憤世嫉俗，這恐怕才是台灣民主的最大變數。
拋開馬英九和蔡英文的當選機率不談，如果政績無用論果真成立，選民要求的不是政績、關心的不是候選人的品格操守，那麼台灣民主追求的是什麼？政治目的和意義又何在？
不論「政績無用論」有幾分真實，對馬英九而言，握有執政優勢、選戰卻仍打得如此艱辛，自是一記當頭棒喝。事實上，執政三年多來，馬英九備受批評的，並非他的決策錯誤，而是他的性格過於溫和、闡述過於瑣碎與決策圈過於狹小；這一方面無助為他爭取到綠色選民的認同，另方面卻讓他流失泛藍的既有支持。馬英九心心念念要成為「全民總統」，結果卻力有未逮，台灣的藍綠對峙並未因為他的溫良恭儉讓而消弭，反而導致認同渙散，這是他應該深自反省之處。
事實上，若論政績，馬總統推動兩岸和平交流協商，他讓台灣在沒有內鬥煙硝中走出國際空間，達到一百多國免簽。他推動司法、住宅改革乃至取消軍公教免稅，並在國際金融危機中極力維持台灣的穩定發展。這些成績，或許稱不上是什麼光輝燦爛的成就；但若比起扁政府時代的鎖國，對外胡亂衝撞、對內惡鬥虛耗，治國無半步、口號卻滿天飛，馬政府至少把國家從脫軌失序狀態帶回正軌。對於一個正常治理的政黨，如果選民覺得「無感」，難道要重回內鬥連天、內閣連年更換的狀態，人民才能感覺到台灣的活力？
話說回來，總統大選不只是要選出一個國家領導人，更重要的是，全體選民從這個政治過程凝鍊更多智慧和理性。那樣，選民才能為自己和下一代打造更健康、多元的社會。回顧台灣的民主，今昔已有很大的變化；但這個進步的過程並非一步到位，而是有進有退、有恨有淚。最怕的是，人們承受不住選戰的腥膻與紛亂，而變得憤世嫉俗或灰心喪志，甚至覺得選誰都「沒差」，天下政治都一般黑。這種失去意志、失去主見的選民，才是台灣民主最大的威脅。
「政績無用論」不是一個預言，卻是一個詛咒：如果人民不相信政績，如果政治人物可以不在乎政績，那麼，失去目的的政治勢必走向虛無，民主將徒留哀愁。馬英九和蔡英文的政績，雖不等量，但仍可拿來比一比；馬政府四年和扁政府八年，在質量上都可提供更具體的比較。而隨著蔡英文治黨及宇昌案內幕的揭露，她已不再是夢幻人選白紙一片；在這個基礎上，馬、蔡兩人的行事風格也值得選民重新估量。
這次大選，表面上看似冷靜，深層卻掩藏著人們對現狀的無奈與對未來的不安。但未來會不會更好，答案不在政治人物的口號中，選民必須嚴格檢驗他們的政績與人格才行！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 3, 2011
Summary: Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are in a tug of war. Observers are puzzled. They are trying to understand voter sentiment by examining the candidates' character, the accuracy of the polls, the voters' political coloration, and the rival political parties' campaign strategies. One of the most peculiar explanations for voter sentiment is Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu's "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory," which concludes that voters really do not care about the candidate's record of policy achievements.
Full Text Below:
Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are in a tug of war. Observers are puzzled. They are trying to understand voter sentiment by examining the candidates' character, the accuracy of the polls, the voters' political coloration, and the rival political parties' campaign strategies. One of the most peculiar explanations for voter sentiment is Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu's "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory," which concludes that voters really do not care about the candidate's record of policy achievements.
Jason Hu's theory is based on his own experience as mayor last year, and on Ma Ying-jeou's lack of momentum this year. These led him to his current "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory." He says elections today are perverse, Voters turn a blind eye to performance. In the past, if a candidate's past performance was good, he stood a good chance of being reelected. But voters today are "unmoved" by a candidate's policy achievements. Consider Ma and Tsai for example. One of them has a glowing record of policy achievements. The other has absolutely nothing to show for her years in office. Yet a majority of the voters perceive "no difference" between the two.
Hu's interpretation, his personal experience, and his subjective judgments, are not necessarily accurate. But judging by the current campaign, this "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" contains more than a kernel of truth. No matter how much President Ma does, no matter how his administration's policy path has benefited Taiwan, many voters simply do not care. In other words, amidst Blue vs. Green political rivalry, party loyalty far outweighs concern for policy achievements. An infamous Green Camp expression, "Even though our bellies may be empty, we still intend to vote for Ah-Bian" is the best evidence of this. The Chen family corruption scandals had absolutely no impact on voters' party loyalties. Swing voters meanwhile, became increasingly cynical. This was probably the biggest change for Taiwan's democracy.
Leave aside the question of whether Ma Ying-jeou or Tsai Ing-wen is more likely to win the election for the moment. If the "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" is true, then what voters care about is not the candidate's performance or integrity. If true, what is the point of democracy on Taiwan? What is its purpose? What is its significance?
Leave aside the validity of the "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" for the moment. Ma Ying-jeou has the power of the incumbency. Yet he continues to fight an uphill battle. This amounts to a wake-up call. Ma Ying-jeou has governed for the past three years. He has been harshly criticized not for his policy decisions, but for being "too wimpy," and for excessive concern for details at the expense of the Big Picture. On the one hand, this has not won him any fans in the Green Camp. On the other hand, this has lost him fans in the Blue Camp. Ma Ying-jeou earnestly aspires to be a "president for all the people." But his efforts have been for naught. Blue vs. Green polarization on Taiwan has not softened as a result of his moderate temperament. On the contrary, it has led to cease identifying with him. This is something he must consider.
Consider Ma's performance. President Ma promoted cross-Strait peace and negotiations. He enabled the ROC to avoid domestic struggle and provided it with international breathing room. He has obtained visa free treatment for ROC citizens in over 100 foreign countries. He promoted justice system reforms, residential tax reform, and even the abolition of tax exemption for military and civil service employees. He ensured stable development during the international financial crisis. These achievements may not warrant the term "brilliant successes." But compare it to the Chen era's Closed Door Policy, to its bull in a china shop diplomacy, to its endless domestic struggles, to its total inability to govern the nation, to its ubiquitous slogans. The Ma administration has at least put the country back on track. How should a normal political party govern? Are the voters "unmoved?" Do they wish to return to internecine struggles, to an endless succession of premiership appointments? Is that what the people consider "vitality?"
That said, a presidential election does not merely elect a national leader. More importantly, the electorate applies its collective intelligence during this political process. This is how the electorate establishes a sounder, more pluralistic society for itself and for the next generation. Democracy on Taiwan has undergone many changes. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Advances are followed by retreats. The road is strewn with tears. The fear is that people will not be able to withstand the heat, and will abandon the kitchen. That they will become cynical and lose heart. That they will conclude it "makes no difference" who wins. That they will conclude "crows the world over are equally black." Such disillusionment, such a loss of voters with minds of their own, is the greatest threat to democracy on Taiwan.
The "Policy Achievements are Useless Theory" is not a prediction, It is a curse. If people do not believe in performance, if politicians do not care about performance, then a political process without purpose will lead to nihilism. Democracy will leave behind only sadness. Tsai's policy achievements cannot be compared to Ma's. But let us compare them anyway. Let us compare the Ma administration's four years in office with the Chen administration's eight years in office. Both the quality and quantity offer concrete bases for comparison. The TaiMed biotech subsidies scandal has exposed Tsai Ing-wen's corrupt underbelly. She is no longer tabula rasa. She is no longer a dream candidate. Voters now have a basis by which they can assess the two candidates' character and integrity.
The current election appears calm on the surface. But beneath the surface, lurks frustration with the status quo and anxiety about the future. Will the future be better? The answer will not emerge from the mouths of politicians. Voters must subject the candidates' achievements and character to rigorous scrutiny. Only then can the future be better.
政績無用論：民主的詭異與哀愁
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.03 02:46 am
對於馬英九和蔡英文之間的選情拉鋸，外界都相當好奇，也試圖從人格特質、民調準確度、選民色彩及政黨選戰策略等方面尋找答案。其中最奇特的解讀，莫過於台中市長胡志強提出的「政績無用論」，認為選民根本不在乎政績。
胡志強是根據他自己去年市長選舉及今年馬英九的選情，推出「政績無用」的結論。他說，現在選舉很詭異，選民不看政績；以往候選人政績好，很容易勝出，但現在選民覺得什麼都「無感」。就像馬英九和蔡英文，一個政績如山，一個掛零，但多數選民卻覺得「沒差」。
胡志強的解讀，包含了他個人的經驗和主觀判斷，未必準確；但就選情觀察，這個「政績無用論」作為一種後設推論，卻隱然成立。不管馬總統做了多少事，他領導的團隊走的路線如何有利於台灣，許多選民就是不在乎。亦即，在藍與綠的競爭中，選民對政黨的認同強度遠大過對政績的認知。當年綠營那句名言「肚子扁扁，也要投阿扁」，就是最佳佐證。而歷經扁家貪瀆風暴，兩端選民的政黨偏好基本上沒有改變，中間選民卻變得更憤世嫉俗，這恐怕才是台灣民主的最大變數。
拋開馬英九和蔡英文的當選機率不談，如果政績無用論果真成立，選民要求的不是政績、關心的不是候選人的品格操守，那麼台灣民主追求的是什麼？政治目的和意義又何在？
不論「政績無用論」有幾分真實，對馬英九而言，握有執政優勢、選戰卻仍打得如此艱辛，自是一記當頭棒喝。事實上，執政三年多來，馬英九備受批評的，並非他的決策錯誤，而是他的性格過於溫和、闡述過於瑣碎與決策圈過於狹小；這一方面無助為他爭取到綠色選民的認同，另方面卻讓他流失泛藍的既有支持。馬英九心心念念要成為「全民總統」，結果卻力有未逮，台灣的藍綠對峙並未因為他的溫良恭儉讓而消弭，反而導致認同渙散，這是他應該深自反省之處。
事實上，若論政績，馬總統推動兩岸和平交流協商，他讓台灣在沒有內鬥煙硝中走出國際空間，達到一百多國免簽。他推動司法、住宅改革乃至取消軍公教免稅，並在國際金融危機中極力維持台灣的穩定發展。這些成績，或許稱不上是什麼光輝燦爛的成就；但若比起扁政府時代的鎖國，對外胡亂衝撞、對內惡鬥虛耗，治國無半步、口號卻滿天飛，馬政府至少把國家從脫軌失序狀態帶回正軌。對於一個正常治理的政黨，如果選民覺得「無感」，難道要重回內鬥連天、內閣連年更換的狀態，人民才能感覺到台灣的活力？
話說回來，總統大選不只是要選出一個國家領導人，更重要的是，全體選民從這個政治過程凝鍊更多智慧和理性。那樣，選民才能為自己和下一代打造更健康、多元的社會。回顧台灣的民主，今昔已有很大的變化；但這個進步的過程並非一步到位，而是有進有退、有恨有淚。最怕的是，人們承受不住選戰的腥膻與紛亂，而變得憤世嫉俗或灰心喪志，甚至覺得選誰都「沒差」，天下政治都一般黑。這種失去意志、失去主見的選民，才是台灣民主最大的威脅。
「政績無用論」不是一個預言，卻是一個詛咒：如果人民不相信政績，如果政治人物可以不在乎政績，那麼，失去目的的政治勢必走向虛無，民主將徒留哀愁。馬英九和蔡英文的政績，雖不等量，但仍可拿來比一比；馬政府四年和扁政府八年，在質量上都可提供更具體的比較。而隨著蔡英文治黨及宇昌案內幕的揭露，她已不再是夢幻人選白紙一片；在這個基礎上，馬、蔡兩人的行事風格也值得選民重新估量。
這次大選，表面上看似冷靜，深層卻掩藏著人們對現狀的無奈與對未來的不安。但未來會不會更好，答案不在政治人物的口號中，選民必須嚴格檢驗他們的政績與人格才行！
A Vote for James Soong is a Vote for Tsai Ing-wen
A Vote for James Soong is a Vote for Tsai Ing-wen
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 2, 2011
Summary:James Soong must make his position clear. Is "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" really his strategy for saving the nation? Soong says that if he drops out of the race now, "What kind of a person would he be?" But suppose he and Tsai Ing-wen succeed in "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" and promoting Taiwan independence on January 14? He can stop wondering what kind of person he will be. He will go down in infamy as a "Wang Ching-wei and Wu Sangui," as a traitor and a turncoat, He will have to answer to Soong Ta, his late father, who defended the Republic of China with his life, in the world hereafter.
Full Text Below:
Some have said, "A vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen," James Soong is threatening to sue them. But "A vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen." This is all too clear.
This is the result of simple number crunching. The consensus is that Tsai Ing-wen could win as much as 47% of the vote, Ma Ying-jeou will then have to win 48%. Add 47% to 48% and one is left with 5%. In other words, if James Soong wins over 5% of the vote, Ma will lose.
We are assuming that Tsai Ing-wen could win 47% of the vote. Consider two points that support this possibility. One. In 2008 Frank Hsieh won 42% of the vote. The DPP currently enjoys more momentum than it did in 2008. Tsai Ing-wen currently enjoys more momentum than Frank Hsieh did in 2008. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen should be able to win at least 42% of the vote. Two. In 2004, Chen Shui-bian won 50.11% of the vote. The 3/19 Shooting Incident was a factor of course. But in the DPP still has the potential to win nearly 50% of the vote. The Democratic Progressive Party currently enjoys greater momentum than it did in 2004. Tsai Ing-wen currently enjoys greater momentum than Chen Shui-bian did in 2004. Therefore, Tsai has the potential to win nearly 50% of the vote. Given these parameters, the claim that Tsai Ing-wen could win 47% of the vote is highly persuasive.
As mentioned before, if Soong wins over 5% of the vote, Ma will lose. So the first question is, could Soong win 5% of the vote? The answer is yes, he could. Because 5% is 650,000 votes, Assume 150,000 votes island-wide. If James Soong receives 40 or more votes at each polling station, he can easily attain that number of votes. It is entirely possible.
In other words, whether Soong can win 5% of the vote is a matter of statistics. It is possible. In the 2006 Taipei mayoral election he won 4.1% of the vote. Conversely, if James Soong fails to win 5% of the vote, it means the electorate has matured and better understands world events. Now that would be a greater statistical and sociological anomaly. That would be far more improbable.
The only certainty in the current election, is that James Soong absolutely will not win. If Tsai wins 47% of the vote, Soong will have to win 48% of the vote. In other words, he would have to ensure that Ma wins less than 5% of the vote. But polls currently show Soong winning only 6 to 7% of the vote. Oddsmakers are giving him less than a 1% chance of victory. Some are giving him odds as low as 0.1%. Soong absolutely will not win. That much is certain. James Soong knows this perfectly well.
The vast majority of the votes Soong have won so far are Blue Camp votes. That is because Soong's campaign appeal is hardline reunificationist. No Green Camp voter is ever going to vote for Soong. Therefore every vote Soong wins will be a Blue Camp vote. Every vote Soong wins will increase the risk of Ma losing and and Tsai winning. Therefore a vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen, This is a simple fact, about which there can be no doubt.
James Soong is deliberately undermining Ma and assisting Tsai. But he contradicts himself. James Soong's core values are allegiance to the Republic of China Constitution and promoting cross-Strait rapproachment. He publicly affirmed Ma's ECFA as a "important effort." He openly criticized Tsai for repudiating the 1992 Consensus. He said it would have "serious consequences." These represent Soong's core values, Yet he is persists in toppling Ma, who made an "important effort" and elevating Tsai, whose election will have "serious consequences." Is this not a contradiction?
Nobody knows that James Soong is unelectable better than James Soong. Nobody knows better than James Soong that a Tsai Ing-wen victory would have "serious consequences" for the nation's constitution and for cross-Strait relations. When someone asked James Soong about the "5% difference between life and death," he said "The important thing is not the 5%, but who can prevent Taiwan's decline." But James Soong is doing his utmost to unseat Ma Ying-jeou and to put Tsai Ing-wen in control of the Taiwan independence juggernaut. He is personally ensuring Taiwan's decline.
James Soong can nurse all sorts of personal grudges against his rivals. But if he still gives a damn about his country or his compatriots, he has no excuse to lead 5% of the voters down the primrose path. He has no excuse to create "serious consequences" leading to Taiwan's decline. James Soong clearly knows he is undermining the Republic of China and harming Taiwan. But his Blue Camp supporters think he is championing justice and saving the nation. Do they really knot know James Soong is taking advantage of them? Do they really not know they are helping to elevate Tsai Ing-wen to the office of Republic of China President?
The election is dangerously close. Unless Tsai Ing-wen breaks through the 50% mark and achieves an absolute majority, or receives less than 45% of the vote, James Soong's votes will decide whether Ma Ying-jeou is elected. One percent equals 130,000 votes. Never mind claims that 5% will decide life and death. One percent could be all that is necessary to decide the fate of Ma and Tsai.
James Soong must make his position clear. Is "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" really his strategy for saving the nation? Soong says that if he drops out of the race now, "What kind of a person would he be?" But suppose he and Tsai Ing-wen succeed in "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" and promoting Taiwan independence on January 14? He can stop wondering what kind of person he will be. He will go down in infamy as a "Wang Ching-wei and Wu Sangui," as a traitor and a turncoat, He will have to answer to Soong Ta, his late father, who defended the Republic of China with his life, in the world hereafter.
選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.02 03:10 am
有人說，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，宋楚瑜揚言提告；然而，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，已是昭然若揭的事實。
這是以數字推演出來的結論。一般的說法是：若以蔡英文的得票率為四十七％當做準據，則馬英九若要贏蔡英文，就至少必須得票四十八％。四十七加四十八，餘下的空間只有百分之五；也就是說，在此一架構下，宋楚瑜的得票若超過百分之五，馬必落選。
此一架構的假設前提是蔡英文得票四十七％。有兩個參考點，可以支持此項假設。一、謝長廷在二○○八得票約四十二％，而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○八的民進黨，此時蔡的聲勢勝二○○八的謝，因此蔡英文的得票至少可從四十二％起跳。二、陳水扁在二○○四年得票五十‧一一％，當年雖有三一九槍擊案影響，但無論如何皆顯示民進黨有得票近五十％的潛力；而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○四年，此時的蔡勝二○○四的扁，因此蔡的得票率亦有向五十％趨近的實力。從這兩個參數作出蔡英文得票四十七％的推論，具有說服力。
如前所述，在這個架構下，宋若得票超過五％，馬即落選。那麼，宋的得票會不會有五％呢？答案是有可能。因為，五％就是六十五萬票，若以全國一萬五千個票匭來計算，只要宋楚瑜在每一個票匭開出四十幾票，就能達到那個票數，怎謂沒有可能？
也就是說，宋要拿到五％選票，從統計的常態分布來看，是有可能的（他在二○○六台北市長選舉得票四‧一四％）；反過來說，如果宋楚瑜拿不到五％，則那種選民的表現所透露的對世局國情的深刻成熟思考，才是統計學及社會學上的異態，反而可以令人驚異不置。
此次選舉唯一可以確切預言之事，就是宋楚瑜絕對不會當選。因為，仍以蔡得票四十七％為準據，宋若要當選，須獲四十八％選票，也就是要將馬壓至五％以下；但如今宋的民調在六至七％徘徊，其看好率則在一％以下，甚至有時低至○‧一％。宋之絕對不會當選，是當然與必然之理，亦為宋楚瑜自己心知肚明之事。
此時宋能拉到的選票，絕對大多數應是泛藍的選票。因為，宋標舉的是極統觀點，不可能有泛綠選民把票投給宋；所以，宋拉到的每一張泛藍選票，都會造成使馬落選的壓力，亦將成為使蔡當選的助力。因此，選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文，這個論點可謂理所當然，毫無疑問。
問題在於：宋楚瑜執意倒馬挺蔡，卻陷於自我矛盾之中。宋楚瑜的中心觀點仍在國憲認同與兩岸政策，他公開肯定馬的ＥＣＦＡ是「重大努力」，又公開指蔡之否定九二共識「後果嚴重」；倘若這是宋的真信仰，他卻要拉下「重大努力」的馬，而要拉上「後果嚴重」的蔡，這豈不是自相矛盾？
沒有人比宋楚瑜更知道他絕對不會當選，也很少人比宋楚瑜更知道蔡英文若當選，將在國憲認同及兩岸關係上發生的「嚴重後果」。有人問起「五％生死門」的問題，宋楚瑜說：「重要的不是五％，而是誰能不讓台灣趴下去！」但是，宋楚瑜如今正在做的事，就是要拚命拉下馬英九，將台灣綁在蔡英文的台獨戰車上，親眼目送台灣就這樣趴下去！
宋楚瑜如果有一丁點為國為民的不忍之念，即使他有千般百般的私仇私恨，也沒有理由裹惑五％的選民與他一起去製造「嚴重的後果」，「讓台灣趴下去」。宋楚瑜明明知道他自己是在摧毀國脈傷害台灣，但那些迄今仍支持他的泛藍選民，尚以為是在伸張正義救國家；那些泛藍選民難道知道：宋楚瑜現在要利用他們去做的，其實是等於要他們扶助蔡英文做中華民國總統？
選情緊繃，間不容髮。除非蔡英文可衝破五十％過半選票，或蔡英文的選票低於四十五％；否則，宋楚瑜的得票高低必定是馬英九能否當選的決定性因素。一％十三萬票，莫說五％是生死門，一％都可能決定馬蔡二人的生死。
宋楚瑜必須說明的是，「棄馬保台」難道就是他的救國方略？他說，現在如果不選了，「連人都做不成了」；但當他在一月十四日若與蔡英文共同實現了「棄馬保台」的台獨大業，莫說「人做不成」，當他揹上「汪精衛／吳三桂」的罵名，恐怕另日也無顏見他那為捍衛中華民國而浴血苦戰的亡父宋達於地下了！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 2, 2011
Summary:James Soong must make his position clear. Is "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" really his strategy for saving the nation? Soong says that if he drops out of the race now, "What kind of a person would he be?" But suppose he and Tsai Ing-wen succeed in "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" and promoting Taiwan independence on January 14? He can stop wondering what kind of person he will be. He will go down in infamy as a "Wang Ching-wei and Wu Sangui," as a traitor and a turncoat, He will have to answer to Soong Ta, his late father, who defended the Republic of China with his life, in the world hereafter.
Full Text Below:
Some have said, "A vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen," James Soong is threatening to sue them. But "A vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen." This is all too clear.
This is the result of simple number crunching. The consensus is that Tsai Ing-wen could win as much as 47% of the vote, Ma Ying-jeou will then have to win 48%. Add 47% to 48% and one is left with 5%. In other words, if James Soong wins over 5% of the vote, Ma will lose.
We are assuming that Tsai Ing-wen could win 47% of the vote. Consider two points that support this possibility. One. In 2008 Frank Hsieh won 42% of the vote. The DPP currently enjoys more momentum than it did in 2008. Tsai Ing-wen currently enjoys more momentum than Frank Hsieh did in 2008. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen should be able to win at least 42% of the vote. Two. In 2004, Chen Shui-bian won 50.11% of the vote. The 3/19 Shooting Incident was a factor of course. But in the DPP still has the potential to win nearly 50% of the vote. The Democratic Progressive Party currently enjoys greater momentum than it did in 2004. Tsai Ing-wen currently enjoys greater momentum than Chen Shui-bian did in 2004. Therefore, Tsai has the potential to win nearly 50% of the vote. Given these parameters, the claim that Tsai Ing-wen could win 47% of the vote is highly persuasive.
As mentioned before, if Soong wins over 5% of the vote, Ma will lose. So the first question is, could Soong win 5% of the vote? The answer is yes, he could. Because 5% is 650,000 votes, Assume 150,000 votes island-wide. If James Soong receives 40 or more votes at each polling station, he can easily attain that number of votes. It is entirely possible.
In other words, whether Soong can win 5% of the vote is a matter of statistics. It is possible. In the 2006 Taipei mayoral election he won 4.1% of the vote. Conversely, if James Soong fails to win 5% of the vote, it means the electorate has matured and better understands world events. Now that would be a greater statistical and sociological anomaly. That would be far more improbable.
The only certainty in the current election, is that James Soong absolutely will not win. If Tsai wins 47% of the vote, Soong will have to win 48% of the vote. In other words, he would have to ensure that Ma wins less than 5% of the vote. But polls currently show Soong winning only 6 to 7% of the vote. Oddsmakers are giving him less than a 1% chance of victory. Some are giving him odds as low as 0.1%. Soong absolutely will not win. That much is certain. James Soong knows this perfectly well.
The vast majority of the votes Soong have won so far are Blue Camp votes. That is because Soong's campaign appeal is hardline reunificationist. No Green Camp voter is ever going to vote for Soong. Therefore every vote Soong wins will be a Blue Camp vote. Every vote Soong wins will increase the risk of Ma losing and and Tsai winning. Therefore a vote for James Soong is a vote for Tsai Ing-wen, This is a simple fact, about which there can be no doubt.
James Soong is deliberately undermining Ma and assisting Tsai. But he contradicts himself. James Soong's core values are allegiance to the Republic of China Constitution and promoting cross-Strait rapproachment. He publicly affirmed Ma's ECFA as a "important effort." He openly criticized Tsai for repudiating the 1992 Consensus. He said it would have "serious consequences." These represent Soong's core values, Yet he is persists in toppling Ma, who made an "important effort" and elevating Tsai, whose election will have "serious consequences." Is this not a contradiction?
Nobody knows that James Soong is unelectable better than James Soong. Nobody knows better than James Soong that a Tsai Ing-wen victory would have "serious consequences" for the nation's constitution and for cross-Strait relations. When someone asked James Soong about the "5% difference between life and death," he said "The important thing is not the 5%, but who can prevent Taiwan's decline." But James Soong is doing his utmost to unseat Ma Ying-jeou and to put Tsai Ing-wen in control of the Taiwan independence juggernaut. He is personally ensuring Taiwan's decline.
James Soong can nurse all sorts of personal grudges against his rivals. But if he still gives a damn about his country or his compatriots, he has no excuse to lead 5% of the voters down the primrose path. He has no excuse to create "serious consequences" leading to Taiwan's decline. James Soong clearly knows he is undermining the Republic of China and harming Taiwan. But his Blue Camp supporters think he is championing justice and saving the nation. Do they really knot know James Soong is taking advantage of them? Do they really not know they are helping to elevate Tsai Ing-wen to the office of Republic of China President?
The election is dangerously close. Unless Tsai Ing-wen breaks through the 50% mark and achieves an absolute majority, or receives less than 45% of the vote, James Soong's votes will decide whether Ma Ying-jeou is elected. One percent equals 130,000 votes. Never mind claims that 5% will decide life and death. One percent could be all that is necessary to decide the fate of Ma and Tsai.
James Soong must make his position clear. Is "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" really his strategy for saving the nation? Soong says that if he drops out of the race now, "What kind of a person would he be?" But suppose he and Tsai Ing-wen succeed in "Rejecting Ma, Defending Taiwan" and promoting Taiwan independence on January 14? He can stop wondering what kind of person he will be. He will go down in infamy as a "Wang Ching-wei and Wu Sangui," as a traitor and a turncoat, He will have to answer to Soong Ta, his late father, who defended the Republic of China with his life, in the world hereafter.
選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.02 03:10 am
有人說，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，宋楚瑜揚言提告；然而，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，已是昭然若揭的事實。
這是以數字推演出來的結論。一般的說法是：若以蔡英文的得票率為四十七％當做準據，則馬英九若要贏蔡英文，就至少必須得票四十八％。四十七加四十八，餘下的空間只有百分之五；也就是說，在此一架構下，宋楚瑜的得票若超過百分之五，馬必落選。
此一架構的假設前提是蔡英文得票四十七％。有兩個參考點，可以支持此項假設。一、謝長廷在二○○八得票約四十二％，而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○八的民進黨，此時蔡的聲勢勝二○○八的謝，因此蔡英文的得票至少可從四十二％起跳。二、陳水扁在二○○四年得票五十‧一一％，當年雖有三一九槍擊案影響，但無論如何皆顯示民進黨有得票近五十％的潛力；而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○四年，此時的蔡勝二○○四的扁，因此蔡的得票率亦有向五十％趨近的實力。從這兩個參數作出蔡英文得票四十七％的推論，具有說服力。
如前所述，在這個架構下，宋若得票超過五％，馬即落選。那麼，宋的得票會不會有五％呢？答案是有可能。因為，五％就是六十五萬票，若以全國一萬五千個票匭來計算，只要宋楚瑜在每一個票匭開出四十幾票，就能達到那個票數，怎謂沒有可能？
也就是說，宋要拿到五％選票，從統計的常態分布來看，是有可能的（他在二○○六台北市長選舉得票四‧一四％）；反過來說，如果宋楚瑜拿不到五％，則那種選民的表現所透露的對世局國情的深刻成熟思考，才是統計學及社會學上的異態，反而可以令人驚異不置。
此次選舉唯一可以確切預言之事，就是宋楚瑜絕對不會當選。因為，仍以蔡得票四十七％為準據，宋若要當選，須獲四十八％選票，也就是要將馬壓至五％以下；但如今宋的民調在六至七％徘徊，其看好率則在一％以下，甚至有時低至○‧一％。宋之絕對不會當選，是當然與必然之理，亦為宋楚瑜自己心知肚明之事。
此時宋能拉到的選票，絕對大多數應是泛藍的選票。因為，宋標舉的是極統觀點，不可能有泛綠選民把票投給宋；所以，宋拉到的每一張泛藍選票，都會造成使馬落選的壓力，亦將成為使蔡當選的助力。因此，選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文，這個論點可謂理所當然，毫無疑問。
問題在於：宋楚瑜執意倒馬挺蔡，卻陷於自我矛盾之中。宋楚瑜的中心觀點仍在國憲認同與兩岸政策，他公開肯定馬的ＥＣＦＡ是「重大努力」，又公開指蔡之否定九二共識「後果嚴重」；倘若這是宋的真信仰，他卻要拉下「重大努力」的馬，而要拉上「後果嚴重」的蔡，這豈不是自相矛盾？
沒有人比宋楚瑜更知道他絕對不會當選，也很少人比宋楚瑜更知道蔡英文若當選，將在國憲認同及兩岸關係上發生的「嚴重後果」。有人問起「五％生死門」的問題，宋楚瑜說：「重要的不是五％，而是誰能不讓台灣趴下去！」但是，宋楚瑜如今正在做的事，就是要拚命拉下馬英九，將台灣綁在蔡英文的台獨戰車上，親眼目送台灣就這樣趴下去！
宋楚瑜如果有一丁點為國為民的不忍之念，即使他有千般百般的私仇私恨，也沒有理由裹惑五％的選民與他一起去製造「嚴重的後果」，「讓台灣趴下去」。宋楚瑜明明知道他自己是在摧毀國脈傷害台灣，但那些迄今仍支持他的泛藍選民，尚以為是在伸張正義救國家；那些泛藍選民難道知道：宋楚瑜現在要利用他們去做的，其實是等於要他們扶助蔡英文做中華民國總統？
選情緊繃，間不容髮。除非蔡英文可衝破五十％過半選票，或蔡英文的選票低於四十五％；否則，宋楚瑜的得票高低必定是馬英九能否當選的決定性因素。一％十三萬票，莫說五％是生死門，一％都可能決定馬蔡二人的生死。
宋楚瑜必須說明的是，「棄馬保台」難道就是他的救國方略？他說，現在如果不選了，「連人都做不成了」；但當他在一月十四日若與蔡英文共同實現了「棄馬保台」的台獨大業，莫說「人做不成」，當他揹上「汪精衛／吳三桂」的罵名，恐怕另日也無顏見他那為捍衛中華民國而浴血苦戰的亡父宋達於地下了！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)