Is Cross-Strait Cold Confrontation Really the Will of the People?

Is Cross-Strait Cold Confrontation Really the Will of the People?  
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 10, 2016

Executive Summary: Beginning with the May 20 presidential inauguration and ending with the October 10 National Day celebration, Beijing has eagerly waited for Tsai Ing-wen to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But as everyone knows, Tsai Ing-wen cannot possibly bring herself to utter these two words. Her answer has been a refusal to answer. With the passing of the Double Ten National Day celebration, that much has been settled. Beijing understands this perfectly. It has not been waiting around for an answer. Instead it has issued stern warnings that "those who swim with the tide of history will survive, those who swim against it will perish”.

Full Text Below:

Beginning with the May 20 presidential inauguration and ending with the October 10 National Day celebration, Beijing has eagerly waited for Tsai Ing-wen to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But as everyone knows, Tsai Ing-wen cannot possibly bring herself to utter these two words. Her answer has been a refusal to answer. With the passing of the Double Ten National Day celebration, that much has been settled. Beijing understands this perfectly. It has not been waiting around for an answer. Instead it has issued stern warnings that "those who swim with the tide of history will survive, those who swim against it will perish”.

Tsai Ing-wen boasted that "As long as it is conducive to cross-Strait peace and the well-being of people on both sides of the Strait, I am willing to talk about anything". She knows of course that without the 1992 Consensus, no talks are possible. Her boast was merely an empty gesture, intended to cast herself as a peacemaker.

Tsai Ing-wen refuses to talk about the 1992 Consensus. Unlike Chen Shui-bian, she is not merely counting votes. Her motive is ideological. She considers the two sides two nations unaffiliated with each other. She naturally will not accept one China.

But Tsai Ing-wen must also realize that digging in on this issue is dangerous, and could even lead to a holocaust. Beijing's patience is not without limit. If she persists in her silence, cross-Strait relations may enter a new stage. The period from May 20 to October 10 National Day was a “cold peace”. What follows will be a “cold confrontation”. Most worrisome of all, “cold confrontation" could turn into "hot confrontation".

The two sides of the Strait are not merely at loggerheads. They are invoking the "will of the people". On the eve of the National Day celebration, Tsai Ing-wen spoke to reporters from the Wall Street Journal. She invoked the “will of the people”, to prove she would not crumble under Mainland pressure. The Taiwan Affairs Office responded. It also invoked the “will of the people”. It said, "Do not underestimate the will of 1.3 billion people on the Mainland".

Her National Day speech was no different. Tsai Ing-wen yet again underscored the “will of the people”. The State Council Taiwan Affairs Office reiterated its position as well, saying "With the will of 1.3 billion Chinese people as backing, no force can stand in the way of national reunification and national rejuvenation".

Both sides have invoked the “will of the people” to intimidate the other. This is a dangerous situation. The “will of the people” may become increasingly heated in response to such invocations.

Another concern is the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office response to Tsai's National Day declarations. It referred yet again to "national reunification". The last time it did so was 10 days ago, during a brief response to Tsai's vow to "resolutely resist pressure from China [sic]". Each time it referred to "national reunification", it spoke of “historic inevitability” or the “currents of history”.

In the past, Beijing rarely used the terms "reunification" or even "one China", in order to avoid touching sensitive nerves. Instead it used the term "1992 Consensus". Its reversion to terms such as "national reunification" indicates that Beijing no longer feels the need to tiptoe around the subject. It has concluded that it cannot lay its hopes on the “people of Taiwan”, but must instead lay its hopes on the “people of [Mainland] China”.

During Ma Ying-jeou's eight year term, Beijing implemented all sorts of agreements and policies to benefit Taiwan. Yet the people of Taiwan drifted further and further away regardless. They even elected Tsai Ing-wen. When Tsai Ing-wen took office, she repeatedly invoked the "will of the people" as a bargaining chip with the Mainland, much to its frustration. This inspired the Beijing authorities, who seldom speak of the "will of the people", to join the chorus and invoke "the determination of 1.3 billion Chinese people".

Following Tsai's National Day speech, Beijing relinquished all hope that Tsai Ing-wen would affirm the 1992 Consensus. It may conduct a thorough review of its Taiwan policy, and make an historic strategic shift. Its traditional “long leash” strategy may become a "short leash" strategy. The temptation to do so will be great. The Mainland is now strong enough. It is now much less fearful. It considers Tsai's rejection of the 1992 Consensus incomprehensible.

This being the case, cross-Strait relations following Tsai Ying-wen's Double Ten declaration will deteriorate. Tsai's declaration that she was “willing to talk about anything" may have been an escape clause. But Beijing's experience with Tsai has been very poor. It has been anxious since May 20. It was wary of falling into her rhetorical traps. Her declaration that she was "willing to talk about anything" will inevitably be seen as just another lie.

As relations between the two sides continue to decline, Tsai Ying-wen will find it harder and harder to revive the economy. Her anti-Mainland demagoguery may well backfire and be redirected at herself.

兩岸走入以所謂民意為號召的冷對抗
2016-10-12 聯合報

從五二○就職到雙十國慶，北京翹首期盼的無非「九二共識」四字，但眾人亦皆知蔡英文不可能說出這四個字；「未完成的答卷」，在她國慶文告後可算是塵埃落定。北京當然了然於胸，沒等到所要的答案，於是乃有一番「歷史大勢順之者昌、逆之者亡」的疾言厲色。

蔡英文豪氣干雲地說，「只要有利於兩岸和平發展，有利於兩岸人民福祉，什麼都可以談。」她當然知道，沒有「九二共識」，就沒有談的臺子。這番表露，就只剩一個蒼白而空洞的姿態，只為自己保住一點和平的名聲。

蔡英文不談「九二共識」的內裡，並不像陳水扁那樣只為計算選票，而是出於政治意識形態，認為兩岸是互不隸屬的兩個國家，而「九二共識」先陳明「一個中國」，她自然不能接受。

但蔡英文也應該知道，她堅持固守的這一條戰壕，接下來將是艱險多舛、甚至是烈焰遮天。因為，北京的耐心不可能無限展延，在她拒絕答卷後，兩岸關係可能進入新的階段。五二○到雙十國慶，若稱之為「冷和」階段；接下來，則應該是「冷對抗」的關係。令人憂心的是，「冷對抗」也有上升為「熱對抗」的風險。

兩岸如今不只陷入僵局，更進入了相互以「民意」為號召的對抗。蔡英文在國慶前接連接受《華爾街日報》等外媒訪問，都訴諸「民意」，表明不會屈服於中國壓力；而國台辦的回應也援引「民意」，聲稱「不要低估大陸十三億多民意的堅定決心。」

這次國慶演說亦然，蔡英文再度張揚民意。國台辦也毫不含糊地再次表明：「有十三億多中國人民的強大民意做後盾，沒有任何力量可以阻擋國家統一與民族復興。」

兩岸各自召喚某種危險的所謂民意，以求在氣勢上恫嚇對方；但是，民意的怒潮卻可能因為這種刻意的政治召喚，而變得日益攪動、翻騰、對立。

另一值得關注的是，這次國台辦對國慶的回應，再次出現了「國家統一」的字眼。前一次，在十天前，出現在國台辦回應蔡英文「力抗中國壓力」言論的簡短聲明中。而兩次談及「國家統一」，都說這是歷史的必然或潮流。

過去，北京為避免刺激台灣脆弱敏感的神經，甚少使用「統一」的字眼，甚至連「一個中國」都迴避，而以「九二共識」取代。近期頻密地出現「國家統一」文字，表明北京已不再顧忌，認定「寄希望於台灣人民」既已難以期待，今後必須「寄希望於中國人民」。

在馬英九的任內，北京自認以各式協議與政策惠台八年，台灣的人心卻與大陸愈行愈遠，竟然選擇了蔡英文。而蔡英文上任後，卻又屢次以「民意」作為與大陸對抗的籌碼，讓大陸深感挫折。這使得一向少談、甚至避談「民意」的北京當局，如今也加入了「民意」的大合唱，高喊「十三億多中國人民的決心」。

經過這次國慶演說，北京對蔡英文回到「九二共識」徹底絕望之餘，很可能藉此進行廣泛而深層的路線檢討，並可能作出歷史性的戰略轉向，從長年的「羈縻」思維，走向「圍堵」策略。如此轉向對中共具有巨大的誘惑，一方面中國大陸的整體力量仍在上升，令它更為有恃無恐；一方面則認為台灣已到難以理喻的地步，竟連「九二共識」都峻拒。

果真如此，兩岸關係在蔡英文這篇雙十告白之後，將墜入一個悲觀的走向。蔡英文雖留下了一絲細微的線索，宣示「什麼都可以談」，但她在北京的眼裡履歷甚差，北京從五二○就繃緊了神經，不願掉入她的文字迷陣中。這次「什麼都可談」，勢必一樣被認為不過是在故布疑陣。

無論如何，注定在兩岸繼續失分之後，蔡英文挽救經濟的嘗試也將更為吃力，而她所召喚出籠的抗中民粹，則不無可能調過頭來撲向她自己。

Happy Birthday for a Tempest Tossed Republic of China

Happy Birthday for a Tempest Tossed Republic of China
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 10, 2016

Executive Summary: Today is the birthday of the Republic of China. It is also the anniversary of its third change in ruling parties. Everyone including President Tsai Ying-wen, Kuomintang Chairman Hung Hsiu-chu, and civil service and military personnel, are prepared to celebrate the national birthday, by the numbers. The general public is also celebrating the National Day holiday. But many wonder how many more celebrations of the Double Ten National Holiday the future holds.

Full Text Below:

Today is the birthday of the Republic of China. It is also the anniversary of its third change in ruling parties. Everyone including President Tsai Ying-wen, Kuomintang Chairman Hung Hsiu-chu, and civil service and military personnel, are prepared to celebrate the national birthday, by the numbers. The general public is also celebrating the National Day holiday. But many wonder how many more celebrations of the Double Ten National Holiday the future holds.

For the Republic of China, birthdays are indeed increasingly harder to celebrate. Internally the Democratic Progressive Party advocates the establishment of a "sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan". Externally, the People's Republic of China, which divided the Republic of China in two 66 years ago, is emerging as the world's second-largest economy. It is attempting to keep pace with the United States and lead the world. The Chinese Communist Party, which leads the People's Republic of China, is willing to engage with the Chinese Nationalist Party, but it refuses to recognize the Republic of China. This has increasingly shrunk Taiwan's international breathing space. Today, when everyone is preoccupied with whether Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian will attend the National Day celebration, it may be worth considering how Sun Yat-sen would feel if he could be here.

These are dark times for the Republic of China. Both the green camp and the red camp seek to end the Republic of China. Alas, they have found that the dimmer the light of the Republic of China shines, the more turbulent cross-Strait relations become, and with it, the gloomier the future of Taiwan. In a tempest tossed Republic of China, interaction between the two sides and the three parties is paradoxically essential to the survival of Taiwan and the Republic of China. The continued existence of the Republic of China is conducive to the stability of the two sides, as well as Taiwan.

Consider the subtle relationship between the three parties and the Republic of China. We need not discuss the KMT. For the Kuomintang, the Republic of China is inviolate. We can instead analyze the necessity and importance of the Republic of China to the Chinese Communist Party and the Democratic Progressive Party.

First consider the perspective of the Chinese Communist Party. In "1911, Sun Yat-sen led the Xinhai Revolution, abolished the feudal monarchy, and founded the Republic of China." Unless one is reminded specifically of the fact, one might assume this passage is the preamble to the Republic of China Constitution. In fact, it is the preamble to the People's Republic of China Constitution. It clearly explains the origin of China's legal system. Mr. Sun Yatsen founded the Republic of China. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China considers Sun Yat-sen's Xinhai Revolution the source of modern China's legal system. It merely added, "But the historic duty of the Chinese people to defeat imperialism and feudalism remains incomplete".

The constitutional basis is not hard to find. The People's Republic of China, founded in 1949, may be a new government, but it is not a new nation. The nation is China. China has existed for many millennia. The Republic of China is modern China. It is the original entity, the main body. The Chinese Communist Party created a split in this original entity, this main body. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China considers this split the result of an historical duty to "oppose imperialism and feudalism".

The Mainland has called for peaceful reunification for nearly half a century. It has gradually realized that its own long-term rejection of the Republic of China has been the Taiwan independence movement's biggest booster. But the existing political consciousness has plunged it into a dilemma. It is unwilling to recognize the Republic of China, but it cannot deny the danger of refusing to recognize the Republic of China.

Both sides of the Strait hope to maintain peace and prosperity. The relative strengths of the two sides has changed. Rational consideration suggests that peace and prosperity are conducive to peaceful reunification. The Mainland side must face the fact that when the Republic of China shrinks or disappears, the vacuum will not be filled by the People's Republic of China, but by the Republic of Taiwan. In other words, leave aside the Republic of China for the moment. For the Mainland side, cross-Strait relations would be even more dangerous and move even farther from the Mainland's "great cause of reunification".

Now consider the DPP perspective. In Tsai Ing-wen's inaugural address, she declared that "I have the responsibility to defend the sovereignty and territory of the Republic of China, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China". But most of the time Tsai Ing-wen is unwilling to use the term " Republic of China". Her cultural and educational policy is quite clear. It is to sever all connections to Chinese culture and Chinese history. She has reiterated that she would "respect the constitutional system of the Republic of China". But in her letter to her DPP comrades, she explained that she was doing so grudgingly, because she was "fettered by the constitutional framework".

Tsai Ying-wen's position is self-contradictory. The Republic of China that Tsai Ing-wen defends is not the Republic of China founded in 1911. It is the Republic of China that emerged after 1949. It is a Republic of China that has been emptied of its legal significance. Furthermore, Tsai's defense of the Republic of China treats the ROC as the temporary shell of a hermit crab, as a form of backdoor listing. It temporarily accepts the "Republic of China" to protect its advocacy of Taiwan independence, which it will never abandon.

This sort of of unwilling, expedient, deceitful approach toward the Republic of China, has made the future of the Republic of China uncertain. It has provoked chaos and confrontation on Taiwan. People are gradually seeing through the deception. A Republic of China emptied of its legal significance is merely a movie prop. It is increasingly useless and unable to play a protective role.

Views about cross-Strait relations on Taiwan are confused. The two sides of the Strait must squarely confront history and the big picture. They must accept the concept of a "Complete Republic of China".

風雨飄搖的中華民國 生日快樂！
2016年10月10日 中國時報

今天是中華民國生日，也是中華民國第3次政黨輪替後的第1個生日。從蔡英文總統到國民黨洪秀柱主席及政府文武百官，無不準備按表操課慶祝國家生日，庶民百姓也歡度國慶假日，但人們內心其實非常疑惑，未來還有幾個雙十國慶日？

對中華民國來說，生日確實愈來愈不好過。於內，由主張建立「主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」的民進黨風光執政；於外，66年前分裂中華民國的中華人民共和國正強勢崛起，已成為世界第二大經濟體，企圖與美國並駕齊驅、領導世界。而領導中華人民共和國的中國共產黨只願意和中國國民黨交往，卻堅拒承認中華民國的存在，因而造成台灣國際空間日益緊絀。今天，大家只關心馬英九、陳水扁會不會出席國慶，倒不妨想想，如果國父孫中山先生也出席了國慶，會作何感想呢？

此時是中華民國的晦暗時刻，但大家仔細觀察卻會發現，綠紅都希望終結中華民國，卻發現中華民國的光芒愈稀微，兩岸關係會愈動盪，台灣的前途就愈黯淡。晦暗時刻反而讓我們看見一道光明：風雨飄搖的中華民國，反而是兩岸三黨的共同交集，是兩岸和平、台灣生存所依，中華民國的存在有利兩岸的穩定和台灣的穩健。

解析紅藍綠三黨與中華民國的微妙關係，國民黨當可不論，中華民國是國民黨不破也不變的「神主牌」。我們可從共產黨、民進黨2個角度解析「中華民國」三方公約數的必要性與重要性。

先從共產黨角度談起。「1911年孫中山先生領導的辛亥革命，廢除了封建帝制，創立了中華民國。」如果不特別提醒，可能會以為這是《中華民國憲法》前言的一段話，其實這是《中華人民共和國憲法》序言的文字，開宗明義把中國的法統之源，做了清楚闡釋，就是孫中山先生創建中華民國的那一刻。只不過，《中華人民共和國憲法》在高舉孫中山的辛亥革命為現代中國的法統之源後，緊接著加了一句「但是，中國人民反對帝國主義和封建主義的歷史任務還沒有完成。」

順此文理，不難發現一個清楚的憲政邏輯，1949年成立的中華人民共和國是「新政府」，而不是「新國家」，國家是綿延數千年的「中國」，中華民國是現代中國的原始主體，分裂新中國的是中共。《中華人民共和國憲法》定位此一「分裂」，是為實現「反帝國主義」、「反封建主義」歷史任務。

大陸提出「和平統一」的政策將近半個世紀，逐漸了解長期對中華民國採取否棄或抵制的態度，是「台獨」最大的助力。但囿於既有的政治意識框架，已使其陷入「不願面對中華民國的存在，又不能面對否定中華民國的危險」，進退維谷。

兩岸都希望維持和平發展大勢，兩岸實力對比已改變，理性思考就會相信，和平發展有利和平統一。陸方應正視，在台灣內部，中華民國的生存空間縮小或消失，騰出來的位置不會是「中華人民共和國」的空間，而是「台灣共和國」。換言之，不談中華民國，對大陸方面言，兩岸關係會更危險，甚至離大陸所企求的「統一大業」更遙遠。

從民進黨角度談。雖然蔡英文在就職演說中表示，「我依照《中華民國憲法》當選總統，我有責任捍衛中華民國的主權和領土」，但在大多時候，蔡英文並不願意用「中華民國」稱呼我們的國家，而以「這個國家」模糊帶過；她的文化政策與教育政策卻非常明確，要與中華文化及中國歷史切割。她雖然多次重申會「尊重中華民國憲政體制」，但在給黨員的信中卻說她受到「憲政體制的羈絆」。

交織出蔡英文兩個矛盾心態的，一是蔡英文的中華民國，不是1911年創立的中華民國，而是1949年後的中華民國，這是中華民國法理的掏空；二是即便1949年以後的中華民國，也只是暫時的「保護殼」，借殼的目的不只在於上市，更在於暫時接納「中華民國」對其台獨主張有保護作用，還不能否棄。

這種心有不甘、「權宜性」、乃至於「權謀性」看待中華民國的方式，讓中華民國前途更模糊，不但造成台灣內部更混亂的對立，對外也逐漸被看破手腳，法理被掏空的中華民國就只是電影中的道具盔甲，中看不中用，將愈來愈難發揮「保護」作用。

台灣意見紛亂、兩岸關係爭擾的此時，如以歷史宏觀思考，兩岸政府正視並接納「完整中華民國」，毋寧是一條明路。

Tsai Ying-wen Beware, Taiwan Independence is “Just Business”

Tsai Ying-wen Beware, Taiwan Independence is “Just Business” 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 5, 2016

Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen must be careful. Do those who surround her consider Taiwan independence nothing more than an investment? If so, when their business is done, nothing will remain. No ideals, only opportunism. Their unfounded allegations are as changeable as the wind. They can turn on one in the blink of an eye. They can live high on the hog, with their nonsense treated as profundities. But allow them to become Taiwan independence icons, allow them to act as ideological police, or spokesmen for deep green orthodoxy, and the road ahead for the DPP government will be a rocky one indeed.

Full Text Below:

DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen told party members she intends to "strenuously resist China [sic]”. Since then, Chen era political rhetoric has experienced something of a revival. People who were once objective and rational have suddenly changed their tune and become overnight converts to Taiwan independence. May are afraid they will not be perceived as sufficient pro-Taiwan independence, hence condemned as as “Com symps”. Former academic turned talking head Peng Wen-chen is a good example. A fellow pundit has described Peng's pro-Taiwan independence rants as "good business".
                                                                                                                                                                       
So “Taiwan independence is good business”, is it? That is truly ironic. Taiwan independence was once a political movement, an ideology. Alas, in 2005, then President Chen Shui-bian publicly conceded that changing the name of the nation to the “Republic of Taiwan” was impossible. "We cannot kid ourselves. We cannot kid others" he said, “Impossible means impossible”. From that moment on, “Taiwan independence” was demoted to a symbol, a tool, and an ornament. It became nothing more than a litmus test of one's loyalty to the green camp. This was especially true following the change in ruling parties. Overnight, many became Taiwan independence champions. Fearful of being insufficiently "green", they rushed to prove their allegiance to Taiwan independence. Many reaped generous benefits from their newfound loyalty. For them, Taiwan independence was indeed good business, and a profitable investment.

The biggest benefits were low overhead, large profits, and low risk. For example, one need no loner brave Military Police truncheons and tear gas. One need no longer lie down in the streets, or sit alone in prison cells. Some even opposed Taiwan independence in the past. But none of that matters now. One need only shout Taiwan independence more loudly, act more ruthlessly, and behave more boldly than the next person. One need only seize the nearst bully pulpit, and instantly acquire countless followers. Whatever nonsense one spouts will be applauded. Whatever lies one utters will be given unwarranted credibility. So it was during the Chen Shui-bian years, when many suddenly discovered a newfound “love for Taiwan". They never spoke of Taiwan independence in the past. But suddenly they find themselves shouting it louder than anyone around them. They even put others under the microscope, to see if their commitment to Taiwan independence measures up to their own.

The Taiwan independence business is so good, someone is always ready to do it. Most of those who choose to engage in it are high profile green camp talking heads. The overwhelming majority of them have contributed nothing to Taiwan independence. More than a few hail from the blue camp. They have shifted with the political winds and suddenly turned green. Even a casual search will reveal many who are "suddenly blue, then suddenly green". They adopt certain media channels as a their base of operations. They hold forth on any and all topics. They rely on “advertising fees” to survive. Their annual salaries approach 10 million NTD. They criticize the blue camp, and make excuses for the ruling green camp. They act as go betweens for certain factions. During elections they appear at all the rallies. Ruling green camp freshmen must kowtow before them. They reap an embarrassment of riches. How is this not good business?

Take Peng Wen-cheng for example, who has recently exploded on the scene. He was never considered pro-Taiwan independence in the past. Now however he is "planting the seedlings of genuine independence". His profile is higher than that of anyone around him. His high profit investment enables him to get away with much. For example, he can get away with fabricating falsehoods, including falsehood relating to the Mega Financial Services controversy. From start to finish, he leveled hurled wild accusations against Chou Mei-ching, King Pu-tsung, and Ma Ying-jeou. All of his allegations were eventually proved false. Yet he offered no apology. It is hard to believe he taught journalism in school. For example, he can also get away with McCarthyite character assassination, accusing some journalists of being "Chinese media", or "pro-Chinese media". He has regurgitated these tired green media tropes verbatim.

He can get away with all manner of wrongdoing. He violated legal ethics when he hosted a long running TV program. He coerced NTU into endorsing him, thereby undermining the school's public image. Under pressure from public opinion he was eventually forced to resign. Was he motivated by a desire for revenge? In any event, he directly intervened in NCC personnel appointments, and put the DPP government on the spot.

Tsai Ing-wen must be careful. Do those who surround her consider Taiwan independence nothing more than an investment? If so, when their business is done, nothing will remain. No ideals, only opportunism. Their unfounded allegations are as changeable as the wind. They can turn on one in the blink of an eye. They can live high on the hog, with their nonsense treated as profundities. But allow them to become Taiwan independence icons, allow them to act as ideological police, or spokesmen for deep green orthodoxy, and the road ahead for the DPP government will be a rocky one indeed.

台獨只是門生意 蔡英文當心
2016/10/7 中國時報

民進黨主席蔡英文發表給黨員的公開信宣稱「力抗中國」後，扁政府年代盛行一時的政治語言瞬間大復活。一些過往自居理性客觀的人士也頃刻間變臉，成了「台獨基本教義派」，彷彿怕別人懷疑他們成分不夠「獨」，迫不及待到處「抹紅」，學者轉戰名嘴的彭文正恰是其中顯例，他近日在談話節目發表的諸多不堪言行，被另一位媒體人形容是「彭文正們之台獨是門好生意」。

「台獨是門好生意」，真是句有趣且反諷的隱喻，台獨或許曾經是一個政治運動，一種意識型態，但在前總統陳水扁於2005年公開坦承，將國號改為台灣共和國，「不能騙自己也不能騙別人，做不到就是做不到」之後，「台獨」就化變成一種符號、一種工具、甚至是一種裝飾，它成為在綠營內部測試忠誠度的溫度計，特別是那些在政黨再輪替後，冒出一堆所謂的「忽然獨派」，為了焦慮自已「綠」的成分不夠純，紛紛搶先表態挺「獨」，不少人也確實因此爭取到若干吃香喝辣的機會，對他們而言，台獨當然是筆好生意，也是值得的投資。

這種投資的最大好處，就是成本低且利潤高，而且毋須承擔太多風險。譬如說你不必像過去一樣，要奔走呼號、要忍受憲警的木棍與催淚彈、要躺上街頭、要坐黑牢，甚至過去還曾反對過台獨，但現在已經不重要了，只要喊得比別人大聲，比別人更狠、更大膽就夠了。重點是只要你搶到發聲平台，就能瞬間聚集一批速成粉絲，你怎麼胡說八道都有人喝采，還能享有超過比例原則的話語權，就像當年陳水扁執政年代的那些「忽然愛台派」一樣，過去從來不講台獨，卻瞬間叫得比誰都大聲，還高姿態檢查別人愛台灣的成分夠不夠。

就是因為這種生意實在太好做了，總是有人前仆後繼跟進，這其中最大的族群就是那些親綠名嘴，他們絕大多數不曾為「台獨」做過任何貢獻，甚至不少還是系出藍營，隨著政治風向瞬間將自己染「綠」。隨便考證一下，就不難發現其中「忽藍忽綠」還不在少數。他們盤據特定頻道做為山頭，什麼議題都能扯，也都敢扯，靠著領通告費起家，個個年薪逼近千萬，他們除了痛批藍營之外，還經常對執政的綠營說三道四，為特定派系喬事，選舉時還個個都出去站台，當政的綠朝新貴都得要看他們的臉色，這麼多的好處，又如何不是筆好生意？

就以最近爆紅的彭文正為例，他以前從不曾被歸類為「獨派」，如今不僅「根苗正獨」，而且姿態擺得比誰都高。他這筆投資的高利潤，呈現在他立即所取得的若干特權。譬如說，他享有胡亂編故事的權力，兆豐金的爭議，他一路從周美青、金溥聰扯到馬英九，故事情節編得天花亂墜，後來證明全是子虛烏有，他一句澄清道歉也沒有，還繼續在瞎編，很難想像他當年在學校還是「教新聞」的。再譬如說，他也享有扣紅帽子的特權，胡亂指控某些媒體是「中資媒體」或「親中媒體」，這些昔日綠營與媒改人士早就炒作過的舊語言，他又全套一一複製，樂此不疲。

他還取得胡作非為的特權，當年他一邊在台大擔任專任教職，一邊在電視台主持常態節目，違反法令倫理，還逼得台大以產學合作名義為他背書，台大的形象都為他一個人賠進去，在輿論壓力下才被迫辭去教職。不知是否挾怨報復，他就直接了當介入NCC人事，弄得民進黨政府都很困擾。

蔡英文真得小心啊，如果身邊的人只是拿著「台獨」當投資、當生意做，沒有什麼理念，只知投機，憑一張嘴翻雲覆雨、信口雌黃，什麼時候風向變了，隨時可能瞬間變臉反噬。讓他們吃香喝辣之外，還把他們的胡說八道當一回事，讓他們作為「台獨」的標竿或象徵，甚至讓他們擔任思想警察，成為深綠的代言人，那麼未來的執政之路恐怕會更辛苦。

How Can the President Govern when the DPP is Waging Gang Warfare?

How Can the President Govern when the DPP is Waging Gang Warfare? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 5, 2016

Executive Summary: President Tsai Ying-wen will be facing more and more such challenges to her authority from within her own party. She will have to remember what she told her comrades in her letter to party members: "In politics, there is no one else. The responsibility is yours”. But responsibility means being able to resist pressure from the green media and party factions as well.

Full Text Below:

The New York branch of Mega Financial Services has been fined 180 million USD by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Premier Lin Chuan could no longer resist the political pressure. He fired six officials, including Ting Kung-wha, former Financial Management Committee Chairpersons Chen Yu-chang, Tseng Min-chong, Wang Li-ling, former Finance Minister Chang Sheng-he, and current Minister of Finance Hsu Yu-che. They have been turned over to the Control Yuan for prosecution. In the past TV pundits would spread rumors to incite public outrage. Today they are “court physicians” in the Imperial Palace. They impeached these officials and forced them to step down. The Mega Financial Services incident will leave an indelible imprint on Taiwan's political history.

The executive, the judiciary, elected representatives, and the general public all lack the “primordial force” required to uncover the truth about Mega Financial Services. They assumed they would uncover evidence of high-level KMT money laundering, but came up blank. Out of 174 Mega Financial Services remittances in 76 accounts, not a single remittance was from Taiwan. Central Bank President Perng Fai-nan confirmed that "no money-laundering took place", and that the case concerned only "compliance issues". TV pundits' allegations of "high-level KMT money-laundering" were clearly fictitious. Nevertheless the FSC vice chairman and six outgoing and incumbent department heads are under investigation. Perng Fai-nan is also under attack by TV pundits. In a rare statement, he said that “once his term is up, he will not seek re-appointment”.

President Tsai Ying-wen has been taken hostage by TV pundits. Mob sentiment rules the nation. Is this reasonable? Financial losses suffered by other nations may prove instructive. Following the financial tsunami in 2007, the US increased financial oversight and frequently imposed huge fines on financial institutions to ensure financial discipline and meet the needs of counter-terrorism. JP Morgan Chase Bank was fined 13 billion USD. Deutsche Bank was recently fined 14 billion USD. By contrast, Mega Financial Services was fined 180 million USD. Many other banks have been fined more than 1 billion USD. But not one of these nations' governments required the heads of financial oversight agencies to step down. Still less did they prosecute six former or current heads of such agencies. The DPP has clearly handled the case in a grossly unbalanced and disproportionate manner.

“Let the punishment fit the crime”. Punishment that panders to mob sentiment and is disproportionate to any alleged crimes, has grave consequences for the nation and endangers the Tsai government. It will have at least three repercussions. First, it has encouraged green media meddling in the government. When the Mega Financial Services case first erupted, TV talk shows and green camp TV pundits alleged that the funds were laundered Kuomintang party assets. They went online and named Chou Mei-ching, King Pu-chong, and Ma Ying-jeou. They “fired their arrows, then drew targets”. They claimed that anyone and everyone connected with the FSC was guilty. Ting Ker-hua insisted that "charges require evidence”. He eventually laid out the results of his investigation. The rumor-mongers were forced to eat crow. Enraged, they vented their spleen on Ting Ker-hua and forced him to step down. These talking heads are a blight upon the nation. That much everyone agrees upon. Tsai Ing-wen as president has a responsibility to resist political pressure and not dance to the tune of the chattering class. Forcing Ting Ker-hua to step down has rewarded these pundits. It has encouraged them to persist in their political rumor mongering.

Secondly, it has encouraged DPP gang warfare. Many Democratic Progressive Party insiders have loosed arrows at Mega Financial Services. Long-term observation of these TV pundits reveals their factional affiliations. They service the needs of the media. They also collude with certain factions. They are in fact faction members. DPP factional rivalry has long been gang warfare over resources and positions. In the past, when it was in the opposition, the object of its Kulturkampf was the KMT. Now that the DPP is in power, and the nation's resources are in their hands, the gang warfare has turned inward. Rumor mongering and political attacks have their roots in behind the scenes power struggles. Ting Ker-hua has been toppled. Yet another political post is up for grabs. Ting Ker-hua has just resigned. Yet rumors about the FSC are already flying. The fight for official positions has already begun.

Ting Ker-hua, Chairman of the FSC, hoped his professionalism could reform Taiwan's financial environment. Now the DPP Kulturkampf has forced him to step down. This is a serious blow to Tsai Ing-wen and Lin Chuan's ability to appoint officials with integrity. The DPP's foolish factional power struggles have undermined Tsai Ing-wen's ability to recruit professional talent. Factions have taken Tsai Ying-wen hostage. She is no longer able to move. Accomplishing anything will be difficult.

Thirdly, taking to the front lines will rapidly degrade the president's prestige. The FSC chairman has stepped down. Six agency heads are being prosecuted. Green media and political faction power struggles forced this move. But the final order was handed down by Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen is the leader of the nation. But when party factions call the shots, how can career officials perform their duties in accordance with the law?

A few days ago, the Tainan City Council Chairman by-election made waves. Tuan Yi-kang mocked fellow party member Acting Speaker Kuo Hsing-liang. Tuan said "The failure to elect a chairman is most beneficial to the vice chairman”. Kuo Hsing-liang asked for a leave of absence, and shelved the by-election. Eventually Tsai Ying-wen personally called Kuo Hsing-liang and asked him to resolve the matter. Tsai Ying-wen has been in office less than six months. Yet she is already being called upon to act as peacemaker. When a president must be hands-on and in the line of fire, the chances that she will take a bullet greatly increase, and her prestige as a leader will rapidly be diminished.

President Tsai Ying-wen will be facing more and more such challenges to her authority from within her own party. She will have to remember what she told her comrades in her letter to party members: "In politics, there is no one else. The responsibility is yours”. But responsibility means being able to resist pressure from the green media and party factions as well.

民進黨幫派化，總統如何治國
2016/10/6 中國時報

兆豐金紐約分行被紐約州金融服務署裁罰1.8億美元事件，行政院院長林全終於難擋政治壓力，批准金管會主委丁克華、政務副主委桂先農辭職下台，蔡英文總統續下嚴令要求究責，行政院立即將丁克華與前金管會主委陳裕璋、曾銘宗、王儷玲、前財政部長張盛和以及現任財政部長許虞哲等6人移送監察院追究責任。過去電視名嘴至多製造街譚巷議，影響社會觀瞻，而今如古代御史大夫，可糾彈大臣令其掛冠而去。兆豐事件會在台灣政治發展史上，留下重要印記。

行政機關、司法機關、民意代表、輿論都窮「洪荒之力」調查兆豐案真相，希望找出國民黨高層洗錢證據，卻一無所獲，兆豐的174筆匯款交易、76個帳戶中，沒有任何一筆是從台灣匯出，央行總裁彭淮南也證實「沒有洗錢」，本案是「法遵問題」。名嘴繪聲繪影的「國民黨高層洗錢」顯然子虛烏有，卻還是震掉了金管會正副主委，並有6位卸任與現任的部會首長遭移送，彭淮南也在飽受名嘴攻詰後，罕見表態「任期屆滿絕不續任」。

蔡英文總統如此被名嘴綁架，形同民粹治國，是否合理？不妨從其他國家處理金融違失案件的經驗比對。美國在2007年金融海嘯後，為整頓金融秩序及反恐需要，金融監理單位大幅升高金融監理強度，動輒對金融機構課以巨額罰鍰。摩根大通銀行曾遭罰130億美元，德意志銀行最近也因案被提出140億美元和解罰金，相較於兆豐遭罰1.8億美元，其他被罰超過10億美元的銀行比比皆是。但從沒有一國的府會因此要求金融監理機關首長下台，更不要說一口氣移送6位前任與現任部會首長究責。民進黨以顯然失衡、不合比例的手法處理此案。

「罰不當罪，不祥莫大焉」，一個順從民粹、不相襯的處斷，會為國家治理留下極大的後遺症，也會危及蔡英文總統的施政。至少衍生3個不祥禍患，首先，鼓勵綠媒干政。兆豐案發生伊始，政論節目與綠營名嘴便一面倒用「想像力」，言之鑿鑿攀連與國民黨黨產有關，認定是國民黨高層洗錢，還上綱牽扯周美青、金溥聰與馬英九，「先射箭再畫靶」，隔空指導金管會必須「入人於罪」。丁克華堅持「有一分證據說一分話」，最後把調查結果攤開，造謠名嘴全被打臉，便將怒氣指向丁克華，轟他下台。名嘴禍國，已是全民共識。蔡英文身為總統，有責任頂扛壓力，不隨名嘴言論起舞。讓丁克華下台等於給了名嘴一顆大糖果，鼓勵其繼續造謠干政，此其禍一。

第2禍，縱容民進黨幫派鬥爭。民進黨內對兆豐案放箭者所在多有，長期觀察電視名嘴言論，可查知其派系背景，名嘴言論除配合媒體需要，多有配合派系運作的作用，可以說，名嘴本身就是派系成員。而民進黨派系政治一直有搶資源、搶位置、「幫派化鬥爭」的副作用。過去在野時，幫鬥文化對象是執政的國民黨，現在民進黨上台了，資源與位置在自己人手上，幫鬥文化轉而向內，放話放箭，背後都有爭權奪位的目的。打下丁克華，就代表多了1個分配資源的位置，丁克華才請辭，果然金管會的放話戰、卡位戰就熱鬧上演。

丁克華是林全「求來」的金管會主委，本想用其專業為革新台灣金融環境建功。現在丁克華卻因幫鬥文化下台，將嚴重打擊蔡英文與林全的用人權。因為，這也是另一個給民進黨內蠢動爭權派系的一顆糖果，削弱的是蔡英文專業用人空間，當派系綁架蔡英文，其執政也將動彈不得、難有施展。

第3禍，親上火線將加速磨耗總統的威望。金管會主委下台、移送6位首長究責，源頭是綠媒干政與派系爭奪，最後下令的卻是蔡英文。蔡英文是國家的領導人，卻代黨內派系行問斬令，又如何要求政務官與常任文官依法行政？

日前台南議長補選掀波，段宜康諷刺同黨代理議長郭信良「正的選不出來，副的最有利」，郭信良宣稱將請假擱置改選案。最後還是由蔡英文親自打電話給郭信良化解心結。蔡英文就任未及半年，竟然需要親自打電話當和事佬，當總統必須事必躬親、親上火線，被火紋身的機會就大大增加，領導威信必受拖累。

蔡英文總統面對黨內派系的權力挑戰將愈來愈大，蔡英文要記住的是她在給黨員信中的一句話：「政治之道無他，承擔就對了。」承擔就要先抗得住綠媒與派系的壓力。

Eight Blue and Six Green Local Governments Besiege the Central Government

Eight Blue and Six Green Local Governments Besiege the Central Government
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 5, 2016

Executive Summary: If the Tsai government genuinely wishes to practice “humility”, Tsai Ing-wen should reflect upon why the eight blue camp and six green camp county chiefs and city mayors are soliciting Mainland tourism. She should think about the many people trapped by her policies. If she lacks even this awareness, she is completely out of touch with the people.

Full Text Below:

President Tsai Ying-wen has convened her first "Policy Coordination Conference". She personally stepped up to the plate to deal with disputes between the party and the government. She issued directives concerning labor laws and pension reform. She will also weigh in on the Mega Holdings case. The Executive Yuan is waiting for the signal to begin the slaughter. The Control Yuan will prosecute the six people previously responsible for financial and economic policy. Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Ding Kehua has already been asked to resign. Clearly ruling administration incompetence and party pressure have forced Tsai Ying-wen to stand on the front line.

People are out for blood. Interestingly enough, that same day in Tainan, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung, several green camp heads sat down to discuss how they could persuade Mainland tourists to visit the region. They hoped to promote tourism in southern Taiwan. They asked the central government to increase the number of Mainland tourists permitted to travel about Taiwan freely. They even asked for permission to visit the Mainland to drum up business. Yunlin and Taichung did not participate, buth they echoed the same sentiments. They want cross-regional cooperation promoting Mainland tourism to central Taiwan. Their pragmatic attitude contrasts sharply with Tsai's directive to "strenuously resist China [sic]" issued by the central government.

This is ironic. Recently the heads of eight blue camp governed counties and municipalities visited the Mainland to encourage tourism to Taiwan. Green camp politicians denounced them as "eight blue slaves". Green media conglomerates even accused them of " colluding with China [sic] to divide Taiwan", and demanded that the central government deny these counties and municipalities subsidies. Now however, the heads of six green camp governed counties and municipalities in central and southern Taiwan have also visited the Mainland to encourage tourism to Taiwan. Do green media conglomerates intend to denounce them as "six green slaves" as well? The heads of six green camp governed counties and municipalities have gone to the Mainland to solicit Mainland tourism. Have they seen through the central government's flawed cross-Strait policy? Have they come to the conclusion that it is harming people in their districts?

The heads of six green camp governed counties and municipalities are fighting for Mainland tourists. Their motivation is no different from that of blue camp governed counties and municipalities. All have felt the impact of Tsai government cross-Strait policy on their regional economies. Tourism industry earnings have been affected. The livelihood of many individuals have been affected. These problems must be resolved. Who loves Taiwan more? Those who scream "eight blue slaves"? Or those who braved accusations of "selling out Taiwan" by visiting the Mainland to solicit tourism? Who is more concerned about the people of Taiwan. Is that not abundantly clear?

To distinguish between politicians and statesmen, one must see whom they care about. Those who offer only sarcasm but no solutions, are politicians. Those who spout high-minded rhetoric, but make others pay with empty bellies, are politicians. Those who abuse their authority, who kill and take, with nary a kind word or gesture, are politicians. They feel no guilt sacrificing the public to feather their own nests. Instead, when asked to set aside their arrogance and do something for the public, they “refuse to sacrifice even a single hair to save the world".

It is not our intention to deify the eight heads of blue camp governed counties and municipalities, or the six heads of green camp governed counties and municipalities. They are merely trying to work around an irrational policy. In any case, their pragmatism shows they still have a place in their hearts for the people. It proves they are more admirable than the politicians who only wish to mock "eight blue slaves". Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy has a stranglehold on Taiwan's tourism economy and local people's livelihoods. Now however, a new alliance is possible between the eight blue camp counties and municipalities, and the six green camp counties and municipalities. Now they can lay seige to the central government. The leaders of these blue and green counties and municipalities have shown how far removed Tsai government policies are from reality and the will of the people. They may have set cross-Strait goodwill back many years. If this is not mediocrity, what is?

Tsai Ing-wen finds herself on the horns of a dilemma. She must now adopt a hardline in order to extricate herself. On the surface, the Lin cabinet's poor performance is to blame. But at a deeper level, the president's own reversal in cross-Strait policy has made peace difficult to maintain. In fact she herself bears far greater responsibility. Consider the string of fiascoes since May 20, including the WHO annual meeting, the South China Sea arbitration case, the accidental missile firing, the Mainland tourists burned to death in a tour bus, and Taiwan's exclusion from the ICAO Assembly. How many were due to tense cross-Strait relations? Were these not the result of Tsai Ing-wen's flawed judgment? The Tsai government imposed this unnecessary burden upon itself. It is the one that must remove the burden.

If the Tsai government genuinely wishes to practice “humility”, Tsai Ing-wen should reflect upon why the eight blue camp and six green camp county chiefs and city mayors are soliciting Mainland tourism. She should think about the many people trapped by her policies. If she lacks even this awareness, she is completely out of touch with the people.

從藍八到綠六，地方反包圍中央
2016-10-05 聯合報

蔡英文總統召開首次「執政決策協調會議」，親上火線處理黨政爭議事項。除對《勞基法》修法及「年金改革」下達指令，她也在會中裁示嚴辦兆豐案，行政院隨即奉旨大開殺戒，將前後任財金首長六人移送監院，金管會主委丁克華則早一步「被請辭」。很顯然，在執政不順及黨內壓力的夾擊下，蔡英文被迫選擇走向「戰鬥路線」。

在殺氣騰騰之中，值得注意的是，同一天舉行的南高屏澎區域治理平台，卻見幾位綠色執政首長在大談如何爭取陸客前往南高屏澎觀光，除了推動南台灣旅遊行程，還要求中央提高自由行旅客的配額，甚至不排除登陸行銷。雲林和台中雖未參加此平台，卻也聞訊雀躍，希望能跨區域加入合作，一起行銷中台灣。這樣的務實態度，與蔡英文從中央發出的「力抗中國」指令，恰成鮮明的對照。

諷刺的是，日前泛藍八縣市首長赴中國大陸爭取陸客來台觀光，橫遭綠營政治人物以「藍八奴」的汙名大加詆譭，親綠媒體甚至指控他們是「配合中國，分化台灣」，要求中央刪除這些縣市的補助款。而今，綠營中南六縣市首長擬跟進爭取大陸觀光客，難道要稱他們「綠六奴」？再試問，綠營六縣市自組平台吸引陸客，難道不是看穿了中央的兩岸政策對地方人民不利？

綠營六縣市首長要爭取陸客，其動機其實和泛藍縣市沒有什麼不同，都是因為感受到蔡政府的兩岸政策對自己執政縣市的經濟造成了衝擊，不僅相關觀光產業收入減少，不少民眾的生計也受了影響，這些現實的民生問題必須設法解決。從這個角度看，是那些喊出「藍八奴」的人比較愛台，還是冒著「賣台」指摘登陸爭取觀光客的首長比較關心台灣民眾，豈非立刻真相大白了？

要區別政客和政治人物，要先看他們的關懷為何。只會說風涼話、卻拿不出具體解決方案的人，是政客。只會說冠冕堂皇的大話、卻讓別人挨餓付出代價的，也是政客。手握大權生殺予奪、卻又要作出一副仁慈優雅姿態的，則更是政客。因為，他們利用民眾的犧牲來裝飾自己的皇冠，絲毫不覺得愧疚；反之，要他們放下一點傲慢來做點有利社會大眾的事，他們卻是「拔一毛以利天下而不為」。

我們無意讚美泛藍營八首長，更無意歌頌綠營六首長，他們其實只是企圖在一個不合理的政策環境中找出一條路來。但無論如何，光是「務實」這點，顯示他們心中還有民眾，即證明他們比那些只會譏誚「藍八奴」的政客更值得欽佩。進一步看，如果說蔡英文的兩岸政策對台灣的觀光經濟及地方民眾生計構成了扼殺，今天從「泛藍八首長」登陸，到「綠營六縣市」的聯合自救，儼然已形成了一個對中央的反包圍之勢。藍綠縣市首長在爭取陸客上的有志一同，也恰恰反映了蔡政府當前的兩岸政策多麼脫離現實，不僅驅民於淵，甚至導致兩岸交流多年的善意付諸東流。這不是庸人自擾是什麼？

蔡英文陷入今天的執政困境，以致被迫要採取強硬的政治戰鬥路線自救，表面上看，林全內閣的表現不佳難辭其咎。但深一層看，總統自己在兩岸政策上的轉軌，造成和平現狀難以維持，其實要負更大的責任。試想，五二○以來的諸多事件，包括世衛組織年會、南海仲裁案、飛彈誤射、陸客驟減及火燒車事件、乃至無法出席國際民航組織大會，在在皆是因兩岸關係緊張而起，這難道不是蔡英文判斷所致？亦即，如果要減輕執政上的不必要負擔，解鈴恐怕仍需繫鈴人。

如果真有謙卑之心的話，蔡英文看到「藍八」到「綠六」縣市首長群起搶救陸客觀光的作為，應該自我反省，更應該想想多少民眾此刻正因自己的決策而生計受困。若連這點現實感都沒有，那就離民眾太遠了！

Just Who is Leading the Nation? President Tsai, or Chairman Tsai?

Just Who is Leading the Nation? President Tsai, or Chairman Tsai? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 3, 2016

Executive Summary: President Tsai regards the existing constitutional framework as "fetters". She has totally forgotten her passionate election night rhetoric, when she ringingly proclaimed that, "The DPP will not adopt a winner takes all attitude. We will listen to the public and proceed with reform on behalf of all political parties. In my capacity as president, and my capacity as party chairman, I am issuing my first order to all members of the Democratic Progressive Party: humility, humility, and more humility.”

Full Text Below:

On October 3, President Tsai held her first "Policy Coordination Conference", which will be held on a regular basis every week. The president herself will preside over the meeting. Members will include the vice president, premier, secretary-generals of the Presidential Office and National Security Council, chief convener of the DPP Legislative Yuan party caucus, secretary-general of the DPP, CEO of the DPP think tank, and representatives from DPP governed counties and municipalities. This decision-making model amounts to "merging of party and government". The Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan are supposed to check and balance each other. Their merger is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and will inevitably lead to the resurgence of authoritarianism. For President Tsai, this is a major political gamble.

At the beginning of her term, President Tsai, like her predecessors, opted to remain behind the front line, and establish communication channels between the government, the party, the executive, and the legislature. But clearly for this president, the results have been less than ideal. Public approval of her and the premier has plummeted, forcing her to take to the front line and manage the big picture.

Will the new coordination mechanism work? That remains in question. After all, the government, the party, the executive, and the legislature, each have their own constitutional roles and functions. They each have different roles, and the public has different expectations from them. Communication barriers will always exist. If the president comes on too strong, she will merely turn any policy coordination conference into a platform by which the president can intervene directly in government affairs. Examples include the "nine-man team" during the Chen era. They were considered nothing more than yes men. The government will then move in the direction of strongman politics. Or, as during the Ma Ying-jeou era, weak presidential leadership led to long-term disagreements between the president and the legislature, divisions within the KMT, and KMT loss of rule.

The obstacles Tsai faces will be harder to overcome than those faced by the previous two presidents. Taiwan's economy faces unprecedented difficulties. Ever since the KMT government gained a foothold on Taiwan, it has never fought for merely a 1% GDP increase. Public demand for social justice has reached new highs. The DPP government must simultaneously grow the economy and promote social reform. Meanwhile, DPP goals are clearly at odds with the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. President Tsai herself uses the expression "fettered by the constitutional framework". Cross-Strait relations have deteriorated to the level of "cold confrontation". The cross-Strait power disparity is increasingly unfavorable to Taiwan. Troubled cross-Strait relations harm Taiwan's economy. The problems are interconnected, layer upon layer, and result in a vicious circle.

Ms. Tsai has two identities: President of the Republic of China, and Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. She appears to be consciously switching between the two roles, in an attempt to fulfill both. For example, as party chairman, she published an open letter to the DPP referring to the other side as “China”, in accordance with DPP orthodoxy. She stressed that she would "resist pressure from China". But afterwards, she spoke again as president. She reverted to campaign rhetoric, and referred to the other side as "Mainland China", and responded to Mainland pressure in a low keyed manner. This was intended to moderate the conflict between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. It also represented adherence to the law. After all, President Tsai made a clear commitment in her inaugural address. She would deal with cross-Strait issues in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Regulations on Cross-Strait Relations between the People.

This dichotomy shows that President Tsai is deliberately differentiating the government from the DPP. This of course runs counter to President Tsai's goal of unifying party and government. In fact, President Tsai's separation of presidency and party chairmanship will only make it more difficult for the Tsai government to coordinate with the DPP and the DPP dominated legislature. Party leaders and party legislators will not know how to proceed. The party and the government singing different tunes will pose a problem difficult to overcome.

Even more paradoxically, the "Policy Coordination Conference" appears to represent political responsibility. But it will inevitably become a DPP policy-making platform. After all, all the participants are DPP or Presidential appointees. How can this be anything other than “DPP Rules”? Moreover, if this fundamental contradiction remains unresolved, final coordination will be made by the DPP or even the President herself. Government officials will find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.

President Tsai should reconsider the logic of her Policy Coordination Conference. She may be attempting to ensure party and government unity. But she must also honor the public nature of government. Since it is public in nature, it must be subject to oversight by the opposition party and the people as a whole. Any decision-making mechanism that does not include opposition parties and citizen representatives, can hardly provide genuine checks and balances. President Tsai's Policy Coordination Conference is wanting in this respect. We maintain that President Tsai, in her capacity as party chairman, must hold talks with the chairmen of opposition parties, in order to seek consensus. As president, she must also seize the initiative and report to the Legislative Yuan for questioning. The Constitution does not require this, but it would demonstrate her willingness to accept public opinion.

President Tsai regards the existing constitutional framework as "fetters". She has totally forgotten her passionate election night rhetoric, when she ringingly proclaimed that, "The DPP will not adopt a winner takes all attitude. We will listen to the public and proceed with reform on behalf of all political parties. In my capacity as president, and my capacity as party chairman, I am issuing my first order to all members of the Democratic Progressive Party: humility, humility, and more humility.”

社論》究竟是蔡總統或蔡主席領導國家
2016/10/3 下午 08:36:00  主筆室

蔡總統3日舉行首次「執政決策協調會議」，將每周定期舉行。會報由總統本人主持，成員包括政府方面的副總統、行政院長、總統府和國安會兩祕書長，及黨職的立法院黨團總召、民進黨祕書長和民進黨智庫執行長，並加入該黨執政直轄市長或代表。這是一種「黨政合一」的決策模式，將原屬制衡關係的行政院與立法院納入，與憲政精神顯有扞格，難免遭致「威權復辟」的質疑，就蔡英文總統個人而言，更是極大的政治賭注。

就任之初，蔡總統與前兩任總統類似，都選擇退居第二線，藉成立多個協調機制來處理府、黨與行政、立法兩院間的溝通整合事宜，但顯然和前兩任總統類似，都沒有產生很好的效果，總統和行政院長民意支持度急遽下滑，迫使她必須親上火線，直接領導全局。

但新協調機制能否發揮作用，恐怕要打上大大問號，畢竟府、黨及行政、立法兩院各有憲政地位、職務功能及不同的民意角色和期待，溝通障礙永遠存在。親上火線的總統如果過度強勢，只會讓執政決策協調會議成為總統直接干預政務的平台，如阿扁當年的「九人小組」，與會者淪為背書角色，國家走向強人政治，朝野衝突擴大，民心不安；或如馬英九總統時代，弱勢領導造成總統與立法院之間的長期不合，終至國民黨分裂而失去執政權。

蔡英文面對的障礙，可能比前兩任總統更難克服，一方面來自台灣經濟陷入前所未有的困難，自國民黨政府在台灣站穩腳跟開始，從來不曾為GDP「保1」奮鬥，但民眾對社會公平正義的需求又空前高漲，民進黨政府必須同時拚經濟並推動社會改革，改革不易。二方面，民進黨的發展目標與中華民國憲政體制顯有矛盾與衝突，連蔡總統自己都用「憲政體制羈絆」一詞。民進黨的台獨目標又造成大陸的疑慮，兩岸關係陷入「冷對抗」，兩岸實力對比對台灣已經愈來愈不利，兩岸關係不順，又對台灣經濟造成新的傷害，障礙環環相扣、層層相加，走向惡性循環。

蔡英文女士其實有兩個身分，一是中華民國總統，二是民進黨主席，她似乎有意周旋在兩個角色之間，企圖左右逢源。譬如，她曾以黨主席身分發表致民進黨員公開信，按照民進黨立場用「中國」稱呼對岸，強調要「力抗中國的壓力」。之後又以總統身分發表演說，又回到勝選以來的處理方式，以「中國大陸」稱呼對岸，使用溫和的「面對」一詞來敘述大陸的壓力。這不僅是想要降低兩岸衝突氛圍，更代表總統依法行政的理念，畢竟蔡總統在就職演說中曾明確承諾，要依照《中華民國憲法》和《兩岸人民關係條例》來處理兩岸問題。

這種二分的作法顯示蔡總統有意區分政府與民進黨，卻又與蔡總統召開協調會議的黨政合一目標背道而馳。事實上，蔡總統區隔總統與黨主席身分的作法，只會讓政府部會與民進黨及其立法院黨團之間更加難以協調，也讓部會首長與黨籍立委不知所措，黨政不同調反而難以克服。

更弔詭的是，「執政決策協調會議」看似為了落實執政黨責任政治，卻難免變成民進黨的決策平台，因為所有參與者都是民進黨員或是總統任命的政務官，這豈不成了民進黨家天下？而且，如若不解決上述根本矛盾，最終這一協調機制只會變成民進黨甚至蔡總統本人的一言堂，政府官員則只會陷入進退維谷的境地。

蔡總統應該重新思考這一協調機制的運作邏輯，即便是要推行黨政合一，也應該注意到政府的公器性質。既然是公器，自然該接受反對黨和全民的監督，任何決策機制若不納入在野黨和公民代表，都難以產生真正的制衡，蔡總統的協調機制卻在此問題上付之闕如。我們主張，蔡總統應以黨主席身分與在野黨主席會談，尋求共識。她也應以總統身分主動到立法院提出施政報告並接受質詢。《憲法》雖無規定，亦未禁止，卻能彰顯接受民意監督的意義。

蔡總統將現有的憲政體制視為「羈絆」，全然忘記她在勝選之夜的熱血演說，「民進黨不會整碗捧去，我們開放傾聽民眾聲音，邀請所有政黨為了改革全力以赴。在這我要以總統當選人身分，也要以黨主席的身分，對民進黨全體黨公職人員下達第一個命令：謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑。

President Tsai Must Not Forget the Lesson of Chen Shui-bian

President Tsai Must Not Forget the Lesson of Chen Shui-bian
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 1, 2016

Executive Summary: President Tsai has been in office less than six months. Cross-Strait relations have once again turned hostile. This worries people concerned about cross-Strait relations. We devoutly hope President Tsai will fulfill the pledges she made during her election campaign, and prove that she has the ability to deal with cross-Strait issues. She must not return to the Chen Shui-bian era, and fan the flames of cross-Strait conflict. That would not be a blessing for the people of Taiwan.

Full Text Below:

On the 30th anniversary of the Democratic Progressive Party, President Tsai Ing-wen, in her capacity as party chairman, published an open letter to party members. She reaffirmed her determination to implement reform. But she also talked tough on cross-Strait relations, provoking grave concern. She declared her intention to "resist pressure from China", referring to the Mainland as “China” instead of "Mainland China", the way she did when the DPP was in the opposition. She apparently changed her non-provocative, low-keyed style.

The results of such an approach are predictable. Upon being shut out of the ICAO conference, the presidential spokesman began referring to the Mainland as "China". Clearly the DPP government secretly resents the increasing pressure applied by the Mainland over the past six months. As the DPP sees it, Tsai Ying-wen's inaugural address and low-keyed follow-up, were expressions of goodwill toward the Mainland, but were not reciprocated. For the Tsai government, the resentment felt may be even greater. Pressure from Taiwan independence elements within the party has been relentless over the past six months. They have spread rumors to incite public discontent. They have has even revived demands for membership in the United Nations and the passage of constitutional amendments. President Tsai has been careful in dealing with the Mainland. But she must also appease party insiders. Her dilemma is obvious. Her strongly worded open letter to DPP party members reflected her need to respond to political pressure from within the party.

Closer scrutiny of Chairman Tsai's tough talk however, shows she has not broken away from existing policy. Consider the policy implications behind the hard-line phrases. She said, "We must resist pressure from China and develop relations with other nations, normal economic relations". This is entirely consistent with her May 20 inaugural address, which advocated cooperation with democratic nations, diversified economic and trade relations, and the New Southern Strategy. In other words, this is merely a reaffirmation of existing DPP thinking. This confirms that the above-mentioned policy is a well-considered strategic choice. Observers expect the DPP to return to the Ma era policy path. President Tsai's tough talk about fighting back is to some extent, merely a response to Mainland pressure. She wants the Mainland to know that the Tsai government is not going to yield to Mainland pressure and make compromises. Her stance and the Mainland's stance are poles apart. Finding common ground will not be easy.

The lessons of the Chen era remain fresh in Tsai's memory. Chen claimed that he expressed goodwill toward the Mainland, but the Mainland's tardy response forced him to take a hard line. Unfortunately such a hardline approach is a Pandora's Box. Once opened, it becomes difficult to close. It becomes an excuse for formerly contained Taiwan independence forces within the party to run rampant. What's worse, such a hardline approach merely provokes even harsher responses from the Mainland, leading to a downward spiral in cross-Strait relations. It is clearly not the right approach to cross-Straits relations. We hope that President Tsai is aware of the risks of from past experience, and will not proceed down this rocky path.

In her open letter, President Tsai reiterated the value of democracy. This is of course provides important backing for Taiwan when facing the Mainland. But President Tsai must also acknowledge that the public has expressed obvious dissatisfaction with her cross-Strait policy. They think cross-Strait relations have regressed. President Tsai cannot simply invoke democratic values as a tactic to deal with the Mainland. She must acknowledge that public opinion is the ultimate test of her own policies. She must fulfill the pledges made during her May 20 inaugural address. She assured people she was capable of dealing with cross-Strait issues, that she would remain in communications with the Mainland, and would maintain the cross-Strait status quo during her term. Obviously the decline in Mainland tourism and Mainland student enrollment has been counterproductive. Taiwan's participation in international activities is now limited, and proves that cross-Strait relations under President Tsai have deteriorated. The deterioration was not, as the DPP government alleged, due to the Mainland's political framework. It was the result of Tsai government changes to policies in place under the Ma government, and the Tsai government's evasive attitude on cross-Strait relations.

The Mainland has its own principles and policy measures. The DPP government should not dwell exclusively on the Mainland's obligation to respect its needs, while ignoring the Mainland's feelings. The DPP government should seek opportunities for cooperation between the two sides, consistent with Mainland policy. If President Tsai truly respects the people's opinion, she will listen to their hopes for cross-Strait relations, and take practical measures to improve them. The Mainland is concerned about the 1992 Consensus. She must offer a meaningful response. When confronted with pressure from Taiwan independence forces, she must use political means to pacify them. She must not allow them to become an obstacle to improved cross-Strait relations.

President Tsai has been in office less than six months. Cross-Strait relations have once again turned hostile. This worries people concerned about cross-Strait relations. We devoutly hope President Tsai will fulfill the pledges she made during her election campaign, and prove that she has the ability to deal with cross-Strait issues. She must not return to the Chen Shui-bian era, and fan the flames of cross-Strait conflict. That would not be a blessing for the people of Taiwan.

蔡總統別忘了陳水扁的教訓
2016年10月01日 中國時報

民進黨30周年黨慶，蔡英文總統以黨主席身分發表給黨員的公開信，重申改革的理念與決心之餘，更針對兩岸問題發表強硬的談話，引發各界關注。她宣稱要「力抗中國壓力」，且一改過去言必稱「中國大陸」，恢復在野時期以「中國」來稱呼對岸，似已改變之前不挑釁、不說重話的低調作風。

這種作法其實已有端倪，在被ICAO拒於門外後，總統府發言人即以「中國」相稱。一詞之差，顯示民進黨政府開始對大陸半年來不斷升高壓力的作法心生怨懟。在民進黨人看來，無論蔡英文就職演說，還是後續的低調以對，都是在向大陸釋放善意，無奈得不到大陸的善意回應。對蔡政府來說，其委屈可能更大，因為黨內獨派的壓力最近半年從未停歇，不僅放話製造輿論壓力，更逕自推動加入聯合國和重啟憲改行動，蔡總統小心應對大陸之際，還要拿出精力安撫黨內壓力，其左支右絀的困境可見一斑。這封針對民進黨黨員的公開信措辭如此強硬，恐怕也有回應黨內壓力的政治需要。

當然，細究強硬措辭背後的政策意涵，不難發現蔡主席並未跳脫既有的政策基調，「力抗中國壓力，發展與其他國家的關係；要擺脫對中國的依賴，形塑一個健康正常的經濟關係」，其實這說法完全可以對應520就職演說中有關推動與各民主國家的合作，以及經貿領域的分散市場和新南向政策。換言之，這不過是對民進黨執政思路的一次重申，也說明民進黨的上述政策是經過深思熟慮的戰略抉擇，要期待其重回馬政府時代的政策方向，恐怕難有結果。不僅如此，蔡總統的此番強硬回擊，某種程度上也是回敬大陸的壓力測試，讓大陸感受到蔡政府的原則堅持，這也更加說明她不會因為大陸不斷的壓力測試而選擇讓步，她與大陸的原則立場幾乎南轅北轍，要找到雙方的交集恐怕並不容易。

但即便如此，扁政府時代的教訓仍然在提醒著蔡總統，當年阿扁也是自認為向大陸釋放善意，卻遲遲得不到大陸的回應，才轉而採取強硬態度。只是這種強硬有如潘朵拉的魔盒，一旦開啟就很難輕易收場，因為這等於變相助長了黨內獨派的聲勢，讓原本處於壓抑狀態的台獨主張甚囂塵上。更嚴重的是，這種強硬態度並不會讓大陸屈服，反而只會讓大陸以更加強硬的態度回應，兩岸敵意螺旋上升的格局也正是在這種情勢下形成。從這個角度看，以強硬對強硬的作法顯然不是兩岸關係的正確處理方式，我們希望蔡總統能夠從過去的經驗教訓中意識到這種做法的風險與危害，切不可輕易走上強硬之路。

蔡總統在公開信中多次強調民主的價值，這當然是台灣面對大陸時的重要後盾，但蔡總統也應該注意的是，現在的民意已經清楚表達對她兩岸政策的不滿，也有至少3成民眾認為兩岸關係已經倒退。蔡總統不能只是將民主價值作為應對大陸的策略手段，而更應該將民意視為檢驗自己政策的標準，如此才能真正意識到自己在520就職演說中相關承諾的重要性。她曾向人民保證，自己有處理兩岸問題的能力，也會與大陸保持溝通互動，兩岸現狀也會在她任內得以維繫。顯然事與願違，陸客和陸生減少，台灣的國際參與限縮，在在證明兩岸關係在蔡總統任內已經出現倒退。倒退並非如民進黨政府所指摘，是因為大陸預設政治框架，而是自己改變了馬政府時期的政策，在兩岸關係定位問題上採取模糊和迴避的態度。

大陸也有自己的原則和政策步調，民進黨政府不該只談大陸尊重自己的需要，而不顧對方的感受。相反地，民進黨政府應該根據大陸的政策來尋找雙方合作的契機。若蔡總統真的尊重民意，那就應該傾聽人民對兩岸關係向前發展的企盼，採取切實辦法來推進兩岸關係的改善，針對大陸關切的九二共識，也應該提出具有實質意義的回應方案。面對獨派壓力，更要善用政治手段來平衡，勿使其成為兩岸關係改善的障礙。

蔡總統上任不到半年，兩岸關係再度出現敵意上升風險，這無疑讓關心兩岸關係的人們深感憂慮，誠摯期盼蔡總統能夠實踐競選期間的承諾，證明自己有能力處理兩岸問題，而不是如陳水扁時代，又擺盪回到兩岸烽火連天的局面，如此當然不是台灣人民之福。