DPP thinks it up

The DPP just officially established a pair of think tanks.The Taipei Times reports:

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday introduced two new think tanks to enhance its policy initiatives while strengthening dialogue with China and the rest of the world....

The Economic and Social Affairs Research Center and the Security and Strategy Research Center are part of the party’s revamped New Frontier Foundation, created under former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄), and include retired government ministers and former representatives abroad.

The value of these think tanks as mechanisms for dialogue with China should not be underestimated. A great deal of communication and probing is done through academic channels and the DPP could use a few more of those in formulating it's China stance.

At the ceremony for the founding of the think tanks, DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen also gave a speech about cross strait policy. While short on details about the future, Tsai's speech did place the cross-strait relationship through the lens of the international community and she sees Taiwan's current status as a result of modern East Asian history (read: not merely a Chinese civil war). She rejected political preconditions for discussions (read: One China) but said Taiwan must do it's part to maintain peace and stability across the strait (read: maintain dialogue with China). These think tanks are part of that effort.

I'm psyched about the think tanks and imaginative policy initiatives, but I wonder if the DPP can come to any further internal consensus on Taiwan's status and future which will be received warmly by Beijing. Unfortunately, Beijing holds the veto on that and has no reason to show flexibility with the DPP right now when things are going so swimmingly with the KMT. 

Su's "Taiwan Consensus"

I fully expect Su Chen-chang's phrase of "Taiwan Consensus" will end up defining the DPP position vis-a-vis the KMT come 2012, though I imagine we can expect some internal wrangling between heavy weights for a share of the credit.

Su's statement is summerized in this article:

蘇貞昌認為，台灣歷經四次總統直選，是主權獨立的國家，不隸屬於中華人民共和國，依據憲法，目前名稱是中華民國，改變現狀要全民同意，已是全體國人最大的共識。

Su Chen-chang believes that Taiwan has had four direct presidential elections; that it is a sovereign and independent country,  not part of the People's Republic of China; that according to the constitution, the national name is currently the Republic of China; that changing the status quo [thus defined] must be agreed to by the people as a whole; and that these points already form the broadest consensus [of cross-strait relations] in the country.

Translation: DPP needs idealistic platform

Below is an editorial published by the Liberty Times on March 21st about the DPP's ideal party platform. My own ideas have been laid out before. Honestly, I think the author's mistaken; the DPP will obviously keep a core independence vision, but this will not win new votes. Any new DPP platform must, as the DPP apparently plans to do, take a much more comprehensive look at Taiwan's political, economic, environmental and social situation.

Cao seems to seriously confuse Taiwanese support for continued de facto independence as an outright endorsement of plans such as a new constitution. This is simply not the case, and the DPP will never get elected on the TSU platform of yesteryear, which revolved around the theme of rectifying the country's name and writing a new constitution (正名制憲). I might like these ideas in theory, but they will not get you elected.

Frankly, should the leaks about the coming platform worry Cao Chang-ching be true, I'd consider it a very good step forward and a good sign of a DPP that's growing into a party again capable of governing, instead of being a party that's just good at shouting slogans about unnecessary and impossible goals that have no resonance with the wider electorate.

Either way, enjoy!

DPP needs idealistic platform

by Cao Chang-ching (曹長青)

The pan-greens are optimistic about their chances in the upcoming mayoral elections following their string of victories in legislative special elections. This has resulted in some intense jockeying within the party.

But whether we are discussing the upcoming five mayoral elections or the 2012 presidential elections, the most important thing for the pan-green movement is not to gain power, but to use power gained to promote the cause of making Taiwan a normal independent state. As the core of the pan-green movement, the DPP's upcoming party congress (to be held in August), will likely be the site of an to launch a "ten year platform," press reports say. The platform is expected to expound "a comprehensive plan for the country's future" and a "vision for the coming decade."

Since their loss last presidential election, DPP heavyweights have failed to spell out a clear plan for handling the problems related to Taiwan's future and status. In the current situation, the DPP's plan to bring forward a clear platform is a responsible move, in respect to both voters and country.

National Identity is Key

The key question is, what will be the contents of the political platform? What important rhetorical points and understanding will be applied regarding Taiwan's future? Although no one has yet seen a draft of the platform, certain points shown to the press by the DPP Policy Committee's deputy executive director are a bit worrying.

The reason they are worrying is that this platform does not make the status of Taiwan its central theme, but rather focuses on "changes in the world's situation; the interaction of Taiwan and China; globalization and economic trends & the evolution of economic and trade relations with Taiwan and China; technological development; energy prices and ideas for the reduction of carbon emissions ; water scarcity and food autonomy; climate changes' coming effects on Taiwan's fragile soil; the aging population and health care changes; and the government's financial discipline & the undermining of the social insurance system due to the possibility of bankruptcy."

Frankly speaking, a KMT political platform could include all of these same elements. It creates no clear contrast with the current Ma administration. The problems that Taiwan faces today do not just include globalization, unemployment, economic development and democratic politics, all of which are problems countries around the world face.

More unique to Taiwan is the question of its status and future as a country, a problem that revolves around three issues. The first is Taiwan's relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.On this we should be very clear: Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC, and Taiwan is a sovereign independent state. We should make all efforts to resist China's attempts to promote unification, or any attempt at annexing Taiwan.

The second issue is Taiwan's relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We must resolutely resist the KMT's "two sides of the strait, one China" policy or any other actions which aim to sell Taiwan.

The third issue is the relationship between Taiwan's future and its people. The DPP ought to make a clear promise that should the party return to power, they would be promoting the normalization of Taiwan as a country, including the efforts to write a new constitution (excluding archaic language related to territory, and clearly stating the limiting of that territory to Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen and Matsu); the adopting of a new national anthem (we must ditch references to the three people's principles and
loyalty to the KMT); and the adaptation of a better national referendum law. We must cast aside the "Republic of China" hat that the KMT forced on Taiwan through violent means, and recognize reality. We must apply to join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan. And so on.

The DPP must respect public opinion

Some people will ask: while the KMT remains so strong, can these goals be realized? Do these goals lack realism or practical value? Regardless of how these questions are answered, the starting point ought to be that platform ought to place highest priority on the will of the people, regardless of how idealistic it is, if the party hopes to make strides. These objectives are not castles in the sky, but concrete goals that increasing numbers of Taiwan people strongly desire. Whether under the Chen Shui-bian administration or the Ma Ying-jeou administration, a variety of polls reflect these trends:

A TVBS Poll conducted 30 days after President Ma Ying-jeou took office showed 65% of people support Taiwanese independence, while only 19% were in favor of unification. Sixty-eight precent considered themselves Taiwanese, and only 4% would call themselves Chinese people.

One year after Ma Ying-jeou took office, a Global Visons poll revealed 49% of people supported "eventual independence" while a mere 16% supported "eventual unification," and a solid 69% opposed eventual unification. In July last year, the same magazine's poll showed 82% support for each side of the Taiwan strait now being a separate, sovereign state.

Early last year, a poll by the monthly magazine "Wealth" showed two thirds of the Taiwan people are unwilling to make concessions on sovereignty to China for political or economic benefits; 59% of people worry that Taiwan's economy is too dependent on China, and 55% of people think China is Taiwans' largest enemy militarily.

These polls were not conducted by pan-green media, so their results may be taken to reflect reality and not a pro-DPP political point of view. Today, the question is not whether the DPP ought to present an idealistic platform before the people; rather, the question is whether the party will follow public opinion, subject itself to public opinion, and be in accordance with the wishes of the people on the way forward.

Why Chen Ming-wen won [omitted]

Election results

While I'm as happy as the next guy about the DPP's sweeping win in the legislative by-elections, I want to say I'm disappointed at the media's concentration on the DPP's ability to raise a motion to impeach Ma.

For one thing, Taiwan is not a parliamentary system, and impeachment is not a vote of no confidence that results in snap elections; so even if the motion were to succeed, it would not create a better political atmosphere or give the DPP a chance to make any more immediate gains.

For another, the KMT's previous unending attempts to impeach Chen Shui-bian just led to a bunch of political theater and didn't accomplish anything, even if it might have hurt Chen *somewhat* politically; but I'm not even sure there's evidence for that. So I don't see an advantage to this strategy.

Most importantly, what the DPP should be doing with their new threshold is bringing up *bills* -- sunshine bill legislation, KMT party property stuff, etc. Yes, all of this will be blocked int he procedural committee, but it's important for the DPP to focus on and promote an image of capable governance, rather than stirring up further discontent against the KMT alone.

Regardless of the Chen verdict...

... one thing is certain. Whatever verdict Chen Shui-bian gets in his politically-tinged trial, he will continue to hang around the DPP's neck like an albatross for the foreseeable future.

A lenient sentence that puts him out of jail in no time, however unlikely, also puts him square in the middle of the DPP again soon in a time of relatively weak leadership. Chen remains popular with the DPP base if extremely unpopular outside of it, and the factional loyalties his return would reignite do not bode well for the party.

A more likely heavy sentence will complete the process of making a martyr out of Chen, permanently grafting the DPP onto his cause, and make him the poster boy for victims of modern KMT nonsense.

Either way, Chen's case and the DPP's symbolic struggle against injustice will remain nearly synonymous within the party and without, and this will only bring the DPP more headaches.

Some more advice to the DPP

One thing I don't make a lot of friends with is my habit of telling the DPP what to do. But I can't help myself, since I really want them to win, and really don't see how they're going to do it using their current strategies. Not long ago I outlined my platform advice to the DPP. So today I'm going to focus on the ground game. Get more people on the ground, get a better message on the air. That would be the gist of it. Here are the details.

• Make the "shadow government" a real shadow government. So far, 2008 presidential candidate Frank "I'm retired from politics" Hsieh has been using his weekly radio show on GreenPeace 97.3, his blog and his shadow government website to push back against KMT policies -- without actually forming a shadow cabinet or coordinating with the DPP party apparatus. This is a tremendous waste of resources. A shadow cabinet that had the party's backing would get more air and print time, presenting coordinated views on the range of topics. The shadow cabinet should draw credible scholars and professionals from the Taiwan Thinktank, Taiwan Society and professional organizations. Such a shadow cabinet would help the DPP present a set of faces that would offer voters a measure of continuity even in the event of a transfer of power, and give people a better idea of what they'd be getting with a DPP administration. This is especially important since the DPP's cabinet during it's 8 years were frequently replaced and sometimes picked for ideological loyalty over competence (see Mark Chen, a hero of the democracy movement who made a lousy foreign minister).
• Figure out what people actually want. Not everyone is as obsessed with cross-strait issues as the DPP Central Standing Committee or I am, and the party must take that lesson to heart. After the Democratic Party's 2004 election loss in the United States, Howard Dean won the election for DNC chair. One of his first acts was to send out a mail survey far and wide -- my Republican grandfather in Indiana filled it out, as did my Democratic parents in Texas and some friends in California. The survey asked people questions about their positions and priorities. The two page survey gave the Democratic yet another tool to see what voters of different ages and in different regions wanted.
  

  Some of this data was redundant -- exit polls in the US are very long sets of questionnaires and included not only the DNC's questions, but a great many others. But exit polls are filled out mostly by very motivated & excited voters (few others have the patience), and telephone surveys put pressure on respondents to reply quickly and sometimes thoughtlessly. The DNC's survey was designed to complement these other data sources and helped serve as a starting point for Dean's 50-state strategy. That leads us to...
  

• Take a page from Howard Dean's book. Dean's "50-state strategy" involved pumping money into the local party apparatus in places that the DNC had long given up on, like Texas, Kansas, Alaska or Indiana; paying field workers and organizers on the ground in every congressional district in every state; running at all levels in every state; expanding advertising; and backing locals to run in a district whether that meant producing "blue dog Democrats" or "left coast liberals." And Obama's strategy was Dean's strategy on steroids.

  The DPP, which has virtually no party apparatus or activity in huge swaths of the country, ought to consider just how significant this strategy was to the change in Democratic fortunes between 2004 and 2008.
  

  To get an idea of the significance of that change, see The Dean Legacy, The Howard Dean Nominee, and Kamarck, Elaine C. (2006) "Assessing Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy and the 2006 Midterm Elections," The Forum: Vol. 4 : Iss. 3, Article 5.

• Co-opt the independents. At some of the lower levels, there are more independent office holders than DPP candidates. The DPP ought to make efforts to recruit those independents who can agree with the party's core principles. This is no small task; these candidates don't need the DPP's money to win (what money?), so the party is going to have to attract them with an improved image and, perhaps in some cases, tactic threats of backing their rivals. There are promising signs the DPP has realized the value of tactically backing independent rivals of KMT candidates; let's see them take it to the next level.
• Clean up the website. It's easier to find past election results than current candidate information on the DPP site. Come on people!
  

DPP petition is a stupefyingly awful idea

The DPP's decision to start a petition calling for the release of Chen Shui-bian is, I think, reasonable but politically unwise. I'd imagine the impetus for this project came from those Chen allies of the K-incident generation remaining on the party's central committee.

At the end of the day Chen is a massive liability to the DPP's image, and drags them into the past instead of giving them the chance to look into the future.. Whatever the merits of the petition (and it has merits, as Chen's detention and prosecution have been riddled with irregularities), the DPP would be better off throwing him under a bus. That's my cold-blooded advice, at least.

Did Su Tseng-chang read my editoral?

Who cares? I'd like to flatter myself by thinking so, especially since ol' Smiling Light Bulb has always been my man, but whatever his inspiration, at least he's saying similar things.

Editorial

An opinion piece I wrote for the Liberty Times was published in full today (Sunday). The article was composed in Chinese, but I will provide an English translation below. It represents the bulk of my national policy advise to the DPP; it does not touch upon my advice on other strategic matters, such as contesting local lizhang and city council level elections more vigorously.

I am from Texas. Beginning in 1998, my second year of high school, I began to study Mandarin and pay more attention to articles and books about Taiwan. Before long I had a deeper understanding of the Taiwanese struggle for freedom and self-determination. Since that time, over a ten year period, i have constantly upheld the basic principle that Taiwanese people have a right to determine their own future. Whether in Taiwan or the United States, I have demonstrated through action my commitment to the importance and legitimacy of Taiwanese self-determination.

The collapse of the DPP over the last year has been heart wrenching. This setback is not a result of the DPP's core values, but rather of how it promotes its political goals.

At the present, the DPP legislative caucus resorts to daily press conferences in order to thrash KMT policies using less than civil language. Although the party is also pressing ahead with good policies, the populace does not see them. Too many people believe the DPP is only capable of opposing every single KMT policy. This phenomenon has resulted in an inability of the party to attract swing voters. The DPP must on a daily basis promote a reasonable and constructive platform, as it did in the past.I suggest something along the lines of the following:

Deepening Democracy: Amend the Assembly and Parade Law and referendum law; promote "sunshine bills;" reform the single member district, two vote leglislative election system to create a legislature where party affiliations more closely reflect the percentage breakdown of votes (the German system would be a good model).

Economic progress: Support the signing of free trade agreements with the US, Japan, Singapore, and Korea; call for transparency of the ECFA negotiation process; encourage a high-tech shift in all economic sectors; promote continuing and adult education; improve water quality in all areas; strengthening environmental laws.

Protecting sovereignty: Express willingness to enter into negotiations with China with no preconditions; affirm the reality of "one side, one country;" support the right of the Taiwanese people to decide their future by referendum.

The above platform is largely in line with principles championed by the DPP. But the party must consolidate constructive and attractive concrete policies and present them to the people on a daily basis in order to convince swing voters that the DPP is worthy of their support.

Cross posted to Taiwan Matters!

Round up

Three things this afternoon: First is the previously announced DPP intention to hold a referendum on the ECFA, with the first stage of signature collection to be finished by the end of July. I have been waiting for the exact wording of the referendum proposal, but even the DPP newsletter doesn't contain that information, so I can forget about finding it in the media reports. I don't think they've actually decided on the wording, which means they can't get the petition drive started yet. Brilliant.

Next, the widely despised NCC finally announced that Wantwant group cannot take over CTV and China Times as it had planned. Wantwant is not happy and will fight this. Perhaps finally, now that the NCC has angered blue politicians, the organization will be banished or significantly reformed, years after the Constitutional Court here declared the current method for choosing that body to be unconstitutional.

However, the more likely result will be mild reform that leaves the NCC responsibilities and rights more or less intact, while just changing how members are chosen. More on this topic to come, as English media has not picked it up yet.

Third, the DPP has raised a bill that would prevent Chinese government or military officials from investing in Taiwan, and lock all Chinese investors out of certain industries. The bill will be discussed during Friday's legislative session.

Interesting

Apparently, one of the reasons the DPP didn't apply for a two day permit for the 5/17 protest, even though they were planning a 24 hour sit in at the end of it, was because another civic group had a permit for 5/18m but apparently the Taipei City government has convinced them to rescind their application, so Mayor Hau is now asking the DPP to apply for the 18th as well to avoid an illegal aspect to the sit in.

(update: this CNA article didn't say who had right son the 18th, but Arther Dent reports the group was the KMT, while Robert R. points out that the China Times reported the KMT permit had been rejected; now Hau claims things were negotiated with the group that had road rights? What gives? And why did the CNA article fail to identify the previous applicant? More "help out the Ma administration" editorial pressure at work?).

But the DPP says no, they won't apply.

Since, I think, the contents of the Parade and Assembly Law have become such a critical focus of the 5/17 protest, and because how the law will be amended may well depend on what unusual happenings are seen at the 5/17 protest and subsequent sit in, I guess the point they're trying to make is that the law is already too strict and likely to get stricter.

I would just apply I think. Choose your battles wisely.

Further update: Well, according to DPP Tsai Ing-wen's latest comments, the DPP had applied for the right to assemble on the 18th in the first place, but it was the KMT's application to hold the ground that day (despite not having any plans to assemble) which prevented the DPP's application from being approved. So the DPP has no intention to re-apply for the 18th and will hold their all night vigil according to plans, to hell with KMT antics.

Given this information that had slipped by me in the first place, I'm going to have to side with Tsai's interpretation and say don't play their game.

Tsai also notes that while Ma invited her to visit him after the 5/17 rally at the presidential palace, she believes the invitation lacks sincerity and is just grandstanding.

I would say that such a meeting could either turn into a good opportunity to rearticulate the points she made at George Washington earlier, but more likely would just a way for the KMT to shift attention away from the rally and to the discussion, where the DPP's presentation time would effectively be cut in half.

Shelley Rigger, making sense

I missed this panel discussion last January, but I found this answer from Shelley Rigger on the whole Taiwan/China/ethnicity/sovereignty question to be good. I really couldn't say it any better myself:

Shelley Rigger: Yes, I would just thank Mike for making those points because I think that's really important. And we need to understand, and I didn't do a very good job of explaining why people in the DPP and throughout Taiwan's society have such suspicions. And your mention of Steve Chen's speech in London, I mean, there were some really old school KMT talk in that speech, so yes.

But I guess what I would say is that this is precisely why it's so important for the DPP to get its act together and to figure out what it wants to -- where it wants to position itself and how it wants to position itself, particularly in relation to Chen Shui-bian because having a strong opposition in Taiwan and having a very clear and a resolute voice for this other point of view is, it is essential to raise the cost to Beijing of erring on the side of overreaching.

And I think one of the biggest perils Taiwan faces is for the Beijing government to sort of become complacent and to think well, we don't have to make these concessions. We can insist on the comma because the Taiwan side is not going to put up a fight. So when the Taiwan side does put up a fight, whether the society or the leadership, that drives home the point that it's not going -- it's not easy and that Beijing is not going to get everything it wants.

And I guess that's my -- as someone who has done a lot of work on the DPP and cares very deeply about it, my anxiety comes, in part, from the feeling that they need to get their act together so that they can play that role as successfully as they need to because these are perilous times.

Donald Rogers later makes what has to pass for a great insight, since so few commentators are making it:

You know, it's a difficult thing. The last thing I would say about this, and Lien, when he was, through his years, actually, has advocated this notion of moving from zero sum to win-win, that we can move from a zero sum, kill-each-other game, to a win-win game in negotiations and relations between China and Taiwan. That is possible within certain parameters. In other words, good economic relations certainly can help both sides.

But in the end, the Chinese want and will accept only one thing, and that is the
unification, the absorption, or whatever term you want to use of Taiwan into China. And so the win-win can be a win in short term, narrow terms, but in the big term, in the big sense, it's almost impossible to envision a win-win at the present time, with the attitudes of people in Taiwan versus the attitudes of the Beijing government. And so this concession thing fits into that. Maybe we can get these small concessions, but it's not what we really are looking for.

And one point for Tsai.

To see an example of the DPP responding to Ma's policies rationally nowadays, you have to look to Tsai Ing-wen, like at her recent speech at George Washington University (posted by Michael Turton here).

Unfortunately, Tsai's measured responses rarely capture the sensational Taiwan media's attention, and she's largely drowned out by the gaggle of legislators who spend all day wailing, "The sky is falling!"

Another two sets of 16 characters.

Nearly one year ago, on April 30^th, 2008, I analyzed two different 16 character formulas that were seemingly guidelines for how the KMT and CCP wanted to approach cross-strait relations:

When VP-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) met with Hu Jintao (胡锦涛) met a few weeks ago at the economic conference, he raised a sixteen character phrase that he hoped would be the guiding principles of cross-strait relations:

「正視現實，開創未來，擱置爭議，共創雙贏」
"Face reality, start a new future, set aside disputes, and create a win-win situation."

Well, today Hu Jintao responded in kind, using his own slightly modified formula:

“建立互信、求同存异、搁置争议、共创双赢”
"Establish mutual trust, seek common ground while reserving differences, set aside disputes, and create a win-win situation."

Today I bring you a third set of 16 characters that spoken by Premier of the People's Republic of China "Grandpa" Wen Jiabao (温家宝) on the 18^th of this month at the 2009 Boao Forum for Asia. This third formula appears to be another direct response to the KMT's 16 character formula. Wen called on Taiwan and China to:

“面向未来，捐弃前嫌，密切合作，携手并进”
"Face the future, relinquish grudges, closely cooperate, and move forward hand-in-hand."

In the same speech, Wen Jiabao calls on Taiwan to be more open to Chinese imports and for more completely integrating the economic situation. He also called for "discussing and solving the political and economic problems" under the One China principle.

A China time article on the same subject notes a 16 character phrase of Ma's which is also very closely related to all of these discussions:

「同舟共濟，彼此扶持，深化合作，開創未來」
Cross the stream on the same boat, give support to one another, deepen cooperation, and start a new future.

So you can see where all of this is going.

I'm not sure how I feel about it all.

Obviously I have no trust whatsoever in China's willingness to accept anything but full annexation of Taiwan, but I have no doubt they would be willing to form an intermediate agreement which will (a) buy time to make coercion unnecessary (sway Taiwanese public opinion) to achieve a "one country, two systems" unification, or failing that, (b) reduce all other foreign interest in the Taiwan question, thereby making economic or military coercion a piece of cake that the rest of the world will ignore.

On the other hand, part of me wonders what sort of possibility there may be for truly creative solutions. Many US professors I had talked to before were convinced China wanted nothing more than to "save face" on the Taiwan question. I wonder how true this is. I think you could talk people on Taiwan into a federalist "union," but China will have none of that; and likewise, the Chinese "one country, two systems" package won't fly here.

I've previously (and repeatedly) speculated on what an intermediate peace agreement would look like, but basically came up blank. I still believe it's unthinkable that the core issue (sovereignty) could be compromised by either side, so have a lot of trouble figuring out how the the intermediate agreement could be significant.

I think we are going to learn a lot more in the next year or two about the real plans of both the KMT and CCP. I think these are exciting times and that Taiwan will continue to maintain both its de facto independence & grow increasingly close to China on the economic and cultural fronts. I think the KMT will continue to be a bunch of dastardly authoritarian crooks while the DPP continues to be a bunch of whiners who can't even run candidates at the lowest levels or put together a compelling and comprehensive platform.

Time will tell.

DPP plans

The Taipei Times article on the DPP's reform wasn't bad, and this analysis was good, but it lacked a lot of the information found in the Liberty Times article that I found both valuable and reassuring. Basically, it turns out the DPP is not as out of touch with reality as I feared. Some choice comments from the Page 2 articles:

不過，台南市長許添財點名民進黨當前的問題不是定位路線而是能力，必須提升黨的能力讓人民信賴，黨不只是消極監督執政黨而是趕快取代執政黨；也有中常委私下質疑說，黨中央設立多個委員會能發揮什麼實質功能？

However, Tainan Mayor Hsu Tien-Tsai (許添財) noted that the DPP's problem is not in deciding the party's general direction [AGu: we do seem to know the core party goals, right?] but rather in its ability. The DPP must improve its ability [to govern] in order to win the people's trust. The goal is not to simply act as a watch dog of the ruling party, but to replace the ruling party quickly. One DPP Central Standing Committee member also said privately that they are not sure about the true usefulness of establishing consultation committees [the party's main action yesterday].

施正鋒（東華大學原住民民主學院院長）

民進黨若只討論走議會或群眾路線是搞錯方向，因為現在連目標是什麼都不清楚，就好像只討論要坐高鐵還是搭火車、或是坐飛機，卻不知道自己到底要去高雄還是花蓮、宜蘭；若只討論手段跟方法，等於是無頭蒼蠅。

民進黨應把過去八年的執政政見拿出來一一檢視，做到多少？有多少是食言而肥？沒做到的部份應向選民道歉，許多民眾討厭國民黨，但不見得就會支持民進黨，因為 人民對民進黨失望到底，所以現在應重建人民信心，民進黨也要重新定位，告訴我們，你民進黨這個店到底要賣什麼？

[Professor] Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒) noted that it would not be useful for the DPP to merely debate whether it will be a legislative or a social movement, because even the party's goals are not clear right now. It's like debating if you will take the High Speed Rail or the train, or whether you'd rather fly, without knowing whether you're going to Kaohsiung, Hualian or Yilan. If the DPP merely discusses what they're doing to do and how, they'll be acting like a headless house fly.

The DPP ought to examine the experience of its eight years in power one item at a time. What did the party accomplish? How often was the party forced to eat its words? The party should apologize to the people for the goals it could not accomplish. Lots of people dislike the KMT, but that doesn't mean they'll be DPP voters, because the people are already greatly disappointed in the DPP. So the party must now re-win the confidence of the people, and establish a new orientation. Tell the people: what is it that the DPP is selling?

蔡丁貴 （公投護台灣聯盟召集人）

對於社會力量，民進黨嘴巴上雖講支持，實際上卻不當作一回事，過去民進黨會輸是有原因的，反對黨應要有眼光，勇敢站出來，呼籲民眾並運用人民力量共同建立 長治久安政治環境，不要只停留在縣市輸贏、立委席次多寡，應拉高思考層級，否則在目前遊戲規則下，與國民黨怎麼玩都會輸。

Professor Tsai Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴) said that in terms of social power, the DPP talks the talk, but hasn't done anything for [social interest/activist groups]. In the past the DPP lost for this reason. An opposition party needs to have vision and bravely stand up Call on the people to use their power, working together to establish an environment suitable for long-term, stable [DPP] governance. There's no need to get stuck on whether the DPP will win the mayoral/county commissioner elections this year, or in how many legislators the party has. Instead the party has to think smarter, or under the current rules of the game, no matter what the DPP does, they'll lose to the KMT.

picking up the ball

Looks like the DPP is finally recognizing the importance of a coherent and systematic China policy approach during the Ma era.

DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen announced the decision to set up the "China Affairs Task Force" during a scheduled meeting of the party's Central Standing Committee....

Tsai, who was herself formerly chairwoman of the Cabinet-level Mainland Affairs Council from 2000 to 2004 under the previous DPP government, named former National Security Council deputy secretary-general Chen Chung-hsin to convene the new committee, whose members will include senior party leaders and legislators, former DPP government officials with experience in China affairs and scholars.

Tung said that Hu's speech represented "three restrictions."

The CPU associate professor stated that Hu aimed to "narrow Taiwan's future" to unification with the PRC and "drew a red line for Ma Ying-jeou" by declaring that "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will restore unity" and by declaring that cross-strait differences do not involve "sovereignty or the recreation of national territory, but the ending of political antagonism."

"In another words, the unification of China excludes the possibility of a federation or a commonwealth," said Tung.

Second, Tung said that Hu defined the "Consensus of 1992" under the "one China framework" and "drew a second red line against Ma Ying-jeou" by excluding any room for the new president's notion of "mutual non-denial" and by insisting that the two sides are "divided" but not "separate."...

"The DPP must clearly manifest Taiwan's democratic experience and the principle of 'sovereignty rests with the people' under which only the 23 million Taiwan people have the right to decide Taiwan's future," said the DPP spokesman.

Tung's bolded statements are especially refreshing, first because they're absolutely true, if you just read what the China leadership has repeatedly said and never denied; and it demonstrates the DPP is willing to look at what light blues may consider 'pragmatic' approaches, but that the DPP has seen those approaches to be in conflict with China's demands and policies.

Reminder

The legislature's decision to pass a resolution clearly stating that the ROC (Taiwan) and the PRC are separate entities, which I consider significant but which has passed almost entirely under media radar, is a pretty good reflection of public opinion ; according to 2007 pan-blue media surveys, some 75% of Taiwanese believe Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country. In 2006, the MAC got similar results (76%). Around 80% of voters on both sides of the 2008 presidential election felt Ma's election showed nothing about the average Taiwanese's feelings toward unification.

No more than 13% of people in Taiwan even want to move toward unification in the future, and less than 2% want unification some time soon. More discouraging still to China: over 80% support that Taiwanese should decide their own future, and over 75% oppose the idea that the Chinese have a say in the matter.

I honestly believe that the consensus is so wide that the DPP and KMT could probably put this question behind us, form a consensus, and move on to more nitty gritty topics. Of course, that would involve the DPP giving up what they consider to be a key campaign theme, and would require the KMT to resolve it's absurd contradictions on the One China question. So don't expect the political consensus to crystallize any time soon.

Green camp surrounds legislature

Despite Diane Lee's resignation, a number of green-leaning civic organizations and DPP organizers are peacefully laying siege to the legislature today in a protest to express their disapproval of the legislature's slow handling of the situation, to call for Diane Lee to be formally stripped of her position by the legislature, and to call on other suspected duel-nationality blue legislators to resign.

I think the DPP isn't helping itself with this protest; I don't see what is being called for anymore now that Diane's resignation deflated this issue. On the other hand, she probably wouldn't have resigned without the pressure the protest planning was bringing to bear.

Round up

A good set of articles to round up today:

DPP rejects Hu Jintao's 'olive branch' (Taipei Times)

“As long as the ‘one China’ principle is recognized by both sides ... we can discuss anything,” Hu told a gathering of the Communist Party elite at the Great Hall of the People.

If the DPP gives up “splittist activities” and “changes its attitude,” it would elicit a “positive response,” Hu said.

In response, the DPP said in a press statement that Taiwan is a sovereign state, and its sovereignty belongs to the nation's 23 million people; hence, Taiwan's future must be decided by its people, which is the DPP's fundamental position and mainstream public opinion in the country.

DPP chair Tsai Ing-wen also said Taiwan's soverignty is under threat due to the "One China" framework, a conclusion that's difficult to escape. Note: as always, the DPP is not a group of crazy, radical independence activists. They just support that Taiwanese people should control the destiny of Taiwan. Try telling the international media that.

Besides saying that Taiwan and China could "discuss pre-unification politial relations," What else was in the CCP proposal?

China and Taiwan could at a proper time begin contacts and exchanges on military issues and explore a mechanism to build trust on military matters, Hu said....

“We continue to welcome and support Taiwan companies' business in the mainland and encourage mainland enterprises to invest in Taiwan,” Hu said.

Hu said he understood Taiwan's desire to take part in “international activities” but stressed China would not tolerate any move that suggested sovereign independence.

Military contacts are the beginning of the end, and the CCP knows it. Can you say "joint exercise aimed at preparing to take certain Japanese islands," anyone? And also do you notice the absense of a "mutual non-denial" flavor, a key Ma policy that he keeps insisting China has accepted?

OK, predictable responses and statements from both the DPP and CCP, but what did the KMT say? For me, the key point is in what they didn't say during their otherwise friendly response:

對於「胡六點」明白揭示一個中國、反獨促統、完成祖國統一等原則，國民黨對這部分並未回應。黨務人士表示，國民黨不可能全部回應，只是重申國民黨的立場。
In response to principles listed in "Hu's six points" -- recognition of "One China," opposing independence and completing the unification of the country -- the KMT had no response. A party worker said that the KMT could not possibly respond to each and every point, but could only restate the KMT's position.

Typical of a party that's trying to pretend the PRC doesn't exist while engaging the communist regime on a party-to-party basis. Meanwhile, support for Taiwanese Independence is nearing a historic high:

CommonWealth Magazine found that almost one out of every four Taiwanese was hoping for the island to be truly independent, according to its 2009 "State of the Nation" annual survey.
Of the 23.5 percent independence proponents, 18.6 percent said they wanted independence while maintaining peaceful relations with China, but 4.9 percent said Taiwan should declare independence soon, no matter what Beijing's opinion was.
Only 6.5 percent was in favor of rapid unification with China, the lowest total ever in the magazine's annual survey. A total of 57.8 percent supported the status quo, the publication said.

Problem with surveys like this is, how do those people define the status quo? We don't know from data like this. My guess is most would answer "independence," or perhaps "unresolved," and the rise in the people moving from "status quo" to the independence column is a largely due to a realization that Ma Ying-jeou is a "One China, two regions" guy.

I should be clear on my personal stance: while I"m a Green kind of guy, I recognize that there are a lot of potential outcomes to the KMT engagement other than Taiwan getting annexed. None of those alternatives seem likely, at this time, but it iwll be very interesting to see exactly what happens and how public opinion shifts here over the next couple of years.

Additional news: nobody is looking forward to the post-Lunar New Year unemployment numbers.

Chinese hackers take out DPP website

And replace it with a Chinese flag.