DPP Tsai’s Approach to Seek a “Taiwan Consensus” Strongly Connotes Authoring a New Constitution

News Release

KMT Cultural and Communications Committee

                                                   September 19, 2011

DPP Tsai’s Approach to Seek a “Taiwan Consensus” Strongly Connotes Authoring a New Constitution

The media reported on September 17^th that DPP chairwoman and Presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen, who is on a tour to the US, expounded clearly how to seek a “Taiwan consensus” in dealing with cross-Strait relations, which was later encapsulated by the media as “three yeses, three noes.”

In response, KMT spokesman Charles I-Hsin Chen said that Tsai’s explanation of her idea on how a “Taiwan consensus” should be reached was so vague that “the more she explains it, the more confusing it is.”

Tsai argued that her proposal of a “Taiwan consensus” was not an issue that could be resolved through a simple democratic majority. Furthermore, it was not simply a legislative or public issue, nor was it simply a domestic issue, stated Tsai.  

Chen said that Tsai’s remarks were tantamount to former President Chen Shui-bian’s “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution” and “One Country on Each Side” under his eight-year rule.

Chen said that if this was really Tsai’s stance on the issue, Tsai should not disappoint her deep-Green supporters, and should even “voice it loudly.” “Beating around the bush and using hallow rhetoric, Tsai only wants to confuse swing voters by lobbing political smoke grenades,” said Chen. 

Chen said that Tsai’s new explanation of her proposed “Taiwan consensus” strongly indicated her intention to “write a new Constitution.”

Chen pointed out that if we closely exam Tsai’s “three yeses, three noes” when she tried to explain how a “Taiwan consensus” should be reached, we shall find : 1) that Chen Shui-bian’s movement for “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution” was, in fact, not determined by a simple majority, but a high threshold of a 3/4 majority; 2) that Chen Shui-bian’s “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution” was more than an issue of legislation; and 3) that Chen Shui-bian’s “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution” was more than a domestic issue as it would lead to destabilization in East Asia.

Chen said that Tsai’s remarks in the US indicated that her “Taiwan consensus” was tantamount to Chen Shui-bian’s movements for “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution” under his eight-year rule. “If this is the case, Tsai Ing-wen should be honest and clearly tell her supporters that she supported Chen Shui-bian’s “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution,” said Chen.                

On the other hand, Chen said, “If I have misinterpreted Tsai’s words, then she should come forward to tell her deep-Green supporters that she objects to the idea of ‘Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution’ and ask her supporters not to expect too much from her in this regard.”

The fact that Tsai refused to admit the legitimacy of the Republic of China Constitution and was unwilling to give a direct response on the issue of “no independence” in order to maintain her ambiguous position in supporting Taiwan independence, both indicated that Tsai’s approach to seek a “Taiwan consensus” was, in fact, following Chen Shui-bian’s footsteps in pushing for “Rectification of Names and Authoring a New Constitution.”  

Chen called on Tsai to tell the truth, adding that since she really wanted to follow Chen Shui-bian’s old path, why didn’t she admit it openly?

In addition, Tsai criticized on September 17^th in the US that the “1992 Consensus” was a “fictitious consensus” as it was not reached through people’s debate or a democratic process, adding that the “1992 Consensus” was similar to a “shanty hut,” a “temporary building” built without building permit. In response, KMT spokesman Charles I-Hsin Chen solemnly rebutted Tsai’s remarks, saying that the ROC Constitution was definitely not a “shanty hut,” nor was it a “temporary building.” Chen questioned, “Do Tsai’s remarks imply that if elected, she would destroy or tear apart the ROC Constitution?”

【Editor’s Note: DPP Presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen has never admitted the legitimacy of the ROC. She even once said that “the ROC was a government in exile.” Tsai’s cross-Strait policies have been based on the DPP’s 1999 “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” Although the ROC is mentioned in that resolution, she has not mentioned the ROC even once in her “Platform for the Next Decade.” Tsai gives people the impression that she is pushing for a political movement or even a revolution, instead of a “Taiwan consensus.” If Tsai calls for something under the framework of the ROC Constitution, then it is a reform. On the other hand, if Tsai’s “movement” transcends the Constitution, then she is fomenting a revolution. Therefore, we can argue that if Tsai loses the 2012 Presidential election, the DPP will still continue to push for what they call a “Taiwan consensus” in seeking Taiwan independence.】

Attachment : none