Lai Insults Both Constitution and Nation, Even Defines President Tsai's Course As Taiwan Independence
United Daily News Editorial, January 4, 2024
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential William Lai’s recent remarks relating treating the Republic of China (Constitution) as a “sacred mountain” to bringing about a disaster have stirred up a political storm, creating a crisis in the electoral landscape. Even though President Tsai Ing-wen urgently intervened to contain the situation, President Tsai's statements to rescue Mr. Lai appear to be contradictory to Mr. Lai's own stance. Despite Mr. Lai's subsequent attempts to shift the focus and clarify his remarks, his previous comments insulting the Constitution and the nation inevitably deviate from President Tsai's established path. Mr. Lai's provocative stance towards both the United States and China risks creating disasters for Taiwan, cross-strait relations, and even the global order. If Mr. Lai were to be elected president and continue along this trajectory, it could lead to catastrophic consequences for Taiwan, exacerbate cross-strait tensions, and potentially contribute to international turmoil.
It is hard to imagine that a presidential candidate from the ruling party would seek the presidency by insulting the Constitution and trampling on national dignity. Mr. Lai first dismissed the idea that the "R.O.C. (Constitution) is a holy defensive mountain protecting the country" as a myth. He claimed that treating the R.O.C. (Constitution) as a defensive protection would "bring disaster.” In Mr. Lai’s speeches, he sometimes confused the terms R.O.C. and the R.O.C. Constitution, revealing not only a lack of clarity in his conceptual thinking but also a profound disrespect for the nation and its fundamental laws. If Mr. Lai were to win the election, he would have to swear allegiance to the R.O.C. Constitution and pledge to defend the country during the inauguration ceremony. It is not difficult to imagine that such a "soulless" oath would be utterly absurd!
In hopes of reversing the damage, Mr. Lai later claimed that referring to the “R.O.C. Constitution” as simply the "R.O.C." was a slip of the tongue. However, many believe that his initial statement reflects Mr. Lai's true sentiments. After all, a single verbal slip might be dismissed as an error, but repeatedly making the same mistake suggests genuine beliefs. Mr. Lai tried to clarify that he omitted the word "constitution," but even so, stating that treating the “R.O.C. Constitution” as the “sacred mountain” can bring about a disaster only reinforces his aversion to the Constitution. Mr. Lai then argued that there would be no issue with him promoting national governance in accordance with the R.O.C. Constitution and existing laws. However, given Mr. Lai's obstinate nature, forcing him to adhere to a constitution he dislikes may very well lead to peculiar constitutional crises.
Mr. Lai’s statement that the Constitution can bring a disaster deviates from the “Tsai policy line," which he claims to follow. Mr. Lai expressed that if the Constitution or other laws can unite the people, he would certainly respect them. However, if the Constitution is to be used to decide cross-strait issues, that is another matter. President Tsai has repeatedly emphasized that she handles cross-strait affairs based on the Constitution and the Act Governing Cross-Strait Relations. Mr. Lai's remarks can be seen as "using Tsai’s banner against Tsai." While President Tsai is busy containing the situation, Mr. Lai's running late, Bi-khim Hsiao, has also attempted to ease tensions. It is evident that both President Tsai and Ms. Hsiao are attempting to rescue Mr. Lai from his predicament he finds himself in as an advocate for Taiwan independence. Even the DPP press has emphasized the adherence to the Constitution in handling cross-strait affairs. Mr. Lai has stirred up this trouble, and currently, he has not made a clear return to President Tsai's established path.
What adds to President Tsai’s concerns is Mr. Lai categorizing her stance as leaning towards Taiwan independence. Mr. Lai defined the core idea of President Tsai’s "Four Musts" policy to be “Taiwan independence,” specifically the principle of the R.O.C. and the People's Republic of China being "mutually non-subordinate.” The Office of the President clarified that President Tsai and Mr. Lai share the same position, but it seems as if President Tsai is compelled to cover up for Mr. Lai, even though his stance on Taiwan independence is evident to all. The United States has reiterated its position multiple times, even sending Chairman Laura Rosenberger of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to announce its non-support for Taiwan independence. Mr. Lai’s statement not only provokes China and contradicts the United States but also effectively declares that Tsai is on the path to Taiwan independence. According to Mr. Lai’s logic, President Tsai, whom the United States trusts, represents the equivalence of Taiwan independence, which the United States does not support.
Unsurprisingly, when President Tsai stepped in to help Mr. Lai, she also contradicted him. Tsai emphasized that the R.O.C. Constitution is "not a risk” to Taiwan, correcting Mr. Lai on one hand and defending her own stance on the other. What sets President Tsai apart from Mr. Lai is her astuteness. Instead of entangling herself in whether the Constitution is a risk to Taiwan or not, she shifts the focus, pointing out that the real risk lies in connecting the Constitution with the 1992 Consensus. Unlike Mr. Lai's stubbornness, President Tsai cleverly refrains from directly stating that Chinese President Xi Jinping defines the 1992 Consensus as "One Country, Two Systems." Instead, she subtly changes the narrative, simplifying the 1992 Consensus, “One China” principle, and “One Country, Two Systems” into a "three principles in one" formulation. However, the 1992 Consensus was originally based on the R.O.C. Constitution, and its content includes the "One China, Respective Interpretations" framework that was established during the era of former President Lee Teng-hui. In contradicting Mr. Lai, President Tsai not only rejects his stance but also distances herself from Mr. Lee.
In conclusion, Mr. Lai’s insulting remarks towards the Constitution and the nation may possibly deepen American skepticism towards him and imply that President Tsai's political stance leans towards Taiwan independence. President Tsai, in an attempt to address the crisis caused by Mr. Lai's remarks, not only contradicts him but also rejects former President Lee’s political legacy and distorts the spirit of the 1992 Consensus. This incident has triggered a chain reaction. The fact that President Tsai personally intervened to assist Mr. Lai only highlights the severity of the trouble Mr. Lai has recently stirred up.