Why are Taiwanese so averse to the China-proposed “one country, two systems” formula for reunification? And why are they so disgusted with the Chinese communist government? Well, you have to be in the company of Taiwanese to appreciate these feelings.

　　I stayed in Taipei when I returned to Taiwan recently. Friends and relatives of my generation whom I met, and who are supporters of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), had one thing to say in common: “Luckily, Taiwanese in the central and southern parts of the island had the courage to reject the Kuomintang (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) in the elections in December last year to make the pro-independence DPP the biggest party in parliament.”

　　But it intrigued me when I heard that they had been going karaoke singing with “Lao Miao”, playing ball games with “Xiao Deng” and his wife, and that the daughter of one of them, was even engaged to “Xiao Qi”......“Aren't these people all “waishengren” (or mainlanders i.e. Taiwanese who arrived on the island in 1949 after the KMT's defeat in the civil war on mainland China by communists)?

　　If you're getting along so well with them, why the deep-rooted divide between native Taiwanese and mainlanders when it comes to politics?”

　　“The divide surfaces only when elections are on,” I was told.

　　Reality seems to bear this out. They have no objections to sending their children to China for education and no opposition to investing in the Chinese property market. They are in favour of an early opening up of the three links (or more) - shipping, postal and commerce between the island and China. More important, they are able to accept the eventuality of reunification.

　　But it is status quo for now. "We'd rather die than submit if China forces reunification on us with its military might. We've had a hard time freeing ourselves from the oppressive rule of the KMT, there is no way we would place ourselves under harsher control by the communist dictatorship! Just look at the overbearing manner the politicians speak, never mind the content!” they said.

　　A friend of mine who supports the PFP asked me: “You said China had spent an enormous amount of money on training, but why haven't their leaders realised that they are badly in need of some training in projecting themselves? Honestly, even as a mainlander, I find the arrogance with which they speak hard to live with.

　　If they know nothing other than high-handed tactics, they could at least try to understand the actual situation before commenting. Whoever they speak in favour of will suffer at the elections, we call it the “kiss of death”. I just hope Ma Ying-jeou will not be the next casualty.”

　　A KMT member, Taipei mayor Ma, is one of the hot favourites in the next presidential election.

　　Commenting on cross-strait ties some time ago, two male Chinese professors living in the US said:“Countries can in a way be divided into “yin” and “yang”. “Yang” countries are characterised by rationality. They place more emphasis on content than form and care more about results than “face-saving”. On the other hand, “yin” countries are typified by sensibility and form and “face-saving” are of great importance to them, even at the expense of the goals and results they are pursuing.” These friends of mine went on to describe the US as “yang” and cross-strait ties as “yin”.

　　The remark arose after one of them had criticised his wife. She had been irked by the habit of male members of the family leaving their dirty socks everywhere in the house, including on the dining table. She had also been annoyed by her maid who did not collect a “full load” before using the washing machine, a practice which she felt wasted much water. My response that I could identify with her values prompted the men to make a comparison of what men and women see as significant and insignificant.

　　Then the subject of relations across the Taiwan Straits cropped up. They felt both sides had made the mistake of paying more attention to rhetoric than substance and being penny-wise, pound-foolish and were very much like some incomprehensible and unreasonable women. When I protested against the “male-female” analogy, they changed it to “yin-yang”.

　　In retrospect, I now fail to see how “yin-yang” is an improvement over the “male-female” dichotomy which I objected to. In fact, I think I had provided a good example of what they were trying to prove.

(The writer is an Associate Professor at NUS Business School ,Dept of Finance & Accounting. Translated by Yap Gee Poh)

　　你必须身处台湾人之中，才能了解为什么他们对“一国两制”这么排斥，对中共政权这么反感。

　　这次回台，住在台北。拥护民进党的同辈亲友众口一词：“还好中南部的台湾人有志气，没买国民党或亲民党的帐，让民进党成为立法院最大党。”

　　听到他们和“老缪”等人去卡拉OK，与“小邓”夫妇去打球，女儿已经和“小齐”订了婚 ……，我问：“这些不都是外省人吗？既然你们和外省人相处得这么和睦，怎么谈起政治还有这么深的省籍情结？”

　　我得到的答案是：大家平时没有省籍情结；只有在选举的时候，他们才有省籍情结。

　　似乎是如此。他们并不反对把孩子送到大陆读书，也不排斥到大陆买房产，更认为三通甚或多通都应该尽早落实。最重要的是，他们都能接受将来两岸终究要统一的现实。

　　但是，“拿着枪逼我们统一？宁死不屈！没理由好不容易才脱离国民党的高压统治，又一头栽进更霸道的共产党专政！先别管他们的政治人物说话内容是什么，光看那说话的气焰就够了！”

　　一名支持亲民党的朋友问我：“你说对岸花了很多钱搞培训，怎么他们的领导人没有想到自己也很需要行销学方面的培训？坦白说，他们说话的那股霸气，连我这个外省人都很难接受。

　　“他们如果真的不知道怎么使软不使硬，至少可以摸清了实际情况才说，因为他们那边认可谁，谁在台湾的选战里就倒楣了，这就是我们所谓的‘死亡之吻’。我现在但求他们别吻死马英九。”

　　马英九是国民党籍台北市长。他被认为是下届台湾总统选举的热门候选人之一。

　　两位旅美男性华裔教授朋友曾经这么批评海峡两岸：国家似乎也可有“阴”与“阳”之分。阳性国家突显理性，重实质轻形式，重结果轻脸面；阴性国家则突显感性，对形式和脸面看得很重，即使其付出的代价正是所追求的实质和结果。他们觉得美国属阳性，海峡两岸则属阴性。

　　这话题其实起自其中一位对其妻子的微词。她看不惯家中男成员把脱下的袜子随手乱放，包括放在餐桌上；受不了女佣不懂得节约用水，不等洗衣机“满载”才洗衣。当我表示我能认同其妻子的价值观时，他们把男女两性之所重和所轻对比了一番。

　　说着说着，他们联想到了海峡两岸，觉得中台双方都犯了重名轻实和因小失大的毛病，实在都如女人般难以理解和不可理喻。在我抗议之下，他们将“男女”改为“阴阳”。

　　现在回想起来，我倒看不出“阴阳”比起“男女”有什么改善。我当时对他们选用“男女”二字的抗议，倒像是给他们的说法提供了一个现成的例子。

·作者是新加坡国立大学企业管理学院副教授

《联合早报》

<<< 返回/Return