關於 how to break an independent woman ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件，都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個：一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律，通常懲罰是輕微的，檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他；二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的，檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019

那個南方叫屏東
屏東的黑鮪魚好ㄘ(〃∀〃)

【2016，這就是台灣人想要的總統！】

「妳回北京以後，告訴他們，」蔡英文說：「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」

（“Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”）

上面那段話，是這幾天來，最讓我感佩與震撼的一段話。那是蔡英文主席接受《TIME》雜誌專訪長文的結語，鏗鏘有力，也讓人無比動容...

2016，我希望我能有幸擁有這樣的總統，一股溫柔的力量，卻又充滿自信與霸氣，不慍不火、不卑不亢，而這正是台灣這個即將新生的島國，用來在世界永續立足，最需要的態度。

朋友們告訴我，昨天附上的《TIME》雜誌英漢對照翻譯文章，已經被下架了。對此，我真的感到非常遺憾。（更新消息：PTT貼文者並非原譯，因恐引起誤會而刪文。原譯文出自獨立記者Jessie Chen臉書，特此致謝。）

對於那篇連夜趕出的翻譯稿，也許不同立場的朋友，會有不同想法與批評。但對於譯者的熱心與用心，我只有發自內心的感激和敬佩。因此，我在網路上找到備份文章，再一次（無修改）分享給我的朋友們，需要的，就幫忙再傳播出去吧！

德不孤必有鄰，一位擅長漫畫的朋友，也默默傳了她關於那段「溫柔力量」談話的圖像詮釋。淡淡的畫風，彷彿原景重現，對我而言，那份感動，似乎又更深了一些...

有人以文字速譯向小英致敬、有人以圖像速寫向小英致敬──

而我，只能藉此臉書一角，向翻譯者、漫畫家，跟小英總統本人，獻上最誠心的祝福與感謝！

謝謝你們，讓台灣變成一個更好更美的地方。
　

──────────底下為英漢對照翻譯原文──────────

民進黨主席暨總統參選人蔡英文登上最新一期時代雜誌封面，標題是「她將可能領導華人世界唯一民主國家， She Could Lead The Only Chinese Democracy」。蔡主席是繼印度總理莫迪、印尼總統佐科威、韓國總統朴槿惠後，最新一位登上時代雜誌封面的亞洲領導人。

中英譯全文：

雜誌封面
She Could Lead the Only Chinese Democracy
And that makes Beijing nervous
她將可能領導華人世界唯一的民主國家
這讓北京感到緊張

目錄頁
Cover Story: Championing Taiwan
Presidential front runner Tsai Ing-wen wants to put the island’s interests first
封面故事：壯大台灣
總統大選領先者蔡英文要將台灣利益置於優先

內頁大標
‘The Next President Of Taiwan’
That’s how Tsai Ing-wen refers to herself. But will the island’s voters agree?
台灣的下一任總統
蔡英文是這樣認為。但是這座島嶼的選民會同意嗎？

內文
Emily Rauhala / 台北報導 Adam Ferguson / 攝影

Tsai Ing-wen is making breakfast. The presidential candidate cracks five eggs and lets them bubble with bacon in the pan. She stacks slices of thick, white toast. It’s a recipe adapted from British chef Jamie Oliver, but the ingredients, she can’t help but say, are pure Taiwan. The meat comes courtesy of Happy Pig, a farm near her spare but tasteful Taipei apartment, the bread from a neighborhood bakery. She offers me an orange. “Organic,” she says, in English. “And local, of course.”

蔡英文正在做早餐。這位總統候選人打了五個蛋，和著平底鍋裡面的培根一起吱吱作響，再把一片片白色的厚片土司疊起來。料理手法學自英國名廚傑米奧利佛（Jamie Oliver），但是她忍不住要說，烹調食材屬於最純粹的台灣原料。培根來自「快樂豬」農場，距離她那簡單卻有品味的公寓不遠，而麵包是從她家附近的烘培坊買來的。她遞了一顆橘子給我，用英文跟我說：「有機的！當然也是在地的。」

This is not an average breakfast for the 58-year-old lawyer turned politician running to become Taiwan’s next President—most days she grabs a coffee and books it to the car. But it is, in many ways, oh so Tsai. The Taipei-raised, U.S.- and U.K.-educated former negotiator wrote her doctoral thesis on international trade law. As a minister, party chair and presidential candidate (she narrowly lost to two-term incumbent Ma Ying-jeou in the 2012 race), Tsai gained a reputation for being wonky—the type who likes to debate protectionism over early-morning sips of black coffee or oolong tea.

對於這位58歲、從律師轉變成政治人物的總統候選人來說，這可不是她平常吃的早餐。她通常隨手抓一杯咖啡在車上喝。不過許多方面來說，這應該可以算是一貫的「蔡式」風格。這位在臺北長大、在英美留學過的談判專家，博士論文寫的是國際貿易法。在她當陸委 會主委、民進黨主席、總統候選人期間（她在2012年的總統大選中以些微差距輸給了馬英九總統），得到學院派的風評──她是那種喜歡在早上喝黑咖啡或烏龍茶時，跟你辯論保護主義的人。

Now, as the early front runner in Taiwan’s January 2016 presidential election, her vision for the island is proudly, defiantly, Taiwan-centric. Tsai says she would maintain the political status quo across the strait with China—essentially, both Taipei and Beijing agreeing to disagree as to which represents the one, true China, leaving the question of the island’s fate to the future. But Tsai wants to put Taiwan’s economy, development and culture first. While Ma and his government have pushed for new trade and tourism pacts with Beijing—China accounts for some 40% of Taiwan’s exports—Tsai aims to lessen the island’s dependence on the mainland by building global ties and championing local brands. “Taiwan needs a new model, ” she tells TIME.

現在，身為在2016年台灣總統大選中的領先者，蔡英文的願景充滿自信又堅定地強調以台灣為核心。蔡英文說她會維持兩岸的現狀──這指的是說臺北與北京彼此同意對於何者代表中國保留不同的認知（註明：這是時代雜誌記者的見解），並且把這個島嶼的命運留給未來決定。但，蔡英文想要將台灣的經濟、發展與文化置於首位。當馬英九和他的政府推動與中國的貿易及觀光協議時（中國占台灣出口的百分之四十），蔡英文希望加強與世界連結、扶植台灣品牌，以降低台灣對中國的依賴。她對時代雜誌說：「台灣需要一個新模式」。

Whether voters share her vision is a question that matters beyond Taipei. Taiwan is tiny, with a population of only 23 million, but its economy—powered by electronics, agriculture and tourism—ranks about mid-20s in the world by GDP size, with a GDP per capita about thrice that of China’s. Ceded by China’s Qing dynasty to Japan after the 1894–95 First Sino-Japanese War, colonized by Tokyo for half a century, then seized by Nationalist forces fleeing the Communists at the end of the Chinese civil war, Taiwan has long been a pawn in a regional great game. It is a linchpin for the U.S. in East Asia alongside Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and, most important, it’s the only real democracy in the Chinese-speaking world.
“This election matters because it’s a window into democracy rooted in Chinese tradition,” says Lung Ying-tai, an author and social commentator who recently stepped down as Culture Minister. “Because of Taiwan, the world is able to envision a different China.”

台灣的選民是否同意她的願景，是一件擴及台北以外的事情。台灣的土地雖小，只有兩千三百萬的人口，但是經濟因電子業，農業以及觀光業的支，以國內生產毛額來說在世界排名第二十幾名。台灣的國內人均產值則是中國的三倍。台灣在1894-95的中日戰爭被中國清朝割讓後，被日本殖民了半個世紀；之後在中國內戰結束時逃避共產黨的國民黨勢力給佔領。長期以來台灣是區域競爭中的一個棋子。在美國的東亞布局中，台灣、日本、南韓及菲律賓同為最關鍵的環節。更重要的是，台灣是在華語世界中唯一一個真正的民主國家。甫卸任文化部長的作者與社會評論員龍應台表示：「這場選舉很重要，因為它提供了一個窗口，讓外界一探以中華文化為根基的民主……因為台灣，世界得以想像一個不一樣的中國。」

Taiwan’s politics irritate and befuddle Beijing. To the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Taiwan is the province that got away, a living, breathing, voting reminder of what could happen to China if the CCP loosens its grip on its periphery, from Tibet to Xinjiang to Hong Kong. Beijing is particularly wary of a change in government from Ma’s relatively China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) to Tsai’s firmly China-skeptic Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). When Tsai ran for President in 2012, Beijing blasted her, without actually naming her, as a “troublemaker” and “splittist”—CCP-speak reserved for Dalai Lama–level foes. “A DPP government means uncertainty for cross-strait ties,” says Lin Gang, a Taiwan specialist at Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

台灣的政治讓北京感到惱怒又百思不解。對中國共產黨來說，台灣是一個逃走的省，也是對中國活生生的提醒──若中國鬆懈對於香港、西藏及新疆等非核心地區的掌控時，可能會發生的事。北京對於台灣的政權，由對中國相對友善的馬政府輪替到對中國保持疑慮的民進黨，抱持格外戒慎的態度。蔡英文在2012年參選總統的時候，北京雖然沒有指名道姓，卻明顯對她大肆抨擊，說她是一個「麻煩製造者」或「分裂主義者」——在共產黨的術語中，這些話專門達賴喇嘛這一層級的仇敵。任教於上海交通大學國際與公共關係學院的台灣事務專家林岡說：「民進黨政府代表的是兩岸關係的不確定性。」

To the U.S., which is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to come to the island’ s aid if it’s attacked, Taiwan is a longtime friend and unofficial ally, though the strength of that friendship is being tested by China’s rise. Washington worries that Taiwan’s people, especially its youth, are growing warier of China, and that any conflict between the two might draw in the U.S.
“What this election has done is crystallize the changes, the shift in public opinion,” says Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan scholar at Davidson College in North Carolina and the author of Why Taiwan Matters. “I don’t think cross-strait relations are going to be easy going forward, and that’s not something U.S. policymakers want to hear.”

對美國來說，根據《台灣關係法》，在台灣受到武力攻擊的情況下，須協防台灣。台灣是美國長期友邦和非正式盟國，儘管兩國之間友誼的強度正受到中國崛起的考驗。華府擔心台灣人民，特別是年輕人，對於中國的警戒心逐漸提高，而兩者之間的衝突可能會把美國牽扯進來。著有《台灣為何重要》（Why Taiwan Matters）一書的美國北卡羅來那州戴維森大學（Davidson College）教授任雪麗（Shelley Rigger）說：「這場選舉讓所有的改變具體化，反映出民意板塊的移動……我不認為接下來的兩岸關係會更融洽，而這不是美國的政策制定者想要聽到的東西。」

The KMT has yet to formally nominate a candidate for the top job, but the favorite is Hung Hsiu-chu, the legislature’s female deputy speaker. Nicknamed ”little hot pepper” because of her diminutive stature and feisty manner, Hung, 67, would be a contrast to the more professorial Tsai should she get the KMT’s nod. “I don’t think [Tsai] is a strong opponent,” Hung tells TIME. Yet the DPP’s choice, who has already started pressing the flesh islandwide, is spirited too. “People have this vision of me as a conservative person, but I’m actually quite adventurous,” she says. And possessed of a sharp sense of humor—when I compliment her cooking, Tsai looks at me with mock exasperation: “I have a Ph.D., you know.”

國民黨雖然還未正式提名總統候選人，但目前最被看好的就是立法院副院長洪秀柱。因為身材嬌小與好戰性格而被封為「小辣椒」的洪秀柱（67歲），如果獲黨的提名，將與擁有學者形象的蔡英文，呈現顯著的對比。洪秀柱向時代記者表示：「我不認為蔡英文是一位強的對手」。然而，民進黨的候選人已經士氣高昂，在全台各地展開競選活動。蔡英文說：「有些人認為我是一個保守的人，但我其實是很愛冒險的」。她有一種犀利的幽默感──當我讚美她的廚藝時，她用搞笑的語氣假裝惱怒說：「我可是擁有博士學位的。」

Tsai grew up in a home on Taipei’s Zhongshan Road North, a street named after Taiwan’s symbolic father, Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese revolutionary who helped overthrow the Qing and co-founded the KMT. Her own father, an auto mechanic turned property developer, was of the Confucian kind: he encouraged her to study hard but also expected her, as the youngest daughter, to devote herself to his care. “I was not considered a kid that would be successful in my career,” says Tsai.

蔡英文在台北的中山北路長大，這條街是以革命推翻清朝、成立國民黨並視為國父的孫逸仙命名。她的父親是一位修車技師，後來成為土地開發商。他承襲了儒家思想，希望蔡英文要用功讀書，但也期許身為小女兒的蔡英文可以留在父親身邊照顧他。蔡英文說：「我小時候不是一個被認為未來會有成就的孩子。」

After attending university in Taiwan, she studied law at Cornell in New York because, she says, it seemed the place for a young woman who “wanted to have a revolutionary life.” From there she went to the London School of Economics, where she earned her Ph.D., also in law, in less than three years. “That pleased my father,” she says. When he called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan to teach and, in 1994, to enter government in a series of high- profile but mostly policy-oriented roles in the Fair Trade Commission, National Security Council and Mainland Affairs Council.

在台灣大學畢業後，她前往紐約州康乃爾大學研讀法律，因為她說，這是一個「想過革命性的生活」的年輕女子該去的地方。之後，她前往倫敦政治經濟學院攻讀法學博士，並且三年不到就獲得學位。她說：「這讓我父親很高興」。她遵從父親的意思返回台灣，先回大學教書並在1994年進入政府，出任公平交易委員會、國安會及陸委會等一系列重要的、政策導向的職位。

Even close supporters say Tsai was, and perhaps still is, an unlikely politician, especially for the DPP. Taiwan’s opposition party was forged in struggle and led by veterans of the democracy movement—a fight Tsai mostly missed. The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979—a human-rights rally that was violently broken up by security forces, galvanizing the democracy movement— took place while Tsai was overseas, cocooned in the ivory tower. If the archetypal DPP operative is a bare-knuckle street fighter, Tsai is an Olympic fencer—restrained and precise.

就連許多親近蔡英文的支持者都認為，蔡英文是一位非典型的政治人物，特別就民進黨而言。身為在野黨的民進黨，在台灣民主運動的奮鬥過程中焠煉而成，由民主運動的老兵所成立，這是一場蔡英文錯過的戰役。1979年高雄的美麗島事件，當一場人權遊行遭警政單位暴力驅散，而後來激勵了台灣的民主運動，蔡英文當時正在國外求學，受到象牙塔的庇護。若說民進黨的典型人物是赤手空拳的街頭鬥士，蔡英文則是一位奧林匹克級的劍術家：自我克制又精確到位。

She stepped into the spotlight in 2008, becoming party chair when the DPP found itself booted from office, with its chief Chen Shui-bian, the outgoing President, later convicted of corruption. While she possessed a deep knowledge of policy, Tsai did not then seem like a leader. “She used to sort of hide behind me when we went door to door,” recalls legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, a longtime colleague and friend. “People compared her to a lost bunny in the forest, with wolves surrounding, both from within the party and outside.

在2008年民進黨失去政權，而前總統陳水扁隨即遭貪汙罪起訴的時刻，蔡英文踏入了鎂光燈下，成為民進黨主席。雖然蔡英文對於政策擁有深度的瞭解，但當時她還不像一位領導人。長期以來是她同事與朋友的立法委員蕭美琴說「以前當我們挨家挨戶去拜訪時，她有點會躲在我身後」。「有些形容她為一個在森林裡迷路的兔子，被黨內與黨外的狼群包圍。」

After an unsuccessful 2010 mayoral bid, Tsai ran for, and also lost, the presidency in 2012. Jason Liu, a veteran DPP speechwriter, says now that the campaign did not “sell” Tsai well enough. The ideas were strong, but the delivery left “distance between her and the voters.” Ironically, it was not until her concession speech that Tsai seemed to connect emotionally with Taiwan’s citizens. “You may cry,” she told the tearful crowd. “But don’t lose heart.”

2010年，蔡英文參與市長選舉失利，在2012年也沒順利當選總統。民進黨資深文膽劉建忻表示，當時的競選總部對於「行銷」蔡英文這個概念，做得不夠好；雖然擁有許多好點子，但是執行上還是「讓選民感到有所距離」。諷刺地，一直到敗選感言，蔡英文才似乎與台灣人民產生情感上的連結。她對含著淚水的群眾表示：「你可以哭泣，但不能洩氣。」

A lot has changed since 2012. Eleven hours after making eggs, with a policy meeting, a cross-country train ride and a harbor tour behind her, Tsai is addressing a couple hundred students at a university in the southern city of Kaohsiung, a DPP stronghold. She’s in lecture mode, at ease, talking about her party’s economic plans: stronger regional links and a focus on innovation to support small businesses. “How many of you went to Taipei for the Sunflower protests?” she asks in Mandarin. At least a third raise their hands.

2012年之後的台灣，歷經了許多改變。蔡英文煎蛋後的11個小時後，歷經了一場政策會議、搭乘高鐵從北一路向南、緊接著進行高雄碼頭導覽。她抵達南台灣民進黨的重鎮高雄，向數百位大學生發表演說。她以一派輕鬆的授課模式，闡述著民進黨的經濟計畫：加強區域間的連結，並聚焦於支持創新的小型經濟。她用中文詢問在場學生「你們之中有多少人去台北參加過太陽花學運？」現場至少有三分之一的學生舉起了手。

Taiwan’s students were once seen as apathetic. But during spring last year, Taipei was swept up by thousands-strong demonstrations over a services pact with China. Student and civic groups worried that the deal could hurt Taiwan’s economy and leave it vulnerable to pressure from Beijing. They felt it was pushed through without adequate public scrutiny. The Sunflower Movement, as it came to be called after a florist donated bundles of the blooms, grew into a grassroots revolt, culminating in the March 18 storming of the legislature.

台灣的學生過去一度被視為相當冷漠。但是在去年的春天，台北市被數以千計的抗議者淹沒，反對與中國簽訂的服務貿易協議。學生與公民團體擔憂這個協議會傷害台灣經濟，讓台灣的經濟受制於中國壓力而變得脆弱。他們也認為，服貿協議的推動並沒有經過適當的公民審議。太陽花運動是民間累積的抗爭與不滿，在3月18日這天一舉衝進立法院，運動的稱號是由於抗爭期間一位花販捐贈了大量太陽花而因此命名。

The movement was grounded in questions of social justice. Since coming to power in 2008, Ma has argued that cross-strait commerce is the key to the island’s fortunes, signing 21 trade deals. Yet young people in particular wonder if the deals benefit only Big Business on both sides of the strait. They say rapprochement with Beijing has left them none the richer, and agonize over the high cost of housing, flat wages and the possibility of local jobs going to China. A sign during a protest outside the Presidential Palace on March 30 last year captured the mood: “We don’t have another Taiwan to sell.”

這個運動的主要訴求就是社會正義。自從國民黨2008年執政以來，簽訂了21個兩岸貿易協定，馬英九主張兩岸的商業往來是台灣最關鍵的財富來源。但是年輕人質疑這項論述，他們認為這些貿易協議只有兩岸的大財團獲利。他們說北京的和解政策並沒有讓年輕人變得富有，反而讓他們受困於高房價、停滯的薪資、以及在地工作機會可能流失到中國的可能性。在去年3月30日於總統府外的抗議中，有個標語最能捕捉整體的社會氛圍：「台灣只有一個，賣了就沒了！」

The emphasis on quality of life, and not just macro-indicators, is good news for Tsai. Her vision for a more economically independent Taiwan did not sway the electorate in 2012 but may now have stronger appeal. The KMT, bruised by the Sunflower protests and then battered by fed-up voters in midterm polls last fall, is trying to remake itself as a more populist party. Timothy Yang, a former Foreign Minister who is now vice president of the National Policy Foundation, the KMT’s think tank, says the party stands by its cross-strait record. But even Yang, a KMT stalwart, is keen to address the issue of equity:
“The benefits of this interaction with mainland China should be shared with the general public.”

台灣社會對於生活品質的重視，而非僅僅強調宏觀經濟指標，對蔡英文來說是件好事。她希望打造一個經濟上更加獨立的台灣，雖然這個理念在2012年並沒有說動選民，但，現在可能更有吸引力。國民黨在太陽花運動中受到重創，在去年秋天的期中選舉中又再度被選民以選票教訓。現在，國民黨試圖把自己再造成一個民粹的政黨。目前擔任國民黨智庫『國家政策基金會』副董事長的前外交部長楊進添先生受訪時說道，「國民黨堅持其兩岸的立場」。但即便像楊進添這樣堅定的國民黨員，也熱衷於解決公平的議題。他說：「兩岸互動的利益，應該要與全民共享！」

Tsai should easily carry traditional DPP support: much of the south, the youth vote, and those who identify as Taiwanese and who are not a part of the elite that came from China after the CCP victory in 1949. The DPP’s missing link is Big Business, which supports the KMT and closer ties with the mainland, where many Taiwan companies are invested. Tsai recognizes that this is a constituency she needs to woo but doesn’t seem clear as to how, beyond saying, “Our challenge is to produce something that is sensible to both sides without being considered as a traitor to the friends we used to be with when we were an opposition party.”

蔡英文要得到傳統民進黨的支持並不難，例如南部選民、年輕選票、還有那些認同自己是台灣人，而不是1949年中國共產黨勝利後來自中國的精英份子。然而，民進黨缺乏與大企業的連結，因為台灣企業大量投資大陸，而其中這些大財團多半支持國民黨，以及與大陸建立更緊密的關係。蔡英文也理解到這是她必須要去吸引的一群選民，但是對於如何進行並沒有太清楚的圖像。她說：「我們的挑戰是要去創造雙方都認為合理的立場，又不能被我們在野時的朋友認為是叛徒。」

That will be hard. The KMT has long argued that it, not the DPP, is best qualified to run the economy, which, corruption apart, did not do well under Chen. Tsai’s supporters concede that many citizens feel the same way—that the DPP can be an effective opposition but not administration. “The KMT has always portrayed itself as more suited to guide the economy,” says J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute and a senior officer at Tsai’s Thinking Taiwan Foundation. “There’s this stubborn perception that a DPP government would be bad for business.”

這是困難的挑戰。國民黨長期主張自己比民進黨更擅長治理經濟，尤其陳水扁執政時期除了貪污，經濟表現並不好。蔡英文的支持者也同意，確實有些民眾認為民進黨可是一個稱職的反對黨，但不是執政黨。諾丁漢大學中國政策研究中心資深研究員暨小英基金會資深主管寇謐將（J. Michael Cole）說：「國民黨把自己描繪是一個更適合主導經濟的政黨。另外也有一種僵化的刻版印象，認為民進黨執政對企業不利。」

It’s a narrative that the CCP backs and may well float as the campaign progresses, either directly, in China’s state-controlled press, or indirectly, through, for instance, its connections in Taiwan’s business community. “Beijing is going to want to make a point through all sorts of channels, including Big Business, that cross-strait relations will not be as smooth if you vote a government into power that has not accepted the foundation that has underpinned developments of the last eight years,” says Alan Romberg, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

這種論調受到中國共產黨的支持，並且今隨著選戰的進展不斷被拋出。共產黨可能直接地利用中國控制的媒體影響選舉，或是間接地透過中國與台灣商業界的連結。美國華府智庫史汀森研究中心（Stimson Center）資深學者容安瀾（Alan Romberg）說：「北京將會透過大企業等各種管道來闡述其立場，表明要是台灣人民讓一個不接受過去八年兩岸發展基
礎的政府執政，兩岸關係的發展將不會如現在一樣平順。」

Beijing has never been receptive to a DPP government, but it is particularly negative now. Since coming to power in 2012, China’s leader Xi Jinping has proved himself to be more assertive and nationalistic than most expected, a man not eager to compromise. Last September he told a delegation from the island that China and Taiwan might be one day be reunited under Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” formula, which is rejected by both the KMT and DPP and, surveys consistently show, the vast majority of Taiwan’s people. This May, Xi warned again about the danger of “separatist forces”—a comment widely interpreted as a swipe at the DPP.

北京對於民進黨政權的接受度向來不高，但現在尤其抱持負面的態度。中國領導人習近平在2012年掌權後，證明自己比外界想像的還更加武斷，帶有更強烈的民族主義色彩，是一個不輕易妥協的人。去年九月，他對一個來自台灣的代表團說，中國和台灣可望採用香港「一國兩制」的模式統一，然而這卻是一個國民黨和民進黨都反對的方案，而且民調也一再顯示，絕大多數的台灣人民無法接受。今年五月，習近平再度警告「分裂主義勢力」會帶來的危險──這段說詞普遍被外界詮釋為對民進黨的抨擊。

Cross-strait relations are managed according to the so-called 1992 Consensus reached by Beijing and Taipei (then also governed by the KMT), a formula the KMT’s Yang calls “a masterpiece of ambiguity.” Under the 1992 Consensus, both sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but without specifying what exactly that means. This, Yang says, has allowed the KMT to move forward on bilateral trade, transport and tourism without being forced to address whether “one China” is the China imagined by Beijing or by Taipei.

兩岸關係是治理目前根據北京和台北（當時為國民黨執政）之間所謂的九二共識，這是一個被國民黨的楊進添形容為「模糊性的一大鉅作」的政策。根據九二共識，雙方承認只有一個中國，但不表明一個中國的確切意含。楊進添說，這讓國民黨在推展雙邊貿易、交通和觀光方面得以取得進展，而不需被迫去回答「一個中國」究竟是北京或是台北心目中的中國。

The DPP has long promoted de jure independence. The first clause in its charter calls for “the establishment of an independent sovereignty known as the Republic of Taiwan,” not the Republic of China, Taiwan’s official name. This platform resonates with the DPP base but is increasingly untenable given China’s economic clout and growing power on the world stage. While the first DPP presidency under Chen was hardly a break from the past, it did see a cooling with Beijing. Things warmed again under Ma. Lin, the Taiwan expert at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, says Tsai is somewhere between Chen and Ma: “If she wins the election, she will not pursue Taiwan in dependence. But she will not promote the development of the cross-strait relationship as Ma Ying-jeou did.”

民進黨過去長期以來推動台灣的法理獨立。民進黨黨綱第一條闡明「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」，而非台灣的正式國號中華民國。這個立場獲得民進黨基本盤的認同，卻在中國的經濟實力成長與中國在世界舞台上崛起之下，越來越無法實現。儘管陳水扁主政時期的民進黨政府跟過去的政策並無太大差別，但跟北京的關係確實趨向冷淡。馬英九主政時期兩岸關係再度暖化。上海交通大學的台灣專家林岡說，蔡英文的立場介於馬英九和陳水扁之間。他說：「如果她勝選，她不會追求台灣獨立。但她也不會像馬英九一樣推動兩岸關係的發展。」

Tsai stresses that she will not alter the politics between Taiwan and China, but she is vague about whether she will repeal the DPP’s independence clause. And unification? That, she says, “is something you have to resolve democratically—it is a decision to be made by the people here.”

蔡英文強調她不會改變台灣和中國之間的政治關係，但對於是否撤回台獨條文卻是依然維持模糊。至於統一呢？她說：「那是必須經由民主程序解決的事情——這是一個必須經由此地的人民來做的決定。」

Hung, Tsai’s potential KMT opponent, says the DPP flag bearer needs to clarify her stance on cross-strait relations. “People ask her, ‘What is the status quo?’ and she can’t say anything specific,” says Hung. The KMT’s Yang offers a metaphor: “Before you harvest, you have to plow the land, transplant the seedlings, fertilize; all the work … has been done by the KMT, and yet they are going to harvest the crop?”

蔡英文的在對手洪秀柱說，民進黨的掌舵手需要清楚地闡明她對兩岸關係的立場。洪秀柱說：「大家問她『維持現狀是什麼意思？』，她卻沒有給具體的回應。」國民黨的楊進添用一個比喻：「在收割之前，要先耕地、播種、施肥；所有的工作……都已經被國民黨完成了，然而他們現在卻想要收割？」

Tsai believes she will win that right. Several days before I return to my Beijing base, over Taiwan-Japanese fusion in Kaohsiung, Tsai is quietly confident that she will gain the trust of Taiwan’s voters and secure victory, whatever Beijing might think. She puts a final piece of tuna on my plate. It’ s from Pingtung County in the south, where she was born. “Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”

蔡英文相信她會贏得這項權利。在我返回北京駐點的前幾天，我們在一家位於高雄的台式日本料理小店用餐，蔡英文對於取得台灣選民的信任並贏得選戰，展現出低調的自信。當時，她把最後一片鮪魚夾到我的盤子上。那塊鮪魚來自南方的屏東，她的出生地。「妳回北京以後，告訴他們，」蔡英文說：「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」

—With reporting by Zoher Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai and Natalie Tso/Taipei

─────────────────────
圖片：猜猜看，認出畫風了嗎？^^

（歡迎任何形式分享，一律免問）

「她將可能領導華人世界唯一民主國家， She Could Lead The Only Chinese Democracy」。

民進黨主席暨總統參選人蔡英文登上最新一期時代雜誌封面，蔡主席是繼印度總理莫迪、印尼總統佐科威、韓國總統朴槿惠後，最新一位登上時代雜誌封面的亞洲領導人。
中英譯全文：

［雜誌封面］
She Could Lead the Only Chinese Democracy
And that makes Beijing nervous
她將可能領導華人世界唯一的民主國家
這讓北京感到緊張

［目錄頁］
Cover Story: Championing Taiwan
Presidential front runner Tsai Ing-wen wants to put the island’s interests first
封面故事：壯大台灣
總統大選領先者蔡英文要將台灣利益置於優先

［內頁大標］
‘The Next President Of Taiwan’
That’s how Tsai Ing-wen refers to herself. But will the island’s voters agree?
台灣的下一任總統
蔡英文是這樣認為。但是這座島嶼的選民會同意嗎？

［內文］
Emily Rauhala / 台北報導 Adam Ferguson / 攝影
Tsai Ing-wen is making breakfast. The presidential candidate cracks five eggs and lets them bubble with bacon in the pan. She stacks slices of thick, white toast. It’s a recipe adapted from British chef Jamie Oliver, but the ingredients, she can’t help but say, are pure Taiwan. The meat comes courtesy of Happy Pig, a farm near her spare but tasteful Taipei apartment, the bread from a neighborhood bakery. She offers me an orange. “Organic,” she says, in English. “And local, of course.”
蔡英文正在做早餐。這位總統候選人打了五個蛋，和著平底鍋裡面的培根一起吱吱作響，再把一片片白色的厚片土司疊起來。料理手法學自英國名廚傑米奧利佛（Jamie Oliver），但是她忍不住要說，烹調食材屬於最純粹的台灣原料。培根來自「快樂豬」農場，距離她那簡單卻有品味的公寓不遠，而麵包是從她家附近的烘培坊買來的。她遞了一顆橘子給我，用英文跟我說：「有機的！當然也是在地的。」
This is not an average breakfast for the 58-year-old lawyer turned politician running to become Taiwan’s next President—most days she grabs a coffee and books it to the car. But it is, in many ways, oh so Tsai. The Taipei-raised, U.S.- and U.K.-educated former negotiator wrote her doctoral thesis on international trade law. As a minister, party chair and presidential candidate (she narrowly lost to two-term incumbent Ma Ying-jeou in the 2012 race), Tsai gained a reputation for being wonky—the type who likes to debate protectionism over early-morning sips of black coffee or oolong tea.
對於這位58歲、從律師轉變成政治人物的總統候選人來說，這可不是她平常吃的早餐。她通常隨手抓一杯咖啡在車上喝。不過許多方面來說，這應該可以算是一貫的「蔡式」風格。這位在臺北長大、在英美留學過的談判專家，博士論文寫的是國際貿易法。在她當陸委會主委、民進黨主席、總統候選人期間（她在2012年的總統大選中以些微差距輸給了馬英九總統），得到學院派的風評──她是那種喜歡在早上喝黑咖啡或烏龍茶時，跟你辯論保護主義的人。
Now, as the early front runner in Taiwan’s January 2016 presidential election, her vision for the island is proudly, defiantly, Taiwan-centric. Tsai says she would maintain the political status quo across the strait with China—essentially, both Taipei and Beijing agreeing to disagree as to which represents the one, true China, leaving the question of the island’s fate to the future. But Tsai wants to put Taiwan’s economy, development and culture first. While Ma and his government have pushed for new trade and tourism pacts with Beijing—China accounts for some 40% of Taiwan’s exports—Tsai aims to lessen the island’s dependence on the mainland by building global ties and championing local brands. “Taiwan needs a new model,” she tells TIME.
現在，身為在2016年台灣總統大選中的領先者，蔡英文的願景充滿自信又堅定地強調以台灣為核心。蔡英文說她會維持兩岸的現狀──這指的是說臺北與北京彼此同意對於何者代表中國保留不同的認知［註明：這是時代雜誌記者的見解］，並且把這個島嶼的命運留給未來決定。但，蔡英文想要將台灣的經濟、發展與文化置於首位。當馬英九和他的政府推動與中國的貿易及觀光協議時（中國占台灣出口的百分之四十），蔡英文希望加強與世界連結、扶植台灣品牌，以降低台灣對中國的依賴。她對時代雜誌說：「台灣需要一個新模式」。
Whether voters share her vision is a question that matters beyond Taipei. Taiwan is tiny, with a population of only 23 million, but its economy—powered by electronics, agriculture and tourism—ranks about mid-20s in the world by GDP size, with a GDP per capita about thrice that of China’s. Ceded by China’s Qing dynasty to Japan after the 1894–95 First Sino-Japanese War, colonized by Tokyo for half a century, then seized by Nationalist forces fleeing the Communists at the end of the Chinese civil war, Taiwan has long been a pawn in a regional great game. It is a linchpin for the U.S. in East Asia alongside Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and, most important, it’s the only real democracy in the Chinese-speaking world. “This election matters because it’s a window into democracy rooted in Chinese tradition,” says Lung Ying-tai, an author and social commentator who recently stepped down as Culture Minister. “Because of Taiwan, the world is able to envision a different China.”
台灣的選民是否同意她的願景，是一件擴及台北以外的事情。台灣的土地雖小，只有兩千三百萬的人口，但是經濟因電子業，農業以及觀光業的支撐，以國內生產毛額來說在世界排名第二十幾名。台灣的國內人均產值則是中國的三倍。台灣在1894-95的中日戰爭被中國清朝割讓後，被日本殖民了半個世紀；之後在中國內戰結束時逃避共產黨的國民黨勢力給佔領。長期以來台灣是區域競爭中的一個棋子。在美國的東亞布局中，台灣、日本、南韓及菲律賓同為最關鍵的環節。更重要的是，台灣是在華語世界中唯一一個真正的民主國家。甫卸任文化部長的作者與社會評論員龍應台說：「這場選舉很重要，因為它提供了一個窗口，讓外界一探以中華文化為根基的民主……因為台灣，世界得以想像一個不一樣的中國。」
Taiwan’s politics irritate and befuddle Beijing. To the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Taiwan is the province that got away, a living, breathing, voting reminder of what could happen to China if the CCP loosens its grip on its periphery, from Tibet to Xinjiang to Hong Kong. Beijing is particularly wary of a change in government from Ma’s relatively China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) to Tsai’s firmly China-skeptic Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). When Tsai ran for President in 2012, Beijing blasted her, without actually naming her, as a “troublemaker” and “splittist”—CCP-speak reserved for Dalai Lama–level foes. “A DPP government means uncertainty for cross-strait ties,” says Lin Gang, a Taiwan specialist at Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
台灣的政治讓北京感到惱怒又百思不解。對中國共產黨來說，台灣是一個逃走的省，也是對中國活生生的提醒──若中國鬆懈對於香港、西藏及新疆等非核心地區的掌控時，可能會發生的事。北京對於台灣的政權，由對中國相對友善的馬政府輪替到對中國保持疑慮的民進黨，抱持格外戒慎的態度。蔡英文在2012年參選總統的時候，北京雖然沒有指名道姓，卻明顯對她大肆抨擊，說她是一個「麻煩製造者」或「分裂主義者」——在共產黨的術語中，這些話專門達賴喇嘛這一層級的仇敵。任教於上海交通大學國際與公共關係學院的台灣事務專家林岡說：「民進黨政府代表的是兩岸關係的不確定性。」
To the U.S., which is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to come to the island’s aid if it’s attacked, Taiwan is a longtime friend and unofficial ally, though the strength of that friendship is being tested by China’s rise. Washington worries that Taiwan’s people, especially its youth, are growing warier of China, and that any conflict between the two might draw in the U.S. “What this election has done is crystallize the changes, the shift in public opinion,” says Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan scholar at Davidson College in North Carolina and the author of Why Taiwan Matters. “I don’t think cross-strait relations are going to be easy going forward, and that’s not something U.S. policymakers want to hear.”
對美國來說，根據《台灣關係法》，在台灣受到武力攻擊的情況下，須協防台灣。台灣是美國長期友邦和非正式盟國，儘管兩國之間友誼的強度正受到中國崛起的考驗。華府擔心台灣人民，特別是年輕人，對於中國的警戒心逐漸提高，而兩者之間的衝突可能會把美國牽扯進來。著有《台灣為何重要》（Why Taiwan Matters）一書的美國北卡羅來那州戴維森大學（Davidson College）教授任雪麗（Shelley Rigger）說：「這場選舉讓所有的改變具體化，反映出民意板塊的移動……我不認為接下來的兩岸關係會更融洽，而這不是美國的政策制定者想要聽到的東西。」
The KMT has yet to formally nominate a candidate for the top job, but the favorite is Hung Hsiu-chu, the legislature’s female deputy speaker. Nicknamed “little hot pepper” because of her diminutive stature and feisty manner, Hung, 67, would be a contrast to the more professorial Tsai should she get the KMT’s nod. “I don’t think [Tsai] is a strong opponent,” Hung tells TIME. Yet the DPP’s choice, who has already started pressing the flesh islandwide, is spirited too. “People have this vision of me as a conservative person, but I’m actually quite adventurous,” she says. And possessed of a sharp sense of humor—when I compliment her cooking, Tsai looks at me with mock exasperation: “I have a Ph.D., you know.”
國民黨雖然還未正式提名總統候選人，但目前最被看好的就是立法院副院長洪秀柱。因為身材嬌小與好戰性格而被封為「小辣椒」的洪秀柱（67歲），如果獲黨的提名，將與擁有學者形象的蔡英文，呈現顯著的對比。洪秀柱向時代記者表示：「我不認為蔡英文是一位強的對手」。然而，民進黨的候選人已經士氣高昂，在全台各地展開競選活動。蔡英文說：「有些人認為我是一個保守的人，但我其實是很愛冒險的」。她有一種犀利的幽默感──當我讚美她的廚藝時，她用搞笑的語氣假裝惱怒說：「我可是擁有博士學位的。」
Tsai grew up in a home on Taipei’s Zhongshan Road North, a street named after Taiwan’s symbolic father, Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese revolutionary who helped overthrow the Qing and co-founded the KMT. Her own father, an auto mechanic turned property developer, was of the Confucian kind: he encouraged her to study hard but also expected her, as the youngest daughter, to devote herself to his care. “I was not considered a kid that would be successful in my career,” says Tsai.
蔡英文在台北的中山北路長大，這條街是以革命推翻清朝、成立國民黨並視為國父的孫逸仙命名。她的父親是一位修車技師，後來成為土地開發商。他承襲了儒家思想，希望蔡英文要用功讀書，但也期許身為小女兒的蔡英文可以留在父親身邊照顧他。蔡英文說：「我小時候不是一個被認為未來會有成就的孩子。」
After attending university in Taiwan, she studied law at Cornell in New York because, she says, it seemed the place for a young woman who “wanted to have a revolutionary life.” From there she went to the London School of Economics, where she earned her Ph.D., also in law, in less than three years. “That pleased my father,” she says. When he called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan to teach and, in 1994, to enter government in a series of high-profile but mostly policy-oriented roles in the Fair Trade Commission, National Security Council and Mainland Affairs Council.
在台灣大學畢業後，她前往紐約州康乃爾大學研讀法律，因為她說，這是一個「想過革命性的生活」的年輕女子該去的地方。之後，她前往倫敦政治經濟學院攻讀法學博士，並且三年不到就獲得學位。她說：「這讓我父親很高興」。她遵從父親的意思返回台灣，先回大學教書並在1994年進入政府，出任公平交易委員會、國安會及陸委會等一系列重要的、政策導向的職位。
Even close supporters say Tsai was, and perhaps still is, an unlikely politician, especially for the DPP. Taiwan’s opposition party was forged in struggle and led by veterans of the democracy movement—a fight Tsai mostly missed. The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979—a human-rights rally that was violently broken up by security forces, galvanizing the democracy movement—took place while Tsai was overseas, cocooned in the ivory tower. If the archetypal DPP operative is a bare-knuckle street fighter, Tsai is an Olympic fencer—restrained and precise.
就連許多親近蔡英文的支持者都認為，蔡英文是一位非典型的政治人物，特別就民進黨而言。身為在野黨的民進黨，在台灣民主運動的奮鬥過程中焠煉而成，由民主運動的老兵所成立，這是一場蔡英文錯過的戰役。1979年高雄的美麗島事件，當一場人權遊行遭警政單位暴力驅散，而後來激勵了台灣的民主運動，蔡英文當時正在國外求學，受到象牙塔的庇護。若說民進黨的典型人物是赤手空拳的街頭鬥士，蔡英文則是一位奧林匹克級的劍術家：自我克制又精確到位。
She stepped into the spotlight in 2008, becoming party chair when the DPP found itself booted from office, with its chief Chen Shui-bian, the outgoing President, later convicted of corruption. While she possessed a deep knowledge of policy, Tsai did not then seem like a leader. “She used to sort of hide behind me when we went door to door,” recalls legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, a longtime colleague and friend. “People compared her to a lost bunny in the forest, with wolves surrounding, both from within the party and outside.
在2008年民進黨失去政權，而前總統陳水扁隨即遭貪汙罪起訴的時刻，蔡英文踏入了鎂光燈下，成為民進黨主席。雖然蔡英文對於政策擁有深度的瞭解，但當時她還不像一位領導人。長期以來是她同事與朋友的立法委員蕭美琴說「以前當我們挨家挨戶去拜訪時，她有點會躲在我身後」。「有些形容她為一個在森林裡迷路的兔子，被黨內與黨外的狼群包圍。」
After an unsuccessful 2010 mayoral bid, Tsai ran for, and also lost, the presidency in 2012. Jason Liu, a veteran DPP speechwriter, says now that the campaign did not “sell” Tsai well enough. The ideas were strong, but the delivery left “distance between her and the voters.” Ironically, it was not until her concession speech that Tsai seemed to connect emotionally with Taiwan’s citizens. “You may cry,” she told the tearful crowd. “But don’t lose heart.”
2010年，蔡英文參與市長選舉失利，在2012年也沒順利當選總統。民進黨資深文膽劉建忻表示，當時的競選總部對於「行銷」蔡英文這個概念，做得不夠好；雖然擁有許多好點子，但是執行上還是「讓選民感到有所距離」。諷刺地，一直到敗選感言，蔡英文才似乎與台灣人民產生情感上的連結。她對含著淚水的群眾表示：「你可以哭泣，但不能洩氣。」
A lot has changed since 2012. Eleven hours after making eggs, with a policy meeting, a cross-country train ride and a harbor tour behind her, Tsai is addressing a couple hundred students at a university in the southern city of Kaohsiung, a DPP stronghold. She’s in lecture mode, at ease, talking about her party’s economic plans: stronger regional links and a focus on innovation to support small businesses. “How many of you went to Taipei for the Sunflower protests?” she asks in Mandarin. At least a third raise their hands.
2012年之後的台灣，歷經了許多改變。蔡英文煎蛋後的11個小時後，歷經了一場政策會議、搭乘高鐵從北一路向南、緊接著進行高雄碼頭導覽。她抵達南台灣民進黨的重鎮高雄，向數百位大學生發表演說。她以一派輕鬆的授課模式，闡述著民進黨的經濟計畫：加強區域間的連結，並聚焦於支持創新的小型經濟。她用中文詢問在場學生「你們之中有多少人去台北參加過太陽花學運？」現場至少有三分之一的學生舉起了手。
Taiwan’s students were once seen as apathetic. But during spring last year, Taipei was swept up by thousands-strong demonstrations over a services pact with China. Student and civic groups worried that the deal could hurt Taiwan’s economy and leave it vulnerable to pressure from Beijing. They felt it was pushed through without adequate public scrutiny. The Sunflower Movement, as it came to be called after a florist donated bundles of the blooms, grew into a grassroots revolt, culminating in the March 18 storming of the legislature.
台灣的學生過去一度被視為相當冷漠。但是在去年的春天，台北市被數以千計的抗議者淹沒，反對與中國簽訂的服務貿易協議。學生與公民團體擔憂這個協議會傷害台灣經濟，讓台灣的經濟受制於中國壓力而變得脆弱。他們也認為，服貿協議的推動並沒有經過適當的公民審議。太陽花運動是民間累積的抗爭與不滿，在3月18日這天一舉衝進立法院，運動的稱號是由於抗爭期間一位花販捐贈了大量太陽花而因此命名。
The movement was grounded in questions of social justice. Since coming to power in 2008, Ma has argued that cross-strait commerce is the key to the island’s fortunes, signing 21 trade deals. Yet young people in particular wonder if the deals benefit only Big Business on both sides of the strait. They say rapprochement with Beijing has left them none the richer, and agonize over the high cost of housing, flat wages and the possibility of local jobs going to China. A sign during a protest outside the Presidential Palace on March 30 last year captured the mood: “We don’t have another Taiwan to sell.”
這個運動的主要訴求就是社會正義。自從國民黨2008年執政以來，簽訂了21個兩岸貿易協定，馬英九主張兩岸的商業往來是台灣最關鍵的財富來源。但是年輕人質疑這項論述，他們認為這些貿易協議只有兩岸的大財團獲利。他們說北京的和解政策並沒有讓年輕人變得富有，反而讓他們受困於高房價、停滯的薪資、以及在地工作機會可能流失到中國的可能性。在去年3月30日於總統府外的抗議中，有個標語最能捕捉整體的社會氛圍：「台灣只有一個，賣了就沒了！」
The emphasis on quality of life, and not just macro-indicators, is good news for Tsai. Her vision for a more economically independent Taiwan did not sway the electorate in 2012 but may now have stronger appeal. The KMT, bruised by the Sunflower protests and then battered by fed-up voters in midterm polls last fall, is trying to remake itself as a more populist party. Timothy Yang, a former Foreign Minister who is now vice president of the National Policy Foundation, the KMT’s think tank, says the party stands by its cross-strait record. But even Yang, a KMT stalwart, is keen to address the issue of equity: “The benefits of this interaction with mainland China should be shared with the general public.”
台灣社會對於生活品質的重視，而非僅僅強調宏觀經濟指標，對蔡英文來說是件好事。她希望打造一個經濟上更加獨立的台灣，雖然這個理念在2012年並沒有說動選民，但，現在可能更有吸引力。國民黨在太陽花運動中受到重創，在去年秋天的期中選舉中又再度被選民以選票教訓。現在，國民黨試圖把自己再造成一個民粹的政黨。目前擔任國民黨智庫『國家政策基金會』副董事長的前外交部長楊進添先生受訪時說道，「國民黨堅持其兩岸的立場」。但即便像楊進添這樣堅定的國民黨員，也熱衷於解決公平的議題。他說：「兩岸互動的利益，應該要與全民共享！」
Tsai should easily carry traditional DPP support: much of the south, the youth vote, and those who identify as Taiwanese and who are not a part of the elite that came from China after the CCP victory in 1949. The DPP’s missing link is Big Business, which supports the KMT and closer ties with the mainland, where many Taiwan companies are invested. Tsai recognizes that this is a constituency she needs to woo but doesn’t seem clear as to how, beyond saying, “Our challenge is to produce something that is sensible to both sides without being considered as a traitor to the friends we used to be with when we were an opposition party.”
蔡英文要得到傳統民進黨的支持並不難，例如南部選民、年輕選票、還有那些認同自己是台灣人，而不是1949年中國共產黨勝利後來自中國的精英份子。然而，民進黨缺乏與大企業的連結，因為台灣企業大量投資大陸，而其中這些大財團多半支持國民黨，以及與大陸建立更緊密的關係。蔡英文也理解到這是她必須要去吸引的一群選民，但是對於如何進行並沒有太清楚的圖像。她說：「我們的挑戰是要去創造雙方都認為合理的立場，又不能被我們在野時的朋友認為是叛徒。」
That will be hard. The KMT has long argued that it, not the DPP, is best qualified to run the economy, which, corruption apart, did not do well under Chen. Tsai’s supporters concede that many citizens feel the same way—that the DPP can be an effective opposition but not administration. “The KMT has always portrayed itself as more suited to guide the economy,” says J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute and a senior officer at Tsai’s Thinking Taiwan Foundation. “There’s this stubborn perception that a DPP government would be bad for business.”
這是困難的挑戰。國民黨長期主張自己比民進黨更擅長治理經濟，尤其陳水扁執政時期除了貪污，經濟表現並不好。蔡英文的支持者也同意，確實有些民眾認為民進黨可是一個稱職的反對黨，但不是執政黨。諾丁漢大學中國政策研究中心資深研究員暨小英基金會資深主管寇謐將（J. Michael Cole）說：「國民黨把自己描繪是一個更適合主導經濟的政黨。另外也有一種僵化的刻版印象，認為民進黨執政對企業不利。」
It’s a narrative that the CCP backs and may well float as the campaign progresses, either directly, in China’s state-controlled press, or indirectly, through, for instance, its connections in Taiwan’s business community. “Beijing is going to want to make a point through all sorts of channels, including Big Business, that cross-strait relations will not be as smooth if you vote a government into power that has not accepted the foundation that has underpinned developments of the last eight years,” says Alan Romberg, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
這種論調受到中國共產黨的支持，並且今隨著選戰的進展不斷被拋出。共產黨可能直接地利用中國控制的媒體影響選舉，或是間接地透過中國與台灣商業界的連結。美國華府智庫史汀森研究中心（Stimson Center）資深學者容安瀾（Alan Romberg）說：「北京將會透過大企業等各種管道來闡述其立場，表明要是台灣人民讓一個不接受過去八年兩岸發展基礎的政府執政，兩岸關係的發展將不會如現在一樣平順。」
Beijing has never been receptive to a DPP government, but it is particularly negative now. Since coming to power in 2012, China’s leader Xi Jinping has proved himself to be more assertive and nationalistic than most expected, a man not eager to compromise. Last September he told a delegation from the island that China and Taiwan might be one day be reunited under Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” formula, which is rejected by both the KMT and DPP and, surveys consistently show, the vast majority of Taiwan’s people. This May, Xi warned again about the danger of “separatist forces”—a comment widely interpreted as a swipe at the DPP.
北京對於民進黨政權的接受度向來不高，但現在尤其抱持負面的態度。中國領導人習近平在2012年掌權後，證明自己比外界想像的還更加武斷，帶有更強烈的民族主義色彩，是一個不輕易妥協的人。去年九月，他對一個來自台灣的代表團說，中國和台灣可望採用香港「一國兩制」的模式統一，然而這卻是一個國民黨和民進黨都反對的方案，而且民調也一再顯示，絕大多數的台灣人民無法接受。今年五月，習近平再度警告「分裂主義勢力」會帶來的危險──這段說詞普遍被外界詮釋為對民進黨的抨擊。
Cross-strait relations are managed according to the so-called 1992 Consensus reached by Beijing and Taipei (then also governed by the KMT), a formula the KMT’s Yang calls “a masterpiece of ambiguity.” Under the 1992 Consensus, both sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but without specifying what exactly that means. This, Yang says, has allowed the KMT to move forward on bilateral trade, transport and tourism without being forced to address whether “one China” is the China imagined by Beijing or by Taipei.
兩岸關係是治理目前根據北京和台北（當時為國民黨執政）之間所謂的九二共識，這是一個被國民黨的楊進添形容為「模糊性的一大鉅作」的政策。根據九二共識，雙方承認只有一個中國，但不表明一個中國的確切意含。楊進添說，這讓國民黨在推展雙邊貿易、交通和觀光方面得以取得進展，而不需被迫去回答「一個中國」究竟是北京或是台北心目中的中國。
The DPP has long promoted de jure independence. The first clause in its charter calls for “the establishment of an independent sovereignty known as the Republic of Taiwan,” not the Republic of China, Taiwan’s official name. This platform resonates with the DPP base but is increasingly untenable given China’s economic clout and growing power on the world stage. While the first DPP presidency under Chen was hardly a break from the past, it did see a cooling with Beijing. Things warmed again under Ma. Lin, the Taiwan expert at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, says Tsai is somewhere between Chen and Ma: “If she wins the election, she will not pursue Taiwan independence. But she will not promote the development of the cross-strait relationship as Ma Ying-jeou did.”
民進黨過去長期以來推動台灣的法理獨立。民進黨黨綱第一條闡明「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」，而非台灣的正式國號中華民國。這個立場獲得民進黨基本盤的認同，卻在中國的經濟實力成長與中國在世界舞台上崛起之下，越來越無法實現。儘管陳水扁主政時期的民進黨政府跟過去的政策並無太大差別，但跟北京的關係確實趨向冷淡。馬英九主政時期兩岸關係再度暖化。上海交通大學的台灣專家林岡說，蔡英文的立場介於馬英九和陳水扁之間。他說：「如果她勝選，她不會追求台灣獨立。但她也不會像馬英九一樣推動兩岸關係的發展。」
Tsai stresses that she will not alter the politics between Taiwan and China, but she is vague about whether she will repeal the DPP’s independence clause. And unification? That, she says, “is something you have to resolve　democratically—it is a decision to be made by the people here.”
蔡英文強調她不會改變台灣和中國之間的政治關係，但對於是否撤回台獨條文卻是依然維持模糊。至於統一呢？她說：「那是必須經由民主程序解決的事情——這是一個必須經由此地的人民來做的決定。」
Hung, Tsai’s potential KMT opponent, says the DPP flag bearer needs to clarify her stance on cross-strait relations. “People ask her, ‘What is the status quo?’ and she can’t say anything specific,” says Hung. The KMT’s Yang offers a metaphor: “Before you harvest, you have to plow the land, transplant the seedlings, fertilize; all the work … has been done by the KMT, and yet they are going to harvest the crop?”
蔡英文的濳在對手洪秀柱說，民進黨的掌舵手需要清楚地闡明她對兩岸關係的立場。洪秀柱說：「大家問她『維持現狀是什麼意思？』，她卻沒有給具體的回應。」國民黨的楊進添用一個比喻：「在收割之前，要先耕地、播種、施肥；所有的工作……都已經被國民黨完成了，然而他們現在卻想要收割？」
Tsai believes she will win that right. Several days before I return to my Beijing base, over Taiwan-Japanese fusion in Kaohsiung, Tsai is quietly confident that she will gain the trust of Taiwan’s voters and secure victory, whatever Beijing might think. She puts a final piece of tuna on my plate. It’s from Pingtung County in the south, where she was born. “Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”
—With reporting by Zoher Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai and Natalie Tso/Taipei
蔡英文相信她會贏得這項權利。在我返回北京駐點的前幾天，我們在一家位於高雄的台式日本料理小店用餐，蔡英文對於取得台灣選民的信任並贏得選戰，展現出低調的自信。當時，她把最後一片鮪魚夾到我的盤子上。那塊鮪魚來自南方的屏東，她的出生地。「妳回北京以後，告訴他們，」蔡英文說：「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」
延伸報導： Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai, Natalie Tso
2