According to a responsible person in charge of the mainland affairs of the Taiwan authorities, this meant the leader of the Taiwan authorities once again "releases goodwill" toward the mainland. However, this so-called "goodwill" aims to befuddle public opinion. It evades the crucial issue: whether or not to accept the one-China principle. We should like to ask: On what "basis" and under what "conditions" will all he said be put into practice and carried out? Is the cross-Strait relationship belonging to relationship within a country, or relationship between two "countries of the Chinese", which "are not subordinated to each other"? In a word, is cross-Strait relationship belonging to "members of one family", or relationship of "neighbors" and "distant relatives and near neighbors"? It is merely illusory, fantastic talk just like a moon in the water and a flower in the mirror when he evades the one-China principle, denies the "1992 Consensus" and even refuses to admit his identity as a Chinese, while at the same time he talks glibly about "goodwill". Superficially, Chen Shuibian said that both sides should "refrain from setting precondition to each other", in fact, what he sticks to is the precondition without setting precondition-"the theory of splittism".

Denying the fact that the two sides of the Taiwan Straits are of one country, he naturally wants to make them become "two countries"; denying that the two sides are of "one country" in the past and at present, he naturally wants to make them become an undecided "one China question in the future".

When you denies "one China", even you are permitted to go to Fujian to "search out your ancestral root", that will mean that a Chinese from a certain "country" to go "to search out ancestral root" in the residential area of the Chinese in another country;

Denial of "one China" and the joint accession of the two sides to the WTO would mean relationship between them would not be one between China as the mainstay and its independent tariff zone, but would rather become the relationship between two countries;

When "one China" is denied, how can there be a "moment of handshakes" between leaders of the two sides?

While professing that the two sides should have "a bit more economy and less politics", Chen Shuibian obstructs the realization of "three direct links" of mail, trade and air and shipping services between the two sides of the Straits, clinging to his "Taiwan independence" line that goes against the will of the people between the two sides of the Straits; while prating that the two sides should "have more contacts and less misunderstanding", he imposes many restrictions on contacts with the Chinese mainland. He professes: the two sides should "have more trust, and less attack and pressure", while at the same time he creates antagonism and hatred between compatriots of the two sides. Facts show that his words are not matched by his deeds.

Chen claims that the mainland "misunderstands" and "does not understand" him; he also asserts, "to have dealing with Shuibian and with the new government of Taiwan" is the most important key to the improvement and normalization of the relationship between the two sides of the Straits." However, In his many statements, Chen Shuibian refuses to accept the one-China principle, denies the "1992 Consensus", and preaches that acknowledging the fact of "one China" and the "92 Consensus" is tantamount to "surrender" and "subjugation". His statements, well established and written in black and white, are evident to everybody, then how can they be "misunderstanding" and "not understanding"? If we have dealing with the "new government of Taiwan", how can the cross-Strait relationship be improved?

The so-called "goodwill" of Chen Shuibian is nothing more than a kind of "election campaign language" as commented by Taiwan media, that is, an attempt to befuddle public opinion, and a performance aimed to wangle votes.

(People's Daily November 29, 2001)