Wed, Jan 04, 2012 - Page 3 News List

Evergreen founder backs ‘consensus’

Staff Writer, with CNA

Evergreen Group chairman Chang Yung-fa, speaking at his office in Taipei yesterday, explains his support for the so-called “1992 consensus.”

Photo: CNA

The so-called “1992 consensus” between Taiwan and China is in the best interests of the country, the head of the Evergreen Group said yesterday.

“I simply cannot agree with the denial of the consensus by a ‘specific’ presidential candidate,” said group founder and chairman Chang Yung-fa (張榮發), whose businesses span shipping, aviation, transportation and associated services.

It was the first time the 84-year-old tycoon had publicly thrown his weight behind the so-called consensus — a hotly debated issue ahead of the Jan. 14 presidential election.

The consensus refers to what the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) says is a tacit cross-strait understanding that there is only “one China, with each side free to interpret the meaning of the phrase.”

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) says the “1992 consensus” does not exist.

Former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted in 2006 that he invented the term in 2000 to break a cross-strait deadlock and alleviate tension.

DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) instead advocates a “Taiwan consensus” for dealing with Beijing.

Chang said yesterday that he has traveled around the world and has found that “Taiwan is the most stable and prosperous country amid uncertainty and chaos elsewhere,” which he attributed to the so-called “1992 consensus.”

“Whoever is elected should try to further solidify the content of the consensus,” Chang said.

With regard to the “Taiwan consensus,” Chang said that it is a reference to “the [de jure] independence of Taiwan,” which he said “is totally unfeasible” and a concept with which he does not agree.

This story has been viewed 3105 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top