Chen said in his interview with Le Figaro (Chinese synopsis, French original. I do not read French so I have to rely on the synopsis)
- Unification can be included as one of the 'options' for Taiwan, with 5 pre-conditions
- 1) CCP renounce one party dictatorship
- 2) Implementation of 'true' democracy, freedom and human right systems
- 3) Do not suppress Taiwan [in international scenes]
- 4) Publicly renounce the use of force, remove the missiles
- 5) Abolish Anti-secession Law
The problem is. He is not asked how he or his party/supporters would/should vote. He is asked if it could be an option. He could not distinguish the difference between allowing the people an option vs what his people would vote. There may be a procedure of pre-consultation about the options, but the decision is not up to any one single person/party. This is 'democracy 101'.
To be honest, there will be a sizable number of voters who would still reject such option even if the 5 litmus tests are passed, mainly TSU hardliner and DPP fundamentalists. On the other hand, perhaps most of the centrist and even many pan-Blues would vote using these 5 tests or some variations of it. I do not see any problem with the tests and I think CCP should agree to the tests but delay the referendum for 50 years (because it cannot meet all of them today).
The problem is: CSB still did not get what MYJ got a few months ago. "Everything can be an option in the referendum, if there is one, but this is what I will vote or I will recommend my supporters to vote. If we lose, I will have to respect the result."
Reportedly CSB did a lot better than MYJ in Taiwan University Law School. Did Ma' one year in JFK School change him that much?
(Update) David pointed out that the Eastday translation is misleading. He provided a more faithful translation which showed that MYJ and CSB are saying the same thing about option. See comment below. I have to apologize to CSB, as the misguide logic (about option vs choice) is only a bad tactic used by his assistants.