在福爾摩沙的中國人：共產黨人與國民黨人　■泰晤士報（1950.08.20）

【Abstract】

The letter from the MP of UK on Aug. 20, 1950 revealed that the plebiscite is essential in the decision process of Taiwan’s future. The original scenarios would be an independent Formosa as well as protectorate under UN, “part of China” is not the case.

Taiwan is not ROC. The former is a territory to be decided under “the Treaty of Peace with Japan” or SFPT, and the latter is merely a government-in-exile of China.

However, people get confused the concepts of Taiwan=ROC because the unilateral propaganda of two Chinese regimes, CCP and KMT. It is a conditioned response, like Pavlov’s experiment, to consider Formosa was, is and should only be a part of China.

這篇逸峰兄處借過來的資料，是英國下議院議員在1950年8月20日的投書泰晤士報。證實了：

台灣地位問題≠ROC流亡（中國代表權）問題

KMT的統治，是貪污與混亂，當然還有殘暴的鎮壓

中國，不喜台灣人。台灣的中國政權，也不喜台灣人

英國下議院議員William Telling曾建議：台灣最後的決定，公投是必要手續

但，問題是：

麥克阿瑟在1948年時，是主張台灣獨立，或台灣UN託管的，雖然軍人不適合介入政治決定。

但，為何到後來，卻被蔣介石捧上天，還用一條「麥帥公路」，以及兩條「麥帥橋」來紀念？

其間的轉折是什麼？令人好奇。

在福爾摩沙的中國人：共產黨人與國民黨人　■泰晤士報（1950.08.20）雲程譯

致泰晤士報編輯

敬啟者：我們閱讀了許多有關赤色中國人或中國的國民黨人應該擁有福爾摩沙的資料，除了美國人之外，但很少憂心500萬台灣人將何去何從。

從1895年起，福爾摩沙就不屬於中國，且在200年前這個國度被遠離中國的華人，就像蔣介石一樣，與其後代所控制。如同英愛裔爾蘭人一樣，他們在許多方面比（原來的）台灣人更台灣人。在1895年，他們提供一個福爾摩沙給大不列顛。日本在當年透過與中國簽署條約而獲得此地，而當時中國並無足夠的管轄權威更別說移轉領土。

到了1936年，當我前一次訪問福爾摩沙時，日本的統治已經帶給該島法律與秩序，且已經帶給中產階級農夫與中產階級商業主安全的貿易環境，以及苦力階級也能有足夠的食物與定期的薪給。我不相信會歡迎今天的中國共產黨。當我的四位同僚議員在1947年訪問福爾摩沙，他們震驚於中國在戰後接管所帶來的改變。到處混亂與貪污，中國國民黨以恐怖的嚴厲手段鎮壓嚴重的反叛。我不相信台灣人會喜歡這些統治者。

兩年多前當我在東京時，我獲得一個印象，即麥克阿瑟期待見到獨立的，或者在聯合國保護下的福爾摩沙。這是個富足的國度，得以自給自足。在簽署對日和約前，必須先做決定。難道不能讓日本在福爾摩沙遵守公投方案，只要時機適當。這是唯一合乎公義的解決方案。台灣人從不受中國所喜，而今日中國的政權也不被台灣人所喜。500萬台灣住民，包括原住民，應該允許他們自行決定其前途。

WILLIAM TEELING敬上

下議院1950年8月20日

THE CHINESE IN FORMOSA
COMMUNISTS AND NATIONALISTS
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir, We read a lot about whether the Red Chinese or the Chinese Nationalists should have Formosa, but few, except the Americans, seem to worry about what the 5m. Formosans would like themselves.

Formosa has not belonged to China since 1895 and for two centuries before then the country was controlled by Chinese who, like Chiang Kai-shek, had fled from China and their descendants. Like the Anglo-Irish they became in many cases more Formosan than the Formosans. In 1895 they offered Formosa to Great Britain. The Japanese took it over that year by treaty with a China which had not enough authority there even to hand it over.

The rule of the Japanese had by 1936, when I last visited Formosa, brought law and order to this island and had made trading safe both for middle-class farmer and middle-class shopkeeper, and the coolie classes were contented to get their food and pay regularly. I can hardly believe that these would want the Chinese Communists today. When four of my fellow M.P.s visited Formosa in 1947 they were horrified at the change since China took over after the war. There was chaos and graft; and one serious rebellion had been put down by the Chinese Nationalists with horrifying severity. I can hardly believe that the Formosans want those rulers either.

When I was in Tokyo a little over two years ago I gained the impression that General Macarthur would like to see an independent Formosa or one under the protection of the United Nations. It is a rich country, able to stand on its own feet. A decision must be made before a peace treaty with Japan is signed. Could not a solution be that Japan should abide by a plebiscite, whenever a suitable time is found to take it, in Formosa.  That is surely the only just solution. The Formosans have never been popular in China and neither of today's Chinese regimes is popular in Formosa. The 5m. inhabitants, including the aborigines, should be allowed to make their own decision.

Yours faithfully, WILLIAM TEELING .

House of Commons, Aug. 20