The DPP has lost its Soul

The DPP has lost its Soul
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
June 23, 2007

As a result of vicious infighting during the party primaries, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates wound up airing each others' dirty laundry. The dirty tricks that candidates pulled on each, such as falsifying the opinion polls that helped determine the final candidate roster, left the average citizen flabbergasted. The DPP Central Committee, which has provided a negative example for the party, has chosen to deal with the ugly mess by passing the buck. Apparently the DPP doesn't realize this scandal constitutes a major crisis.

The falsified opinion polls came to light primarily because of the Central Party Committee's improper "Exclude Blue" clause. This greatly limited the sample size of the target population, enabling candidates to take advantage of convenient loopholes. Huang Chien-hui, for example, applied for and obtained 1,000 telephone numbers from the phone company. Tsao Lai-wang, for example, installed a special telecommunications transfer device in a retirement home he owned. Their purpose was to inflate their own poll numbers. DPP candidates' skill at corrupt election practices is truly extraordinary. Their ability to make use of science and technology to totally invalidate the results of public opinion polls, is truly eye opening.

Once the scientific basis of opinion polls has been discredited, then the fairness of the nomination process has also been invalidated. After such an election, is anything above suspicion? What is really interesting is how cavalier the DPP is about the matter. Party members have raised all sorts of questions, but the Central Party Committee has indicated it has no intention of investigating the matter on its own initiative. When party members who lodged protests investigated matters and offered evidence on their own, the Central Party Committee made clear it still had no intention of conducting any further investigations or imposing any punishments. This may be motivated by the desire to keep the scandal under wraps, or by the hope that the struggle between Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang would subside as soon as possible. But it has left outsiders with the impression that the DPP cares nothing about morality and ethics, and turns a blind eye to fraud and deception.

This election was merely a party primary within the DPP. But the DPP is the ruling party. As the ruling party it must prove that it is capable of and committed to holding free and fair elections. In recent years, repeated incidents of DPP election fraud have left people with serious doubts about its integrity. These include the infamous Bulletgate scandal during the 2004 presidential election; two Kaohsiung mayoral elections; one involving audio tapes of alleged KMT candidate marital infidelity, later confirmed to be fake; the other involving dubious video footage of alleged KMT vote buying; and last but not least, DPP vote buying during the Taipei County magistrate's election. These have led the public to seriously doubt whether the DPP is willing to compete fairly in the democratic process. Chen Chu's election to Kaohsiung mayor has been declared invalid due to rule violations. Does the DPP have no desire whatsoever to regain public trust by investigating party primary malfeasance?

Even more incredibly, Lin Shufen, a member of the Su Tseng-chang camp, has accused Huang Chien-hui, a member of the Frank Hsieh camp, of using 1,000 telephones to influence public opinion polls. This result of this dispute was that Huang Chien-hui, along with three party elders, citing "larger considerations" announced his withdrawal from the race. The Central Party Committee attempts to sweep the candidates' dirty tricks under the rug, only made them more apparent.

Think about it. If Huang Chien-hui had a clear conscience, why did he refuse to be investigated? Doesn't quietly withdrawing his candidacy amount to a tacit admission that he cheated? Since the Central Party Committee could force him to withdraw from the race, that means they already had concrete evidence in their possession. But the party committee chose not to investigate the truth, to impose party discipline, and to shine a light on the matter. Instead it helped him pretend he was withdrawing because he was a "stand up guy" who sacrificed himself for the greater good of the party. This amounted to deceiving the voters. Huang Chien-hui's withdrawal from the race may have allowed the DPP to hide the skeletons in its closet. But in fact it buried the DPP's soul along with Huang Chien-hui. Is this what they consider the "greater good?"

The acquisition of extra telephones to inflate his own poll numbers may have been a new trick unique to this primary election. But other illegal methods such as issuing a flood of cell phone text messages smearing one's rivals, and entertaining local political bosses with illegal banquets and junkets, have popped up continuously. Especially serious examples include mobilizing the media to carry out simultaneous one-sided criticisms, smears, and malicious personal attacks. These tactics led to the annihilation of the Su Tseng-chang camp and the so-called "Eleven Brigands." These tactics reveal that the DPP, in its quest for victory, will resort to any means at its disposal. If they are willing to behave so viciously toward comrades within their own party, what aren't they willing to do to seize power amidst the Blue vs. Green political struggle?

After Huang Chien-hui withdrew from the election, rumors emerged that he joined the Frank Hsieh team to help with the 2008 presidential election. Based on his conduct during the party primary election, what kind of impression is Huang's participation going to give the public, in the event the campaign needs to rely on his "creativity,"

In recent years the DPP's election ploys have gradually moved toward a dead end of "technique over substance." This includes the unconstitutional "linkage" of plebiscites to elections, control of the Central Election Commission, the delivery of political pork by means of patronage, even the setting of election dates. Every one of these have become tools for the manipulation of elections. This has eroded not only the spirit of fair play, but even the substance of democratic politics. This is why the DPP's malfeasance during its party primary received so much attention. The public may be in no position to question the degeneration of morals within the DPP. But the problem is this party is currently the ruling party. If it is incapable of holding a free and fair election, what will become of Taiwan's democracy?

Original Chinese below:

民進黨初選舞弊：掩遮家醜，黨魂陪葬！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.06.23 03:34 am

若非民進黨因同志惡鬥而互揭瘡疤，一般人要知道黨內初選民調居然可以玩出那麼多造假花招，恐怕不是容易的事。然而，始作俑者的民進黨中央，面對難堪的民調弊端，殘局要如何收拾，卻仍在推拖拉。民進黨知不知道這是一場醜聞危機？

其所以會爆出民調造假風波，主要出在黨中央的「排藍」設計不當，大幅限縮了有效樣本的認定規模，使別有用心者找到鑽營的「巧門」。包括黃劍輝臨時申請了千支電話，包括曹來旺在自己經營的安養機構加裝特殊的電訊轉接裝置，都是為了在民調中灌水。民進黨民代將選舉舞弊玩到如此出神入化，用科學技術來滿足社會調查的形式要件、卻充分破壞它的內容，這款的手法，令人大開眼界。

一旦民調的科學根據遭到破壞，提名的公平性蕩然，這項選舉還能剩下什麼可以倖免受質疑的東西呢？但耐人尋味的是，民進黨中央對此事卻始終消極迴避：在同志舉發種種疑點時，黨中央擺明了無意主動介入調查；在舉發同志自行調查舉證後，黨中央仍無意作出進一步的調查或處分。這無論是為免弊端事態擴大，或希儘早平息謝蘇系之爭，都已留給外界「罔顧道德」、甚至「縱容造假」的觀感。

儘管只是黨內初選，但別忘記，民進黨是執政黨，它有義務證明自己有主持公平選舉的能力和決心。近幾年，民進黨在多次重大選戰中留下了重重懸疑，包括：總統大選的「兩顆子彈」、兩次高雄市長選舉的「錄音帶事件」及「指控賄選事件」、乃至台北縣長選舉的「走路工事件」，在在使人民對它能否以公平手段進行民主競賽產生嚴重懷疑。陳菊當選甫因違規操作被宣判為「無效」，民進黨難道連趁主動處理初選弊端以求扳回一點公眾信任的企圖都沒有？

更令人匪夷所思的是，謝系立委黃劍輝，被蘇系立委林淑芬指控以千支電話影響民調；此一紛爭，最後竟是黃劍輝在黨團三長陪同下，以「顧全大局」為由，宣布退讓。黨中央的和稀泥作法，簡直是欲蓋彌彰。

試想：黃劍輝若問心無愧，何不接受調查；把提名權拱手讓人，豈不等於承認「作弊」？黨中央既有辦法逼他退選，即表示已掌握具體證據；但黨部非但不追究真相、訴諸黨紀以昭炯戒，反而布置舞台讓他作「有情有義」的退選演出，不啻在欺騙選民。黃劍輝退選，也許使民進黨的「家醜」免於外揚，其實是民進黨拿「黨德」為黃劍輝陪葬。這就是他們所謂的「大局」嗎？

再看，增設電話虛灌民調，只是這次初選中手法比較「新穎」的招數，其他諸如濫發簡訊抹黑對手、招待樁腳宴飲出遊等違規手法，更是層出不窮。尤其嚴重的，例如動員媒體作一面倒地批判抹黑，乃至惡意的人身攻擊，最後導致蘇系及所謂十一寇的全軍覆滅。這些，都說明民進黨為求勝選不擇手段。對內同志相殘尚且如此狠毒，對外藍綠爭奪政權，還有什麼做不出來的事？

黃劍輝退選後，傳聞他將接受安排加入謝長廷團隊，協助二○○八大選的輔選工作。以他在初選的表現看，若大選要借重其「創意」，這將給民眾什麼觀感？

民進黨近年的選舉操作，已漸走向「技術重於本質」的末流，包括公投綁大選、對中選會的掌控、政策利多的放送，乃至於選舉時程的訂定，都變成左右選舉取向的技術性工具。在刻意的操作下，不僅選舉的公平競爭精神不斷遭到侵蝕，民主政治的公平與正義本質也一步步淪為虛無。民進黨這次初選弊端之所以深受矚目，原因正在於此。民進黨內部的道德墮落，民眾也許無力過問；問題是，在這個執政黨手中，如果已不可能辦出乾淨、公平的選舉，台灣的民主該怎麼辦？