The DPP: L'etat, c'est moi!

The DPP: L'etat, c'est moi!
The Democratic Progressive Party treats the Government as its Private Resource
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
June 28, 2007

Having condemned the Kuomintang (KMT) for the past twenty years for drawing no distinctions between what belongs to the party and what belongs to the nation, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) cannot be unaware of the difference between what is public and what is private. But take a look at the high-handed attitude of ruling Chen regime officials when setting public policy, assigning public offices, and distributing public funds. They treat national resources as if they were the party's private property, to be freely disbursed any way they see fit. The DPP has been sharpening its knives and demanding that the KMT account for its party assets. If the DPP could take a look at itself in the mirror, it would realize how much more repulsive it looks than its opponent, as it seeks to enrich itself.

Examples abound. The Executive Yuan recently spent tens of millions of dollars on a traveling "Investigation of Improper Party Assets" exhibit. Accusations that no one knows where the budget for the exhibit originated, that bidders were limited to cronies for whom the ruling government wished to provide patronage, and that public funds were misused to underwrite partisan political propaganda, were hardly unfounded. The root of the problem is that if a government wishes to investigate illegal party assets, it must do so according to the rule of law. The Executive Yuan knows perfectly well it can't find any legal basis for its allegations. It knows perfectly well that sponsoring an exhibit won't help it reclaim party assets. Yet it persists in doing so regardless, because its real purpose is to divert government resources into the DPP's election coffers. If this isn't "public works for private gain," what is?

If the ruling regime actually believes that sponsoring an exhibit will help recover improper party assets, or promote public understanding of the issue, then its public relations campaign attacking an opposition political party ought to be sponsored by the DPP. Yu Hsi-kuen, the head of the DPP's Central Party Committee, should pick up the tab. The activity should not be organized by the government, and the cost should not be borne by the state treasury. Only that would qualify as making the proper distinction between partisan and public interests.

The DPP has condemned the KMT for "failing to make proper distinctions between party and state." But once the Chen regime assumed power the "failure to make proper distinctions between party and state" only got worse. Take the case of China Steel board chairman Chang Yi-ren for example. During a general shareholders meeting the board of directors approved another term for Jiang Yao-tsung. Yet four days later, the Executive Yuan replaced Jiang Yao-tsung with Lin Wen-yuan. According to the buzz among industry insiders and local governments, the replacement was motivated primarily by election considerations. At the same time, a subcontractor for the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit who encountered a problem obtaining payment due to contractual limitations, miraculously found his way cleared. Obviously, in the eyes of the ruling regime, the publicly owned China Steel Corporation is the ruling DPP's private property and political machine.

The KMT routinely used state-owned enterprises to reward cronies for services rendered. For this it was rightly condemned. This led to a wave of privatization of state-owned enterprises. But now the DPP ignores the fact that state-owned enterprises have supposedly been privatized. It continues to regard high level positions in such companies as rewards for services rendered, and routinely interferes in the management of these companies. Chiang Yao-tsung was replaced because he was not sufficiently "flexible" in enforcing the terms of the Kaohsiung MRT contract. So what was Lin Wen-yuan's duty? Was it to ignore the terms of the contract and neglect the interests of China Steel in order to cater to the needs of a Kaohsiung MRT subcontractor? Were political contributions or election advantages being traded in the process?

Because he gave himself an annual salary amounting to tens of millions of dollars, plus dividends, Lin Wen-yuan's reputation came under attack and he lost his job. Now because he is willing to play ball with the ruling regime, he has made a glorious comeback. Can the misuse of state owned enterprises as the ruling party's election machine and money tranfer machine be regarded as anything other than flagrant cronyism?

Research, Development and Evaluation Commission Vice Chairman Chen Chun-lin said that the purpose of sponsoring an "Investigation of Improper Party Assets" exhibit was to let people know "how a nation's resources are drained away." But who really needs to look at the exhibit? By now everybody knows exactly how a nation's resources are drained away. All one has to do is look at the Executive Yuan's recent "Entitlement of the Week" policy. Checks amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars are cavalierly issued in an orgy of irresponsible pork barrel vote-buying. Policies are not subjected to cost-benefit analysis. Under the circumstances, does the ruling DPP really think the public cannot see who is squandering the nation's resources?

One of the DPP's biggest problems is that it equates good governance with issuing large checks. It has never understood that one must first learn how to make money and deposit the money in a bank account. An even bigger problem for the DPP is that it can't seem to understand the distinction between the "ruling party" and the "Democratic Progressive Party." It seems to think that the government's resources may be transferred into the coffers of the Democratic Progressive Party, to be used as it sees fit. It denies "outsiders'" any right to share in these resources. The result has been the creation of a incompetent political authority utterly impervious to reform.

The KMT's improper party assets have complex historical origins. But at the very least the KMT governed competently for many decades. The DPP has no party assets. Instead it treats government policy, government positions, and government budgets as its private property, to freely disposed of as it pleases. Governing, to the DPP, has alway meant the manipulation of resources, never the management of resources.

From one end of Taiwan to the other, government offices, auxiliary organizations, and even local government construction contracts, have all been painted a bright, glossy DPP Green and transformed into DPP franchises under DPP management. And the Executive Yuan has the temerity to use government money to condemn KMT party assets? The entire government has degenerated into a DPP campaign chest and election machine. Talk about eating people alive without bothering to spit out the bones!

Original Chinese below:

民進黨把整個政府當作選舉財庫與機器！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.06.28 03:53 am

打了廿年黨產議題，罵國民黨公私不分，民進黨不可能不知道「公」和「私」的分際何在；但看看執政舞台上的扁政府，官員們在決定政策、分配職位及支用公帑的霸道姿態，幾乎把國家資源當成該黨的私產在任意揮霍。當民進黨磨刀霍霍向國民黨討黨產時，若能照照鏡子，即知自己貪婪營私的嘴臉較對手還要醜陋。

類似事例，俯拾即是。行政院最近決動用近千萬元預算舉辦「清查不當黨產」巡迴展，招致預算來源不明、限制招標圖利特定對象，以及用公帑搞政黨鬥爭等批評；這些質疑，皆非無的放矢。根本的問題在：政府要追討不法黨產，唯一根據便是法制；行政院明知在法制上找不到立足點，辦展覽亦無助討回黨產，卻仍執意而為，目的無非是要挪用行政資源供民進黨炒作選舉而已。這不是假公濟私是什麼？

換一個說法，也許更容易理解。如果執政者覺得辦展覽有助討回黨產，或增進民眾對問題的了解，那麼這項以攻擊特定政黨為目標的文宣，應由民進黨舉辦，且由游錫?為首的黨中央買單，絕不應由政府舉辦、讓國庫付錢。這才是「黨」和「政」的分際。

民進黨過去罵國民黨「黨政不分」，但扁政府主政後黨政不分的惡劣情況愈發嚴重。以最近中鋼董事長易人為例，股東常會方才通過江耀宗續任，四天後行政院卻逕自撤換江耀宗而改派林文淵。據業界及地方政壇傳聞，此舉主要在為選舉布局，同時也為高捷下包廠商受限合約拿不到錢的問題預為排除障礙。可見，在主政者眼中，中鋼已形同執政黨的私庫和選舉操作機器了。

早年國民黨經常利用國營事業酬庸人事，迭遭批評，後來才有了一波國營事業「民營化」的推動。但民進黨現今的作為，不僅無視於公股企業已然民營化的事實，照樣隨手將高層職位當成酬庸賞賜，更動輒無理干預公司治理。試想，江耀宗因處理高捷合約彈性不夠而遭撤換，那麼林文淵的任務是否就在罔顧合約規定及中鋼利益以滿足高捷小包需索？而滿足包商需索的原因，是否即在換取政治獻金或其他選舉利益？

再說，林文淵先前曾因為自己編列千萬年薪及分紅，操守遭外界訾議，因而去職；如今竟又因能在政治上配合主政者需要，而怡然回鍋重操舊業。這樣的人事安排，豈非將公股企業當成執政黨的輔選機和資金調度機看待？

研考會副主委陳俊麟說，辦「清查黨產」展覽之目的，是要讓全民知道「國家資產如何流失」。但是，不必看展覽，如今大家也知道國家資產怎麼流失。光看行政院近來「一周一利多」的政策大放送，隨便支票一開就拋出千億資金，政策不必做分析，也不必評估效益；如此，民眾還會看不出來誰在揮霍國家資產嗎？

民進黨的一大問題，是把開支票當成施政，從來不知道要先學會賺錢並把錢存進戶頭。民進黨更大的問題，是分不清「執政黨」和「民進黨」有何不同，以為所有政府資源都可以轉供民進黨使用，他拒絕「外人」分享其資源的結果，是造就了一個無能而封閉的政權，這才是最大的悲劇。

國民黨不當黨產有其歷史的盤根錯節，但它至少經歷了數十年的經營；民進黨沒有黨產，它卻將政府政策、國家職位、公共預算全當成可以予取予求、任意揮霍之物，且從來只是「操作」，而不「經營」。

從台灣頭到台灣尾，從政府職務、周邊機構乃至地方工程包商，早都洗成綠油油一片的「本黨經營」連鎖企業，行政院還要動用公款打黨產，整個政府儼然已經淪為民進黨的選舉財庫與選舉機器，這真是吃人夠夠還不吐骨頭！