The DPP: Even Its Internecine Power Struggles are a Sham

The DPP: Even Its Internecine Power Struggles are a Sham
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 04, 2007

Several of the Democratic Progressive Party's past chairmen have broken with the party. But Yu Hsi-kuen's break with the DPP is the most extraordinary.

To begin with, when Shih Ming-teh, Hsu Hsing-liang and Lin Yi-hsiung broke with the Democratic Progressive Party, they had resigned as party chairmen. Yu Hsi-kuen, by contrast, was the DPP's sitting chairman. Secondly, Shih Ming-teh and Hsu Hsing-liang resigned because they advocated more moderate Taiwan independence and cross Straits policies, and because their "Grand Conciliation Coffee" with the Pan Blues was rejected by the party hierarchy. Lin Yi-hsiung left in a huff because he was contemptuous of Chen Shui-bian's leadership style. Yu Hsi-kuen, by contrast, was A Bian's staunchest supporter during the controversy over corruption. For a high profile Taiwan independence fundamentalist to be purged was totally unexpected. Thirdly, Shih, Hsu, and Lin all resigned from the party to make a political statement. Yu Hsi-kuen may have resigned as party chairman, but he still intends to campaign "with all his might" on behalf of the DPP's legislative and presidential candidates.

Superficially the dispute in the Yu Hsi-kuen incident was over the wording of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." In fact Chen, Hsieh, and Yu were merely fighting for their personal political survival. The fight has cast serious doubt on the DPP's allegiance to its professed values. All that remains is a naked struggle for power. Taiwan independence, democracy, and ethics have all gone out the window.

The main reason Chen Shui-bian was able to make a comeback amidst the corruption controversy was staunch support from Yu Hsi-kuen and Deep Green Taiwan independence hardliners. During the unrest, Yu Hsi-kuen used the "11 Brigands" label to silence intraparty debate over corruption, and to prevent DPP lawmakers from entering the legislature and voting during two consecutive recall attempts. But now Yu Hsi-kuen has been indicted over the Dicretionary Fund Scandal. At first no one spoke up on behalf of Yu Hsi-kuen. No one demanded that he be kept on. Everyone regarded this as the perfect opportunity to purge him. Yu Hsi-kuen's views on Taiwan independence suddenly became the basis for a charge that he was "undermining party solidarity." The vote on the resolution became a means of using "intraparty democracy" to squash Yu Hsi-kuen. Why was Chen Shui-bian able to play the Taiwan independence card despite his rampant corruption? Why, by contrast, was Yu Hsi-kuen vilified as an "Enemy of the People" for doing the same thing? Why were DPP legislators forbidden to vote on Chen Shui-bian's recall? Why, by contrast, did they use "intraparty democracy" to denounce Yu Hsi-kuen's "Resolution for a Normal Nation?" Apparently the Taiwan independence movement has two sets of standards, depending on who is charged with corruption. Apparently "intraparty democracy" has become an instrument of political struggle.

The fates Yu Hsi-kuen and Frank Hsieh have suffered are also miles apart. Take personal integrity for example. Although Yu Hsi-kuen has also been indicted, the common view is that Yu Hsi-kuen is less corrupt and more forthright than Frank Hsieh. He is also considered more self-disciplined than Chen Shui-bian. Politically Yu Hsi-kuen is more committed to independence than Frank Hsieh. Yet Hsieh has emerged triumphant, while Yu has been ostracized and humiliated. Whether one is talking about political committment or personal character, what happened to the DPP's standards for right and wrong?

Frank Hsieh is attempting to move toward the center. He has proposed allowing direct flights and mainland capital to enter. In fact he is not that different from the "11 Brigands." The party hierarchy blasted Su Tseng-chang for embarking upon a "Su Revisionst Path." Su has now turned around and made common cause with Frank Hsieh and his "Tropical Storm." As for the "11 Brigands," they have regrouped and are now trumpeting a nonsensical "Taiwan Independence plus Cross Straits Opening" thesis. On the one hand Chen Shui-bian blasted Yu's "Rectification of the Name of the Nation" campaign. On the other hand, he trumpeted his own "Rectification of Taiwan's Name" and "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" campaigns. Yu Hsi-kuen has turned the other cheek, returned to the political stage, promising to campaign "with all his might."

Why are these internecine fights going on? Who is fighting against whom? What's the difference between Su Tseng-chang's criticism that "changing the subject cannot change the facts" and his allegation that "Frank Hsieh is devious?" What's the difference between Frank Hsieh's proposal and the "11 Brigands" proposal to allow "direct air flights and the entry of mainland capital?" What's the difference between the charges against a "Su Revisionst Path" and the charges against a "pro reunificationist Frank Hsieh?" What's the difference between Chen's promise "to delegate power to lower echelons, to cease campaigning on behalf of party candidates," and his current immersion in party politics? What's the difference between the "Rectification of the Name of the Nation" and the "Rectification of Taiwan's Name?" What's the difference between "Chen Shui-bian's corruption" and "Yu Hsi-kuen's graft?" What's the difference between "intraparty democracy" that forbids DPP lawmakers to cast their ballots during a recall attempt, and an "intraparty democracy" that purges Yu Hsi-kuen during the DPP National Congress? Why are these internecine power struggles going on? Who is fighting against whom? These fights are ostensibly over Taiwan independence, democracy, and morality. In fact they are undermining Taiwan independence, democracy, and morality.

The Taiwan independence movement no long has any standards of right and wrong, for either "intraparty democracy" or for personal conduct. Everything is political intrigue and power struggles. These power struggles have destroyed any standards and principles the Taiwan independence movement ever championed. During this latest struggle Chen and Hsieh have apparently defeated Yu Hsi-kuen. But did Chen and Hsieh's brand of Taiwan independence defeat Yu's brand of Taiwan independence? No. Did Chen and Hsieh's brand of intraparty democracy defeat Yu's brand of intraparty democracy? No. Did Chen and Hsieh's political achievements defeat Yu's political achievements? No. Did Chen and Hsieh's brand of corruption defeat Yu's brand of corruption? No. This was an unprincipled power struggle without any standards of right and wrong. The victor has no standards by which to judge his victory, and the loser has no standards by which to judge his defeat.

In recent years the DPP has undergone one internecine power struggle to another. Each struggle has displayed lower moral standards than the one before. Each struggle has been less principled than the one before. Even the DPP's internecine power struggles have degenerated into a sham of "self-deception and deception of others."

民進黨連內鬥也是「自欺欺人」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.04 02:50 am

民進黨過去曾數度與黨主席級的人物決裂，但以此次黨與游錫?的決裂事件最不尋常。

一、施明德、許信良及林義雄與民進黨決裂，皆發生在卸任黨主席之後，游錫?則是首位現任黨主席。二、施明德與許信良是因主張較溫和的台獨路線及兩岸政策，或鼓吹「大和解咖啡」，未被黨內接受；林義雄則是看不慣陳水扁的領導風格，拂袖而去。但游錫?卻曾是在貪腐風潮中挺扁最力者，現今更是台獨基本教義的典範，如此標竿人物竟遭整肅。三、施、許、林三人皆退黨表態，游錫?則雖辭黨主席，但仍表示將為民進黨立委選舉與總統大選「盡一己之力」。

此次游錫?事件，表面雖是關於《正常國家決議文》的文字口角，但在實質上仍以扁謝游三者個人政治生命鬥爭的成分居大。正因如此，此一事件已使民進黨內主要的價值體系受到嚴重衝擊；一切只剩下赤裸裸的鬥爭，為了鬥爭，扼殺了台獨、民主、人品等一切的標準與原則。

陳水扁能夠從貪腐風潮中起死回生，主要是因游錫?力挺，並以深綠台獨作為陳水扁東山再起的槓桿。風潮期間，游錫?等以「十一寇」的罪名封殺了黨內的民主辯論，並以禁止黨籍立委進場投票化解了兩次罷免事件。但是，如今游錫?因特別費案被起訴，起初非但未聞慰留之聲，且各方皆視此為整肅游錫?的良機；至於游錫?的台獨立場，竟然變成「破壞團結」的罪名；而決議文之付諸表決，更是欲以「黨內民主」來壓制游錫?。試問：為什麼陳水扁涉貪腐案而能玩台獨玩得興高采烈，游錫?涉貪腐案亦玩台獨就是「全黨公敵」？為什麼陳水扁罷免案禁止黨籍立委投票，游錫?的原版決議文卻要以「黨內民主」羞辱之？如此這般，貪腐竟有差別待遇？台獨竟有兩套標準？「黨內民主」亦竟然成為權謀鬥爭工具？

游錫?與謝長廷的際遇也大相逕庭。就人品形象言，游錫?雖因案起訴，但一般輿論皆認為游錫?較謝長廷清廉耿直（游的操守似亦較陳水扁節制）；就政治立場言，游錫?更較謝長廷「獨」，而謝則較游投機反覆。然而，謝勝游敗的結局，人物清濁的標準何在？政治立場的是非何在？

謝長廷正設法向中間靠攏。他提出開放直航及陸資來台等政策，其實已與「十一寇」無異；而當初因「蘇修路線」遭到黨內轟擊的蘇貞昌，也已回頭搭上謝長廷的「熱帶氣旋」；至於原被指為「十一寇」者，亦紛紛建立一套「又台獨，又兩岸開放」的偽論述，重回陣營；陳水扁則一面封殺游錫?的「國號正名」，一面玩他的「台灣正名」及「台灣入聯公投」；最後，游錫?唾面自乾，又再站上輔選舞台，「盡一己之力」……。

請問：為何內鬥？為誰內鬥？聲討「轉移焦點不能改變涉案事實」的蘇貞昌，與「奸巧的謝長廷」有何差異？「開放直航陸資」與「十一寇」有何差異？「蘇修路線」又與「統派謝長廷」有何差異？去年「權力下放，不再輔選」的陳水扁與此時黨政一把抓的陳水扁有何差異？「國號正名」與「正名台灣」有何差異？「陳水扁的貪腐」與「游錫?的貪汙」有何差異？封殺黨籍立委在罷免案表態的「黨內民主」，與在全代會表決整肅游錫?的「黨內民主」又有何差異？為何內鬥？為誰內鬥？內鬥假藉了台獨、民主、人品等標準，但亦摧毀了台獨、民主、人品等原則。這樣的內鬥，豈非自欺欺人？

台獨沒有是非，黨內民主沒有原則，人品沒有標準；一切皆歸於權謀鬥爭，而鬥爭破壞了一切的標準及原則。這場慘烈的鬥爭，扁謝似乎擊垮了游錫?。但難道是扁謝的台獨擊垮了游的台獨？不是。難道是扁謝的黨內民主擊垮了游的黨內民主？不是。難道是扁謝的政治成就擊垮了游的政治成就？不是。難道是扁謝的貪腐擊垮了游的貪腐？也不是。這是一場徹頭徹尾「無原則，無標準；假原則，假標準」的政治鬥爭。勝者不知以何種原則及標準而勝，敗者亦不知因何種原則及標準而敗。

民進黨近年來的生命軌跡，只是不斷地從這一場的內鬥過渡到下一場的內鬥而已。愈鬥愈無標準，毀了一切標準；愈鬥愈無原則，毀了一切原則。於是，連內鬥也淪為一場接著一場的「自欺欺人」！