A Little President with a Great Mission?

A Little President with a Great Mission?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 10, 2008

In the upcoming presidential election, the nation will be confronted with an unprecedented political crisis. Changes made to the Republic of China's Constitution have been disastrous, and failed to anticipate many negative consequences. As a result the presidential election will be a choice between a divisive Frank Hsieh presidency, cabinet, and legislature on the one hand; or a unifying Ma Ying-jeou presidency, cabinet, and legislature on the other. Yesterday Ma and Hsieh held a debate. They left the following record of their positions.

Frank Hsieh gives two reasons why he should be president: First, if he is elected president, he will be "Taiwan's guardian." Second, if he is elected president, he will provide "checks and balances" on the KMT's "one-party monopoly." Neither reason stands up to scrutiny.

First, in order to establish the myth that "Only I can defend Taiwan," Frank Hsieh has painted the KMT as an "alien regime." The Green Camp is conducting a word of mouth campaign against Ma Ying-jeou, accusing him of being a member of an "organization that is selling out Taiwan." But during the January 12 Legislative Elections, the voters gave the KMT over two-thirds of the seats in legislature, and the Pan Blue camp over three-quarters of the seats. The voters affirmed that the KMT is not an "alien regime" and that Ma Ying-jeou is not a member of an "organization that is selling out Taiwan." The voters rejected the DPP's self-proclaimed "Taiwanese values/Native values" rhetoric. Frank Hsieh needs to explain to us why only he can "defend Taiwan," and why Ma Ying-jeou can't. Because the Green Camp says so? Because Frank Hsieh says so?

Secondly, Hsieh said that only if he is elected president will he be able to "check and balance" a single party monopoly on power. A single party monopoly does indeed need to be checked and balanced. Opposition parties, the ruling party's disciplinary mechanisms, the structure of government, the judiciary, and the media, are all mechanisms that provide checks and balances. Frank Hsieh is attempting to square the circle. How can Hsieh, as a self-proclaimed "passive president," be a president who "checks and balances" the opposition-ruled legislature? How can he, as a "Little President," fufill this "Great Mission?" What Hsieh offers is not "checks and balances," but divided government and divisive policies. Suppose Frank Hsieh, as a "Little President," attempts to fulfill his "Great Mission," as promised in yesterday's debate? Suppose he pursues the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution?" Suppose, as "Passive President," he attempts to aggressively "check and balance" the opposition-ruled legislature. Suppose he maintains a Closed Door Policy, and continues the DPP's "ethnic struggles." Would he really be "checking and balancing?" Or would he be creating chaos? As one Taiwan independence elder put it: "If you, Frank Hsieh, are elected president, and fail not seek Taiwan independence, we will force you to seek Taiwan independence!" Will Hsieh "defend Taiwan" or tear Taiwan apart?

Frank Hsieh's proposed "Little President with a Great Mission" and "Passive President who Aggressively Checks and Balances [the KMT]" reveals the constitutional crisis confronting the nation. As mentioned earlier, the presidential election presents voters with a choice between a divisive Frank Hsieh presidency, cabinet, and legislature, or a unifying Ma Ying-jeou presidency, cabinet, and legislature. Frank Hsieh and the Green Camp allege that President Ma Ying-jeou, together with a KMT cabinet and a legislature that is over two-thirds KMT, would amount to an "administration/legislature leviathan." It would be an "alien regime" that would "sell out Taiwan" and not "defend Taiwan." But why should we assume that only a President Frank Hsieh, together with a KMT Cabinet and a legislature that is over two-thirds KMT, in which the government is divided, would amount to a "native regime" that would "love Taiwan" and "defend Taiwan?" Is Frank Hsieh saying that Ma Ying-jeou as president could not "defend Taiwan?" Or is he trying to hide the fact that Frank Hsieh as president may well divide Taiwan, catastrophically?

Frank Hsieh's "Little President with a Great Mission" and "Passive President who Aggressively Checks and Balances [the KMT]" trial balloon is a warning sign that the nation faces divided government and divisive policies. What do Frank Hsieh's "checks and balances" amount to, really? To a "Passive President," or an "Aggressive, Troublemaking President?" What is Frank Hsieh's "Great Mission," really? Is it to be the "Defender of Taiwan," or the "Divider of Taiwan?"

Frank Hsieh seems unable to give ROC citizens a clear answer. That answer will have to wait until March 22, election day, for the voters.

小總統／大使命：守護台灣，撕裂台灣？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.03.10 02:54 am

這次總統大選，國家陷入空前重大的政治危機。由於修憲鑄成大錯，諸多配套未備，遂使國家在此次總統大選中，面臨「謝長廷總統／內閣／國會／大分裂」，或「馬英九總統／內閣／國會／大合體」的抉擇。昨日馬謝辯論，對此一議題亦略有著墨，試論如下：

謝長廷為他競選總統找到兩個理由：一、他當選總統，可以「守護台灣」；二、他當選總統，可以「制衡」國民黨的「一黨獨大」。然而，這兩個理由皆未必站得住腳。

一、謝長廷為了建立「只有我才能守護台灣」的政治神話，將國民黨說成「外來政權」，綠營耳語並直指馬英九是「賣台集團」。但是，不說別的，在一月十二日的立委選舉中，國人即以國民黨當選超逾三分之二席次及泛藍超越四分之三席次，確定了「國民黨不是外來政權」、「馬英九不是賣台集團」，同時亦否定了民進黨所自命的「台灣價值／本土價值」的代表性。謝長廷必須說明：為什麼只有他能「守護台灣」，馬英九就不能？難道只憑綠營說「馬英九是賣台集團」，馬英九就是？難道只憑謝長廷說「馬英九不能守護台灣」，馬英九就不能？

二、謝長廷說，只有他當選總統才能「制衡」一黨獨大。一黨獨大確實需要制衡，在野黨、執政黨黨紀、政府體制、司法、輿論，皆是制衡工具。但是，倘若謝長廷橫柴入灶，以「消極總統」的角色來「積極制衡」，以「小總統」的地位來施展其「大使命」；這恐怕不是「制衡」，而將是毀滅國家造成「分裂政府」，分裂政府造成「撕裂政策」。倘若謝長廷這位「小總統」的「大使命」是如他昨日辯論會所說仍將「正名制憲」，倘若謝長廷這位「消極總統」的「積極制衡」是繼續「鎖國」，繼續搞族群鬥爭；這究竟是「制衡」？還是「作亂」？或是竟如台獨大老所說：「你謝長廷若當選總統不搞台獨，我們會逼著你搞！」這將是「守護台灣」，或「撕裂台灣」？

謝長廷提出「小總統／大使命」、「消極總統／積極制衡」的命題，不啻明白呈現了國家當前的重大憲政危機。如前所述，這次總統大選已使國家面臨「謝長廷總統／內閣

／國會／大分裂」，或「馬英九總統／內閣

／國會／大合體」的抉擇。謝長廷及綠營為何認為「馬英九總統＋國民黨內閣＋國民黨在立法院佔逾三分之二席次」的「府院大合體」，就是「外來政權」，就是「賣台集團」，就不能「守護台灣」？又為何認為，唯有「謝長廷總統＋國民黨內閣＋國民黨在立法院佔逾三分之二席次」的「府院大分裂」，才是「本土政權」，才是「愛台灣」，才能「守護台灣」？謝長廷究竟是在否定「馬英九總統」可能「守護台灣」的能力？還是在掩飾「謝長廷總統」可能「撕裂台灣」的災難？

「小總統／大使命」及「消極總統／積極制衡」的命題，已經預示國家未來是否將陷入「分裂政府／撕裂台灣」的政治警訊。謝長廷的「制衡」，究竟是「消極無為總統」還是「積極作亂總統」？謝長廷的「大使命」，究竟是「守護台灣」，還是「撕裂台灣」？

看來謝長廷無法給國人一個清楚的答案，只有等待選民們在三二二投票日給自己一個答案了！