We Look Forward to Ma and Tsai Restoring the Political Culture

We Look Forward to Ma and Tsai Restoring the Political Culture
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2008

The advantage of democracy is that it includes diverse views. The disadvantage of democracy is that compromise and consensus take time. One cannot expect quick results. But for the sake of social harmony communication and dialogue are essential. Unfortunately, six months after the Ma administration took office, interaction between the ruling and opposition parties leaves much to be desired. The ruling and opposition party caucuses in the Legislative Yuan hold daily press conferences, during which party cadres take turns denouncing each other. From the Chen case to cross-Strait issues, everything is divided along party lines. Nothing is determined by reference to right or wrong. Nothing is determined by rational debate. Society on Taiwan has become mired in endless Blue vs. Green enmity and polarization.

Before and after President Ma Ying-jeou took office, he repeatedly stressed that he was an all peoples president. Six months later, he has yet to dialogue with leaders of the opposition parties. Ma Ying-jeou said his requests for dialoque were turned down. Since taking office, Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly stressed that the DPP would be rational and peace-loving opposition party. Six months later, in order to protest Chiang Ping-kuen's meeting with Chen Yunlin, the Democratic Progressive Party took to the streets and wreaked havoc. Tsai Yin-wen even boasted that the DPP would resume street violence as a matter of policy. As polarization in society intensified, and confrontation increased between the ruling and opposition parties, Tsai Ing-wen finally appealed for improved dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. Ma Ying-jeou responded immediately. The offers put forth by Ma and Tsai are still in the initial stages. But the nation requires unity. As the ruling and opposition political leaders, Ma and Tsai are duty-bound to resolve their conflicts.

Comparing successors with their predecessors may not be fair. But President Lee Teng-hui was once the head of a Kuomintang wary of political liberalization. On the surface, he used his power to settle disputes within the party. Beneath the surface, he had his own channels of communication. When the opposition DPP protested, demanding that the 100 Articles of the Criminal Code be amended, scholars, experts, and KMT Secretary-General James Soong stood on the front lines seeking consensus and compromise. When the Democratic Progressive Party was short of funds, Lee Teng-hui amended the laws or used his personal influence to provide financing for the Democratic Progressive Party.

The Ma administration may despise Chen Shui-bian. But during Chen's first term he arranged to meet with opposition party leaders Lien Chan and James Soong meeting within five months. He later halted construction on the fourth nuclear power plant, and created a chill between the ruling and opposition parties. But at least he took the initiative and went through the motions. Leaders of the opposition DPP may not be satisfied with the result of the elections. But nevertheless they must maintain their composure. They should accept Ma's invitation to the presidential palace. KMT Chairman Lien Chan was so angry he ignored Chen Shui-bian. Nevertheless People First Party Chairman James Soong boldly met with him. Chen Shui-bian later accused Soong of taking part in a "secret meeting" for which he was sued.

Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian are political figures who belong to the past. Rehashing the past is unseemly and depressing. When these people were in office, they all knew what they had to do, even if the results were unsatisfactory. They may have been involved only in isolated cases that never established a political precedent, or permanently shaped the political culture. But when the president knows enough to take the initiative to contact the opposition party, no matter how reluctant opposition party leaders may be to accept the election results, they must engage in rational dialogue with the president. Why? Very simple. Because the nation belongs to everyone. The national interest is everyone's interest. All political leaders have a responsibility and a duty to represent the interests of the people as a whole, to maximize harmony, in the interest of national unity.

Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen have never been hard-liners within their respective political camps. Their political language is the language of moderation, of the middle way, without any spicy seasonings. They have never been good at inciting the masses. The waves created by Chen Yunlin's trip to Taiwan have opened the door to dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. A high price has been paid for this opportunity. Neither Ma nor Tsai can afford to let this opportunity to slip from their grasp. Ignore ruling and opposition legislators' daily press conferences. Ignore quarrels about whether Ma or Tsai should apologize, about who is responsible for the failure to amend the Assembly and Parade Laws, about who is responsible for changing the electoral system and making one vote unequal to another. Everyone knows the political consequences are the co-creation of both the ruling and opposition parties.

The Democratic Progressive Party is criticizing the police for treating the Red Shirt Army better than the DPP. The DPP has apparently forgotten that the Red Shirt Army applied for and obtain legal permits for their activities. And when the Red Shirt Army exceeded its time limit, it was driven from the streets by then Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou. Lien Chan, James Soong and Blue Camp legislators did not forgive Ma Ying-jeou for doing so. When certain DPP county and municipal officials refused to issue permits to the Red Shirt Army, Shih Ming-teh, former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, took the initiative and proposed that the Assembly and Parade Law be amended. The KMT supported his initiative, and even put a bill in motion. Since nobody opposes it, why delay its passage? Why use the "public mood" as an excuse for inaction? Is the public mood created by the Chiang/Chen Meeting more amenable to its passage?

Issues such as cross-strait policy, the global financial crisis, and major relief programs to revive the economy, require communication between the ruling and opposition parties. Just before the presidential election, the US passed a relief program involving hundreds of billions of dollars. The bill had to win the approval of both the Senate and House of Representatives, of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Do not think that because the Democratic Progressive Party has only 27 seats in the Legislative Yuan, that it can be ignored. These 27 seats represent 40 percent of the public on Taiwan. As a president for all people, Ma Ying-jeou has an inescapable responsibility to establish a dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. We solemnly hope that a "Ma/Tsai Meeting" will be the first step in reestablishing political and cultural dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.11.11
期待「馬蔡會」重建政治文化
中時社論

民主的好處是包容多元意見；民主的難處是妥協尋求共識需要時間和過程，很難講究速效，但基於社會最大和諧，溝通與對話是不可或缺的元素。很遺憾，馬政府就 任半年，朝野互動始終不良，立法院朝野黨團，行禮如儀每日必舉行記者會，每日記者會必由黨團幹部輪番罵人，從扁案到兩岸，藍歸藍、綠歸綠，無一事能論是 非，無一事能講道理，台灣社會硬生生陷入藍綠無止境的仇恨怨懟之中。

馬英九總統就任前後，反覆強調他是全民總統，半年過去了，未見他與在野政黨領袖真正的對話，馬英九的說法是要求溝通遭婉謝；民進黨主席蔡英文就任以來，不 斷強調要做一個理性和平的在野黨，半年過去了，民進黨卻因為抗議江陳台北會談，演出街頭失序戲碼，甚至聲言要重回街頭路線。眼看著，社會激化、朝野對立氣 氛升高，蔡英文終於挺身呼籲應強化朝野對話機制，馬英九旋即回應，儘管「兩英」的善意尚在隔空喊話階段，但基於國家內部團結的必要，身為朝野政治領袖，責 無旁貸必須扛起化解對立的重擔。

拿前任比後任，未盡公平，但是，想想當年的李登輝總統，領導一個對政治開放猶有戒心的國民黨，檯面上，他以權力擺平黨內爭議；檯面下，他總是有自己的溝通 管道。在野黨為刑法一百條修正案抗爭時，除了學者專家，國民黨秘書長宋楚瑜直接在協調溝通的第一線，尋求妥協共識之道。甚至當民進黨缺錢孔急的時候，不論 是修法或找私人關係，李登輝還要為民進黨找財源。

就算馬政府最看不起的陳水扁，在第一任總統時期，五個月就安排了與在野政黨領袖連戰和宋楚瑜會面，雖然事後鬧出核四停建，讓朝野對話氣氛更僵，但至少形式 上扁主動邀約，在野政黨領袖再對選舉結果不滿，都還得維持表面風度，應邀前往總統府。接下來，國民黨主席連戰氣到不理陳水扁，但親民黨主席宋楚瑜還是大著 膽子和陳水扁第二次對話，雖然後來陳水扁又搞一個「宋陳密會」，讓自己吃上敗訴官司。

李、連、宋、扁都是過去的人物了，重提往事，既不堪又讓人無限唏噓。這些人物在位的時候，都知道自己該做什麼，即使做的結果不盡如人意；儘管他們當年所為 都只是偶一為之的個案，既未形成政治慣例，遑論政治文化。然而，當總統的就知道要主動彎腰與在野政黨連絡，在野政黨領袖再不情願，也知道得接受選舉結果， 與總統理性對話。為什麼？很簡單，台灣是大家的，國家利益是全民的，任何一位政治領袖都有責任、義務，站在全民利益、國家團結的立場，為國家政策走向尋找 最大和諧的可能。

馬英九和蔡英文，從來不是藍綠陣營中走極端的政治人物；他們的政治語言是溫和的、中道的、不加辛香料的，煽動群眾情緒從來不是他們所擅長。此時此刻，因為 陳雲林來台的波折紛擾，打開朝野對話的機會，馬、蔡兩人都不能讓這個付出慘痛代價的機會流失，不要再理會朝野立委每日一記者會的彼此指責，互吵馬、蔡誰應 該先道歉；認為誰該為集遊法迄未修正負責；認為誰該為選制改變造成票票不等值的後果負責；因為所有眼前看得到的政治後遺症，都是朝野兩黨的共業。

民進黨批評警政單位對紅衫軍特好，對民進黨群眾特不好，民進黨忘了：紅衫軍合法申請集會時間超過，下達執法驅離者是當時的台北市長馬英九；為此，馬英九還 不得連宋與藍營立委的諒解，而當時部分民進黨執政縣市甚至連過路權都不給紅衫軍；集遊法是由民進黨前主席施明德率先倡議修正，國民黨呼應，甚至已經提出修 法案，既是應為之事，何須一拖再拖，拿社會氣氛不對當盾牌？江陳台北會談的社會氣氛又對了嗎？

從兩岸政策到因應全球金融風暴的重大紓困與振興經濟方案，都是執政者必須與在野溝通的議題。美國大選前通過數千億紓困方案，同樣要經過參眾兩院民主、共和 兩黨的溝通，不要認為民進黨在立法院只有廿七席，可以不理會，這廿七席代表的是台灣四成民意。身為全民總統，建立朝野對話的機制是馬英九躲都躲不了的責 任，我們誠懇呼籲也嚴肅期待，「馬蔡會」能成為重建台灣政治文化和朝野對話的政治慣例的第一步。