Tsai Ing-wen Ought to Have Greater Respect for Press Freedom

Tsai Ing-wen Ought to Have Greater Respect for Press Freedom
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2009

On December 3rd, the United Daily News published an editorial urging the DPP not to use ECFA to divide Taiwan. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen read this editorial and wrote us a letter. She vehemently objected to our references to "divisiveness" and "anti-intellectual demagoguery."
This newspaper published Chairman Tsai's letter and our brief response in the December 4th Op-Ed Section. This exchange between a politician and the media is deeply regrettable. Nevertheless, we must set the record straight.

The editorial this newspaper published on the 3rd asked whether the Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen had oversimplified a complex issue like ECFA and reduced it to "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." We asked whether such practices were anti-intellectual demagoguery. We also asked whether the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen had maligned ECFA, a policy intended to protect Taiwan's future, and used it to divide the nation and society. Our editorial argued that agricultural issues must be addressed, but they must not be used as pretexts to divide the nation into "agricultural counties and cities" and "non-agricultural counties and cities," and incite farmers to hate society. We considered our comments fair and reasonable.

Chairman Tsai's letter denied the charges of "divisiveness" and "anti-intellectual demagoguery." On the issue of divisiveness, she ignored the expression "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Our editorial pointed out that over the past two decades the Democratic Progressive Party has persistently divided the nation and society, through its "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution" campaign, and its rejection of the Republic of China. It has divided citizens along the lines of "Taiwanese" vs. "Mainlanders," and "love for Taiwan" vs. "selling out Taiwan," and "Northerners" vs. "Southerners." It has constantly sought ways to divide people. Chairman Tsai evaded this issue entirely. Instead, she wrote "According to the logic of the editorial, raising objections to the government's policies divides society into two opposing camps, the pros and the cons. Therefore this too is a form of divisiveness." She asked provocatively whether "refusing to going along with the Ma government amounted to dividing Taiwan?" Chairman Tsai not only refused to address the issue of divisiveness. She attempted to change the subject. She accused the editorial of "attaching false labels" to the Democratic Progressive Party. She said the editorial "viewed opposition to the government's policies as some sort of scourge." She said it "prettified the government" and "acted as a mouthpiece for administration officials." Chairman Tsai wrote, using the most ascerbic language possible, "After reading your editorial, I was not angry. I was speechless."

This is hardly the attitude the chairman of a political party ought to adopt when discussing controversial matters. She evaded the real issues. She began by accusing the editorial of "viewing opposition to the government as some sort of scourge." She implied that the editorial "parroted the Ma administration." What sort of argumentation is this, that can't be bothered to distinguish between black and white, and truth and lies? Chairman Tsai said the editorial unfairly attached false labels on her. But on whom was she unfairly attaching false labels?

Leave other issues aside for the moment. Ever since Ma Ying-jeou became president, and Tsai Ing-wen became DPP party chairman, this newspaper's editorials and "In Black and White" column have been more critical of President Ma than of Chairman Tsai. Even in the three in one local elections, our editorials and our "In Black and White" column have been far harsher in their criticisms of the KMT and President Ma than they have of the DPP and Chairman Tsai, both in frequency and in intensity. Under the circumstances, was our editorial not a "dissenting opinion?" How can it be considered "parroting the Ma administration?" How can it be considered a case of "acting as the mouthpiece of administration officials?"

Let's return to the issue of "anti-intellectual demogoguery." Chairman Tsai's letter depicted farmers' anxieties over ECFA in deeply moving terms. We feel the same way. But she made no effort whatsoever to explain why so many DPP politicians have demagogued the issue as "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." She denied spreading rumors at the grassroots level. Chairman Tsai may claim that she herself has never used the expression "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." But has she forgotten that she is the chairman of the DPP. She bears responsibility for statements issued by her party's officials.

This perhaps, is Chairman Tsai's dilemma. She is unwilling to be the DPP's mask, or "persona." She wants to be a bona fide leader. But she sometimes thinks of herself as the DPP's mask. She thinks that rhetoric such as "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan" has nothing to do with her. The DPP's rhetoric has long been divorced from its core values. For example, its core value is Taiwan independence. Its championing of "democracy" is merely a pretext. And so it is with ECFA. First DPP leaders initiate a whisper campaign about "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Then they play up "the tragic plight of farmers." Chairman Tsai scrupulously avoided using the term "toadying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan" in her letter. But she did resort to demagoguing "the tragic plight of farmers." Is this how a responsible party chairman ought to behave? Does this constitute honest soul-searching by a party chairman?

This exchange between us and Chairman Tsai is merely one incident. What concerns us more is how to normalize politician/media interaction. Without the freedom to denounce the Lee Teng-hui regime ten years ago, the DPP could never have ruled the central government for eight years. Over the past two or three years, without a free press to uphold justice, the DPP would never have been able to extricate itself from corruption. The DPP's rise and fall is closely related to the rise and fall of media freedom. Even today, the media still holds out hope for the DPP. In fact, the reason our editorial urged the DPP not to use ECFA to divide Taiwan, was precisely because we still expect so much from the DPP. If Chairman Tsai truly understood this, she would not have responded the way she did. The Democratic Progressive Party won the recent local elections. Chairman Tsai and the Democratic Progressive Party have scaled new heights in the defense of democratic values in a free and open forum.

Freedom of the press is an important social value. Freedom of expression must be respected and protected. In the past Chairman Tsai has squabbled with other newspapers because she was unhappy with their editorial commentary. A party chairman should learn from public comments regarding her party's political moves. One may engage in rational debate. But one must never attempt to discredit the media through defamation, by unfairly labeling its editorial commentary as "prettifying the government" or as "acting as the mouthpiece of administration officials." A party chairman in a democracy should never adopt such an attitude with the free press.

Besides, from a realpolitik perspective, political parties, especially during elections, routinely float lies, spread rumors, spout heresy, and engage in sophistry and defamation. Political parties are a million times worse than the media when it comes to polluting the air with distortions. A chairman of a political party has failed to assume responsibility for her own party's public statements. She has failed to account to society for her party's breaches of ethics and abdications of responsibility. What right does she have to defame and distort the media's well-aimed comments regarding her party's political moves? On the one hand, she is abusing her right to free speech. On the other hand, she is suppressing others' right to free speech. Is this really something the chairman of an ostensibly "democratic and progressive" political party should be doing?

Chairman Tsai Ing-wen was once considered a cut above the average politician. We have always held high expectations for her. But if Chairman Tsai has has sunk to this level, the public may well give up on the Democratic Progressive Party. They may cease hoping that it will rehabilitate itself. This is a matter of far greater concern than the exchange between us and Chairman Tsai. Sound advice often grates on the ear. Surely Chairman Tsai is not going to characterize that as "parroting the Ma administration," is she?

蔡英文應知如何尊重評論自由
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.12.07 03:18 am

本報三日社論主張「不要再用ＥＣＦＡ來撕裂台灣」，民進黨主席蔡英文閱後投書本報，對社論所指民進黨「撕裂」及「反智愚民」的操作，提出疾言厲色的反駁。

本報已將蔡主席的投書及我們的簡答刊登在四日的民意論壇版；此一過從是一樁令人極度遺憾的政媒互動事件，仍有再作申論以正視聽的必要。

本報三日社論提問：民進黨及蔡英文將一個利害錯綜複雜的ＥＣＦＡ，簡化成「傾中賣台」四字，此種手法是不是反智愚民？再質疑：民進黨及蔡英文將ＥＣＦＡ這個救治台灣整體發展的政策，扭曲醜化成撕裂國家社會的政治議題。社論並明確主張：農業問題必須照應，但不宜藉此將國家撕裂成「農業縣市／非農業縣市」，並誤導農民去仇恨社會。我們認為，這是一篇平允的評論。

蔡主席的投書，一駁「撕裂」，再談「反智愚民」。關於撕裂，她完全迴避了「傾中賣台」四字。社論指出，民進黨過去二十年來始終撕裂國家社會，「正名制憲／中華民國」是撕裂，「台灣人／外省人」是撕裂，「愛台灣／不愛台灣」、「愛台／賣台」、「南部／北部」，在在皆是撕裂……；蔡主席避此不談，卻竟一躍而稱：「若依該社論邏輯，對政策提出反對意見，因此將社會分為贊成與反對的兩方，就是一種撕裂手法。」並為投書下了一個「不附和馬政府，就是撕裂台灣？」的聳動標題。尤有甚者，蔡主席非但未就是否「撕裂」進行針對性的討論，話題一轉，竟稱社論是對民進黨「扣帽子」，並誣指社論「把對政策的反面思辯視為洪水猛獸，美化政府，為官喉舌」，又稱：「吾人（蔡英文）閱（社論）後不感憤怒，只是難免瞠目結舌」。用語措辭極盡尖刻之能事。

這恐怕不是一個黨主席討論議題的應有風格與水準。迴避正題，開口就稱社論是「將反面思辯視為洪水猛獸」，「美化政府，為官喉舌」，又暗喻社論是「附和馬政府」。這是何其不分青紅皂白的辯論手法？蔡主席說社論對她扣帽子，但她是在對誰扣帽子？

不說別的，馬英九任總統及蔡英文任民進黨主席以來，本報社論與黑白集對馬總統的評論也許尚銳利嚴格過對蔡主席；即使在此次三合一地方選舉期間，社論及黑白集對國民黨及馬總統的評論，在篇數及尖銳度上，亦遠逾於對民進黨及蔡主席的評論。由此可見，社論豈是不會作「反面思辯」？豈是「附和馬政府」？豈是「為官喉舌」？

再談「反智愚民」。蔡主席的投書，將農民對ＥＣＦＡ的焦慮及困境描寫得情辭動人，我們亦深有同感；但她未用一字來解釋何以極多民進黨的政要用「傾中賣台」來操作此一議題，更諱言在基層撒佈的政治耳語是什麼。蔡主席也許會說，至少她自己未說過「傾中賣台」；但她難道不知自己是民進黨主席，應當一肩挑起概括承受的責任。

這也許正是蔡主席的困境，她不願只作民進黨的面具，而希望成為實質領袖；但有時她又以為自己只是民進黨的面具，而視「傾中賣台」這類操作與她無關。民進黨的論述操作向來是「體用分離」，例如：「台獨」是體，「民主」是用；在ＥＣＦＡ議題上亦復如此，先用明示及耳語建立了「傾中賣台」的體，再發動「農民悲情」的用。蔡主席在投書中迴避了「傾中賣台」的體，而只是訴諸「農民悲情」的用；這是一個負責任的黨主席應有的擔當嗎？這又是一個誠實的黨主席應有的自我反省嗎？

這件社論與投書的往復畢竟只是一宗個案，我們更關切的是政治人物與媒體評論應當如何建立正常的互動關係。十年前，若無自由媒體嚴責李登輝政權，民進黨不可能在中央執政八年；過去二、三年來，若無自由媒體操持正義，民進黨亦不可能從貪腐禍國中自拔。民進黨的起伏興衰，可謂皆與台灣的自由媒體息息相關；即使在今日，媒體仍對民進黨抱有期許，「不要再用ＥＣＦＡ來撕裂台灣」一文，其實亦是對民進黨寄以期待的勸諫，蔡主席若有此種正確認識，即不致如此反應。民進黨在此次地方選舉獲勝後，蔡主席及民進黨在護守民主價值的自由論壇上亦當更上層樓。

新聞自由是重要社會價值，評論自由尤應受到維護與尊重。蔡主席過去亦曾因對評論不滿而與其他報紙發生勃谿，一位黨主席對於輿論就該黨政治操作提出的意見，應當借鏡參考，亦可理性辯解，但絕不可對任何自由媒體汙蔑抹黑，扣上什麼「美化政府，為官喉舌」的帽子。一位黨主席對自由媒體若持此種態度，絕非民主政治的正確示範。

再者，就現實政治運作來說，一個政黨在日常操作中，尤其在選舉時，可謂日日時時皆可能放出謊話、謠言、妄論、穢語、邪說；因而，政黨對言論空間的汙染及扭曲，恐較一般媒體嚴重萬倍。既是如此，則一黨主席在政黨自身的言論倫理及言論責任皆無以向社會交代及彌償的實況下，更豈可對自由媒體就關於政黨操作的適當公評，逕加汙蔑扭曲？一面汙染言論空間，一面箝制自由評論，這豈是一位「民主／進步」的黨主席所應為？

蔡英文主席原本是社會認為能夠有別於傳統類型的政治人物，我們一向對她亦有高度的期許。倘若蔡主席竟亦沾染了那種習氣，也許會使國人對民進黨的改造更生失去了期待；這才是這次「社論／投書」往復更令人關切的大事。良言逆耳，蔡主席不會將本文也說成是「附和馬政府」吧？