Su Huan-chih and Hsu Tien-tsai: Why Not Forcibly Occupy the Podium in the Legislature?

Su Huan-chih and Hsu Tien-tsai: Why Not Forcibly Occupy the Podium in the Legislature?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2010

The ruling and opposition parties were stalemated in the Legislature over the Law of Local Institutions. But eventually after several bouts of scuffling, they successfully held a vote. Such scenes have become commonplace. What leaves the public most angry and confused is that the Legislative Yuan has already undergone a number of structural reforms. It has an internal consultation system. It has a voting system. Yet every time it votes, physical confrontations erupt because the DPP "occupies the podium" by means of brute force. Must the Republic of China legislature remain trapped outside the evolutionary path of democracy?
We're not sure when physically occupying the podium using brute physical force became the DPP's political trademark. Years ago the DPP accused the KMT of one party rule. Their sentiments were shared by society. This led to the reform of the "10,000 Year Legislature." But when the DPP became the ruling party, it continued to throw shoes at its political opponents in the legislature. It continued to use superglue to disable locks to the doors of the legislature, in order to block the passage of bills that did not meet with its approval. The current legislature is the seventh. Its composition is based on the single member district, two ballot system the Green Camp demanded and got. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party continues its practice of physically occupying the podium by means of brute force, It offers all sorts of elaborate rationalizatons for its brawling. But the Blue Camp commands a huge majority in the legislature. It represents the clearly expressed will of a democratic majority. Can the DPP truly ignore this simple reality?

The way the Law of Local Institutions was amended was indeed rushed. The process was indeed too hasty. It was indeed less than entirely rational. But the amended law is an improvement over the original one. The most controversial items have been revised. Additional provisions have been made for the reassignment of township and city mayors to district chiefs. Township and city representatives may not be reassigned to the District Advisory Committee. They may not receive 45,000 NT in research fees. The ruling and opposition parties had already reached a consensus in the morning. But by the afternoon Tsai Ing-wen and Ko Chien-min suddenly reneged. Under the circumstances, the public cannot help wondering whether the Democratic Progressive Party's stonewalling was motivated purely by the desire for a violent confrontation, and by the desire to occupy the podium purely for the sake of occupying the podium.

The Democratic Progressive Party stonewalls on every issue. It practices a "scorched-earth policy." This shows that its actions are utterly unprincipled, and that the DPP is utterly insincere concerning the rational evaluation of public policy. When the DPP was in power it proposed amendments to the Law of Local Institutions. It proposed abolishing township and municipal self-government elections, township and mayor appointments, and the township people's congress. It attempted to abolish grass-roots elections on a scale far greater than today's restructuring of the five major metropolitan areas. Predictably, now that the DPP's role has changed, it is turning around and denouncing the KMT, accusing it of amending the law in order to disrupt local self-government and undermine constitutional order. Apparently the Democratic Progressive Party's stand on the Law of Local Institutions changes according to whether it is in or out of office.

Worse still, the Executive Yuan's original version originally stipulated that township and municipal representatives reassigned to the District Advisory Committee could receive a 45,000 NT monthly salary. This stipulation was advanced by DPP Tainan Mayor Su Huan-chi and DPP Tainan County Executive Hsu Tien-tsai. During consultations between the central and local governments, other participants agreed with the DPP city mayors and county executives. It was only when the legislature began its third reading that the Green Camp suddenly sounded the alarm and accused the KMT of attempting to "install its own people." It even proclaimed that it would defend constitutional government "to the death." But doesn't the Democratic Progressive Party leadership's heroic posturing directly contradict its city mayors' and county executives' opportunism? Doesn't it reveal the DPP's internal contradictions. Doesn't it reveal how it says one thing, but does another thing? The Ma administration's decision-making process may be obtuse. But the chronic and habitual hypocrisy of the Democratic Progressive Party makes it impossible for the public to find any emotional relief.

As far as the KMT is concerned, it won a victory during the melee over the Law of Local Institutions. The Ma adminstration bears scars from the process. An initial lack of communication and evaluation, along with blind obedience of DPP city mayors and county executives led to wrong decisions and widespread discontent. Eventually a brawl within an extraordinary session resolved the differences, and blocked the DPP's attempt to interfere with the review procedure. Actually, it was merely technical victory. But Blue Camp legislators have felt considerable excitement over the past two days. Wang Jin-pyng declared that "This is more like it. This is the way political party must conduct itself." In the end the KMT broke the senseless deadlock the Democratic Progressive Party created when it physically occupied the podium using brute force. This could be considered progress. The important thing is that the Blue Camp legislators, who constitute a three quarters supermajority, have finally become a team. Even more significantly, the will of the people, expressed two years ago during the legislative elections, has finally broken through psychological and strategic barriers in the Legislative Yuan. It is finally enabling the machinery of government to function.

In today's open political environment, the ruling party has little room for clandestine operations. Many deficiencies in administrative decision-making can be overseen by the media and improved by elected representatives. That is why the DPP must forsake its strategy of "perpetual protests." It must adopt more rational means of checks and balances. Only then can it avoid sacrificing the interests of the nation and the public with day after day of scorched-earth warfare.

Why don't Su Huan-chih and Hsu Tien-tsai come to the Legislative Yuan and physically occupy the podium by means of brute force? The Democratic Progressive Party has long been more adept at rhetoric than the KMT. But its dismal record of governance has given the public an insight into chaotic policy. The DPP must find a more civilized strategy for ensuring checks and balances. It must establish a comprehensive policy. It must overcome its own contradictions and hypocrisy. Only then can the DPP restructure itself and raise its political stature.

為何蘇煥智、許添財不到立法院「霸台」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.22 03:22 am

朝野為地制法在立法院僵持鎮日，最後在幾波扭打中完成表決。這類景象固已司空見慣，但最使民眾感到憤怒與困惑的是：立法院結構歷經多少次改革，內部有協商機制、有表決機制，但每次都要鬧到「霸佔主席台」的肢體衝突收場，台灣國會真要自陷於民主發展「進化論」的正軌之外嗎？

罷台阻撓議事，不知何時已變成民進黨的政治專利。民進黨當年指控國民黨一黨獨大，掀起社會共鳴，促成了萬年國會的改革；但輪到它變成了執政黨，卻依舊在立法院使用扔鞋、強力膠封門的伎倆強力阻擋法案。現今的第七屆國會，是根據綠營主張的單一選區兩票制而產生，民進黨卻仍把罷台、群毆說得振振有詞；但立院藍大綠小所代表的民意，對民進黨一點都不算數嗎？

這次地制法修正，過程確嫌倉促草率，也未盡合理。但新的修正案已就原先版本中的重大爭議作了改進，除對鄉鎮市長轉任區長增設門檻，也排除鄉鎮市民代表轉任區諮委可月領四萬五千元研究費的規定。更何況，朝野上午原已就此達成協商共識，下午隨即又傳出蔡英文及柯建銘反對而推翻；在這種情況下，不得不讓人懷疑：民進黨的杯葛只是「為戰而戰」、「為霸台而霸台」而已。

民進黨這種凡事杯葛的「焦土策略」，其實更暴露它出爾反爾、毫無原則的問政心態。民進黨執政時期，即曾提出過地制法修正案，擬議全面取消鄉鎮市自治選舉，鄉鎮市長改為派任，裁撤鄉鎮市民代表大會；當時企圖廢除基層選舉的規模，要比今天因應五都改制的調整大上許多。孰料，如今角色一變，民進黨卻反咬國民黨修法是打亂自治體系、重創憲政秩序。民進黨對地方制度改革的原則，是因時因人而異嗎？

尤有甚者，當初政院版規定鄉鎮市民代表轉任區諮委可月領四萬五，本是民進黨台南縣市長蘇煥智及許添財提出來的主張，在中央與地方協商時，其他與會民進黨縣市長亦皆贊同。直到立法院進入三讀，綠營才突然大喊狼來了，指控國民黨此舉是意圖「綁樁」，還宣稱要「誓死」捍衛憲政。民進黨中央如此故作英勇正義狀，不正是反襯了其縣市首長的投機，也暴露了自己說一套、做一套的矛盾嗎？馬政府的決策固愚不可及，但民進黨的偽善、反覆，只怕更難令人民寬心。

對國民黨而言，地制法之役雖然在混亂中勝出，馬政府其實也傷痕累累。當初溝通不足、思慮不周，甚至盲從民進黨縣市長的提議作出錯誤的決策，肇下異聲四起的後果。最後，召開臨時會打群架解決歧見，並用復議堵死民進黨的程序干擾，其實也只能稱為「技術性」的勝利。但從藍軍立委這兩日的興奮之情看來，包括王金平宣稱「這才像個政黨」，畢竟，能夠突破民進黨無謂霸台的僵局，也算是一次頗具意義的進展。重要的，不是占四分之三藍軍立委總算變成了一支有意志的隊伍，更具實質意義的是，兩年前國會大選所凝聚的選民意志，終於讓立法院能突破它的心理障礙和戰略障礙，至少讓國家機器能夠運作。

在今天開放的政治環境下，執政黨其實已沒有太多黑箱運作的空間，許多行政決策缺失，都可以透過輿論辨正或民意代表的監督而獲得調整與改善。也因此，民進黨必須放棄「無限抗爭」路線，改採比較理性的制衡，才不會在日復一日的焦土作戰中，把國家和人民的利益一起犧牲掉。

為何蘇煥智和許添財不到立法院霸台？民進黨一直有「長於論述」的優勢，但它的執政紀錄，讓人民見識到其「政策」的錯亂。找到更文明的制衡戰略，建立完整的政策體系，克服自己的矛盾與偽善，也許民進黨就能找到轉型升級之鑰。