Does the DPP Really Want to Debate, or is It Deliberately Sabotaging Debate?

Does the DPP Really Want to Debate, or is It Deliberately Sabotaging Debate?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2010

The cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) will be signed in June. Yesterday President Ma Ying-jeou declared that he was willing to debate this important issue with DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Seldom does a ruling party make such an offer to the political opposition on its own initiative. The DPP no long has any excuse to evade debate. According to the latest opinion polls, 92% of the Green Camp's supporters favor a debate between the government and the opposition DPP. This number is even higher than the number for Blue Camp supporters. Tsai Ing-wen has responded to internal party pressure. Unfortunately, she has deliberately laid down all sorts of of preconditions. She appears intent on sabotaging any possible debate.
Tsai Ing-wen has trotted out any number of excuses for her reluctance to debate. One excuse is that before the nations of the world enter major trade negotiations, they invariably call for independent studies. Any such studies would be used during future oversight and review, and ensure that oversight and review of ECFA would be substantive and meaningful. But the ECFA about to be signed by the two sides is merely a framework. It does not merit the appellation, "trade negotiations." Some people still fear the impact ECFA may have on certain industries once it is signed. There is no reason why an in-depth report cannot be ordered. But the Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research and other think tanks already conducted in-depth investigations long ago. Think tanks close to the Democratic Progressive Party have also conducted independent studies. ECFA, after all, is not the 3/19 Shooting Incident. The Legislative Yuan is the highest representative body of the nation. Should it conduct such a study? Is it competent to conduct such a study? Many doubt it.

Tsai Ing-wen wants the Legislative Yuan to conduct a study of ECFA. DPP spokesman Tsai Chi-chang also proposed the establishment of an effective negotiating mechanism. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng agrees there should be a cross-Strait affairs oversight committee. Wang Jin-pyng favors systematic organization of the Legislative Yuan's tasks. He favors comprehensive monitoring of the government's cross-Strait policies, rather than the establishment of ad hoc oversight committees, saying the two can not be compared. What does the DPP want? An ECFA oversight committee? Or a cross-Strait affairs oversight committee? No matter what it wants, the Legislative Yuan has the authority to oversee all government policies, bills, and budgets, including ECFA. Debates between the government and the political opposition need not be linked to the Legislative Yuan's authority. If the two must be linked, then the debate between the ruling and opposition parties can be held in the Legislative Yuan, between party cadres. Why must the chairman be called into action?

Tsai Ing-wen also stressed the need to promote a second ECFA referendum. In fact the DPP began an ECFA referendum signature drive last year. But the referendum was rejected by the Referendum Committee. Who knew that although little has changed, the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union's second signature drive would succeed? The Referendum Committee may reverse its previous ruling, and suddenly approve a referendum on ECFA. ECFA is merely an agreement about the framework of future talks. Only after it is signed, can the two sides begin negotiations and consultations within the framework. What is the point of holding a referendum on an agreement that merely contains a table of contents, but no actual content?

Tsai Ing-wen has criticized the Ma administration, saying not only does it seem determined to sign ECFA, it has established a timetable, and is moving along faster and faster, creating cause for concern. Actually, the cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement has been in the works for a year and a half. Everthing from its name to its signing date have been repeatedly postponed. The reason it must be signed this year has nothing to do with Ma administration's wishes. It has to do with the ASEAN Free Trade Area, which was launched earlier this year. From the perspective of national competitiveness, signing ECFA in June is already late.

The atmosphere on Taiwan is full of divisive rhetoric. People habitually turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to rhetoric different from their own. Over the past year, volumes of information on ECFA have been made available by the Council of Agriculture, the Council of Labor Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the Mainland Affairs Council. Each of these agencies has offered talking points. Leave aside the question of quality, and look only at the quantity. The volume has far exceeded the volume for other major economic policies. Most people cab remain indifferent to ECFA, which is merely an agreement over the framework of future negotiations. But the DPP must act responsibly. It is an opposition party that was in power for eight years. The DPP has no excuse for engaging in irrational obstructionism. The Democratic Progressive Party need not accept the government's official spin. But it must offer concrete justifications for its opposition.

Since the second change in ruling parties in 2008, leaders of the government and the political opposition have remained at loggerheads. Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly expressed a willingness to debate Tsai Ing-wen, but has never received a response. Based on this alone, Tsai Ing-wen does not compare with former KMT Chairman Lien Chan, who handed over power in 2000. The Ma/Tsai debate remains a non-starter. Therefore it will not generate any political sparks. Tsai Ing-wen might as well come out of hiding. The Republic of China is a mature democracy. Party politics have persisted for twenty years. People may have their own political preferences. But they will not say no to their party chairmen meeting face to face. In fact, they welcome a debate between the two chairmen. Elections are about winning and losing. Post election debates on the other hand, are about healthy political exchanges. Blue reunificationist vs. Green independence rhetoric on Taiwan has corrupted political discourse far too long. Government and opposition leaders must lead by example. They must reestablish a normal and healthy political culture. A debate over ECFA would be a good first step.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.03.25
民進黨真要辯論 還是故意要破局
本報訊

兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）即將在六月簽署，馬英九總統日前已明快宣示，願意與民進黨主席蔡英文就此一重大議題進行辯論。執政黨難得主動出擊，民進黨沒道理再迴避了。畢竟根據最新民調，泛綠支持者有高達九成二贊成朝野辯論，比泛藍支持者還高，面對黨內力主迎戰聲浪，蔡英文儘管做出了回應，令人相當遺憾的是，又刻意設下了種種前提條件，彷彿故意就是要讓這場辯論陷入破局之勢。

蔡英文搬出的理由之一是，世界各國重大貿易談判前，一定要由獨立機構進行完整的調查報告，因此宣稱將透過立院黨團提案由國會主導進行並完成一份獨立調查報告，做為未來監督審查ＥＣＦＡ簽訂過程的依據，使審查更具實質意涵。然而，兩岸簽署的ＥＣＦＡ只是架構協議，稱不上貿易談判，但由於部分國人對簽署ＥＣＦＡ後對相關產業的衝擊，還存有疑慮，有一份深入的調查報告並無不可。只不過針對ＥＣＦＡ議題包括中華經濟研究院等智庫機構早有研究，民進黨外圍智庫也有大量研究報告。ＥＣＦＡ畢竟不是三一九槍擊案，立院即使是最高民意機關，適不適合、有沒有能力進行類似調查，其實是有疑問的。

蔡英文要求立法院主導ＥＣＦＡ調查報告，民進黨發言人蔡其昌則提出要建立有效的談判機制，例如立法院長王金平也同意的兩岸事務監督小組。王金平主張建置的兩岸事務監督小組是編制外、制度化的立法院任務編組，廣泛監督政府所有的兩岸政策，並非專案式的調查委員會，兩者不能相提並論。那麼，民進黨到底是要ＥＣＦＡ調查委員會？還是兩岸事務監督小組？而不論何者，立法院職權就在監督政府所有政策、法案與預算，當然包括ＥＣＦＡ，朝野辯論與立法院職權可以脫勾，如果兩者非掛勾不可，朝野辯論由立法院兩黨幹部在立法院進行即可，何必主席出馬？

蔡英文同時又強調要全力推動第二次ＥＣＦＡ公投。事實上，民進黨去年已經進行過一次ＥＣＦＡ的公投連署案，但遭公投審議委員會否決。很難想像，在沒有太多變化的情況下，即使民進黨與台聯再次連署完成，公審會可能推翻前議，突然通過了ＥＣＦＡ公投案。ＥＣＦＡ只是架構協議，簽署之後，兩岸才能在這個架構下，進行談判和磋商，沒有內容只有綱要的協議，要公投什麼呢？

蔡英文批評，馬政府執意簽定ＥＣＦＡ，不僅先訂定時間表、而且發展速度越來越快，令人憂慮。事實上，兩岸經濟合作架構協議已醞釀一年半，從名稱到簽署時程，都幾經調整，今年非簽不可的原因，並非馬政府執意施為，而是東協自由貿易區今年已經啟動，如果從國家競爭力的角度來看，六月間兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ，時程上已經慢了。

台灣社會充斥情緒性的對立言詞，對不同於己方的論述，習慣性的視而不見、聽而不聞。這一年多來，ＥＣＦＡ的資訊汗牛充棟，從農委會、勞委會、經濟部、陸委會，各部門都有政策說帖，先不說質，僅從量上評估，也遠遠超過政府其他重大政策。對一般民眾而言，對一個只是「架構協議」的ＥＣＦＡ可以淡漠以對，但做為負責任的、特別是已經有執政八年經驗的在野黨，民進黨沒有為反對而反對的藉口，民進黨可以不接受政府部門的「官方說法」，但也要拿得出反對的具體理由和論點。

二○○八政黨再輪替迄今，朝野領袖始終緣慳一面，馬英九多次釋出雙英會的善意，卻一直得不到回應。就這一點而言，蔡英文還不如二千年交出政權後的國民黨主席連戰，雙英會不成，雙英辯論既已造成氣氛，就不必再拖延閃躲。台灣是一個成熟的民主社會，政黨政治好歹也走了廿多年，民眾或許有自己的政黨偏好，卻不至於堅拒兩黨主席會面，甚至會歡迎兩黨主席辯論。選舉拚輸贏，選後辯政策，這才是健康的政黨互動。台灣，已經被唯藍綠統獨的政治語言扭曲太久了，朝野領袖必須以身作則，重建一個正常而健康的政治文化，ＥＣＦＡ辯論就是第一步。