Don't Just Say No: The DPP Must Offer a Vision for the Future

Don't Just Say No: The DPP Must Offer a Vision for the Future
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2010

Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has reiterated her commitment to a "Platform for the Decade." Following several victories at the polls, the beleaguered DPP's reaction is now substantially different. Vice President Annette Lu criticized Tsai's platform as "biting off more than one can chew." Elections are held only once every four years, Lu said. To be realistic, the DPP should offer a political platform with a two or four year timeframe.

DPP party elders are not bothering to conceal their belief that "It's all for the sake of elections." Apparently they believe such an attitude will actually help them at the polls. The Democratic Progressive Party has long trumpeted its concern for Taiwan's long term development. Now apparently even a ten year timeframe is too long!

Political competition is never absolute. Between two bad apples, all voters can do is choose the less rotten one. Since last year's three in one elections, the Democratic Progressive Party has won three elections in a row. This can only be explained by the dismal performance of the KMT. But to suggest that the DPP has engaged in soul-searching or that it has offered constructive proposals for the future, will probably be met with raised eyebrows, even from DPP officials.

Take the fiercely debated death penalty issue. Wang Ching-feng refused to implement the death penalty. Cabinet members have adopted different attitudes. Her resignation was no surprise. But consider the underlying structural factors. Voters who support the KMT usually hold more conservative attitudes regarding the death penalty and other social issues. Wang Ching-feng's firm commitment to the abolition of the death penalty was out of step with most KMT supporters. Her resignation was a forgone conclusion.

By contrast, during the "dang wai" era the DPP collaborated with human rights groups. Some Democratic Progressive Party elders were former death-row inmates. The DPP has long trumpeted its intention of "founding a nation on human rights." But when confronted with the Wang Ching-feng incident, all it could do was heap abuse and ridicule upon her. Whether to abolish the death penalty has sparked controversy in many democratic nations. If the DPP were in power today, would it handle the matter more circumspectly?

The "Platform for the Decade" lit a fuse. Last Wednesday the DPP Central Standing Committee discussed "Global Warming and Climate Change: What the Government Should Do regarding Land Restoration." This was supposed to officially launch its Platform for the Decade. But the meeting been barely been convened when DPP officials poured cold water on the proposal. This is truly regrettable. Global climate change will precipitate natural disasters. Taiwan was a victim of the 8/8 Floods. Leaders of the United Nations, the USA, the Chinese Mainland, and the EU are all busy combatting global warming, reducing carbon, and conserving energy. The Democratic Progressive Party however, has no solutions whatsoever. They may say this is not something an opposition party need worry about. But when the DPP was in power, it insisted on scrapping the nuclear energy program. It opposes nuclear power generation. But fossil fuel generating plants may be needed to compensate for the shortfall in nuclear power generation. If the DPP returns to office, does it intend to continue such an energy policy? The world now emphasizes energy efficiency. Does the DPP have a response? Does it have any idea how to deal with such a contingency?

The Republic of China faces another long term problem. Taipei and Beijing are about to sign an ECFA (Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement). The Ma administration is eager to sign, primarily because ASEAN and Beijing have launched a free trade region this year. Exports from the ten ASEAN nations to the Chinese mainland will be tariff free. Similar exports from Taiwan to the Chinese mainland will remain subject to high tariffs. The Ma administration hopes to close the deal on ECFA in order to overcome this problem. The DPP accuses the KMT of looking out only for the interests of big business. But it never offers any alternatives. Even more importantly, what sort of relationship would the DPP establish with Beijing? The Democratic Progressive Party may become the ruling party. It cannot refuse to address this matter merely because it considers it taboo.

DPP officials may say that discussing these issues does not require a Platform for the Decade. An election platform can achieve the same goal. But such an approach would turn every issue into an election issue. Every issue would be evaluated and demagogued for short term political advantage. The DPP would do well to examine the KMT's current plight. The government has flip-flopped on every issue, from taxes for members of the military, the civil service, and public school teachers, to health insurance premium increases. This is a textbook case of being bound hand and foot by election concerns.

And so it is with the DPP. The Republican Party in the United States has enjoyed smooth sailing recently. But it is still willing to talk with Obama about health care reform. It even allowed the Democrats' work bill to pass in the Senate. It knows that a party that only says "No!" will never win the public trust.

The Democratic Progressive Party has also won victory after victory. But its victories have been followed by internecine power struggles. Several electoral districts in the five cities even resorted to character assassination. Perhaps it is unrealistic to talk about the DPP's "Platform for the Decade" given such vicious life or death power struggles. But a new generation of middle-aged Democratic Progressive Party leaders is committed to sustainable development. They really ought to join Tsai Ing-wen and give careful thought to the DPP's plans for Taiwan over the next decade!

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.03.17
社論－別只會說NO 民進黨應提未來執政願景
本報訊

民進黨黨主席蔡英文日前重提研擬「十年政綱」。經過幾次勝選、驚魂甫定的民進黨，這次反應大為不同，副總統呂秀蓮批評這是「好高鶩遠」，因為一次選舉才四年，民進黨應該提二或四年政綱才切合實際。

看來，民進黨大老一點都不掩飾該黨「萬事莫如選舉忙」的態度，只是，「一切為選舉」，真的就對選舉有利；更別說，民進黨口口聲聲都是台灣的永續發展，現在卻連十年都嫌太久！

政治競爭從來不是絕對的，如果只有兩個爛蘋果，選民只能選比較不爛的那一個。因此去年三合一以來、民進黨連勝三次，只能用國民黨執政表現不佳來解釋，但要說民進黨有所反省、甚而已對未來執政提出建設性的主張，恐怕多數民進黨要員自己都不以為然。

就以近日來炒得最凶的死刑話題為例，王清峰堅持不肯執行死刑，和內閣態度迥異，下台並不令人意外，但背後的結構性因素是，支持國民黨的選民，通常在死刑等社會議題上，是持比較保守的態度，王清峰對於廢除死刑的堅決態度，和多數國民黨支持者格格不入，她下台是必然的。

相對的，民進黨在黨外時期就有和人權團體攜手合作的經驗，民進黨大老中，更有人過去是為死刑犯奔走求情的，但是，面對王清峰事件，過去標榜「人權立國」的民進黨，卻也只能攻訐、嘲笑，是否廢死，近來已在不少民主國家引發爭議，如果今天換成是民進黨執政，有可能處理得比較周延嗎？

這次「十年政綱」的引爆點在於，民進黨上周三中常會討論「面對全球暖化與氣候變遷，政府應有之國土復育作為」，以做為啟動十年政綱的正式會議，但第一次會議就被潑冷水，這是相當令人遺憾的，氣候變遷不但在全球釀成巨大天災，台灣也成為八八風災的受災戶，但是，當聯合國、美國、中國、歐盟領袖都已將抗暖化、節能減碳視為是首要措施時，民進黨卻並未提出對策；也許，他們可以說這不是在野黨該憂心的，問題是，民進黨執政時期，因為堅持廢核、反核，面臨不得不以蓋火力發電廠來彌補核能發電的選擇，將來若重返執政，還要持續這樣的耗能措施嗎？面對將來強調節能的全球環境，民進黨能否擘畫、或想像台灣該如何應變。

另一個台灣長期要面對的問題，就與兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ（經濟合作架構協議）有關，馬政府急著與對岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，最根本的原因在於，東協與中國大陸自由貿易區今年正式啟動，東協十國相關產品銷往大陸，將是零關稅；台灣同類產品出口到大陸，仍須負擔高額關稅。馬政府希望以ＥＣＦＡ的早收清單來克服這個問題，民進黨可以攻擊國民黨只顧大企業的利益，但卻從不提出替代方案，更關鍵的是，民進黨究竟要和中國維持怎樣的關係，有可能執政的民進黨，不該還將討論視為是一種禁忌！

當然，民進黨人士可以說，要討論這些問題，不一定要十年政綱，選舉政綱也可達到同樣的目標，問題是，如此一來，事事以選舉為導向，卻也注定會短視近利、或是民粹化；民進黨不妨看看國民黨現在的處境，無論是軍公教課稅、健保費調漲，政府都左支右絀，這是典型被選舉綁住、作繭自縛的例子。

和民進黨一樣，美國的共和黨近來打選戰，也是無往不利，但他們仍然願意和歐巴馬面對面談健保改革，甚至在參院讓民主黨的工作法案過關，因為他們知道，一個只會說「不」的政黨，最後還是無法得到人民的信任。

同樣的，民進黨近來也是連戰皆捷，但是跟著上演的戲碼，則是黨內戰將互相攻伐，部分五都選區更發展到人身攻擊、打到你死我活的地步，也許，現在和這些殺到見骨的民進黨大老談「十年政綱」，真的非常不切實際，但是，有心要讓民進黨永續發展的新生代、中生代們，真的應該跟著蔡英文，好好思考民進黨及台灣的未來十年！