Tsai Ing-wen's Problem: A Lack of Policy, not a Lack of Eloquence

Tsai Ing-wen's Problem: A Lack of Policy, not a Lack of Eloquence
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2010

During the Two Yings Debate, Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen did not do as well as expected. Not surprisingly, she has been mocked by the Blue Camp. Surprisingly, elements within the DPP and the Green Camp have engaged in covert schadenfreude, and overt mockery. Their reaction is incomprehensible. Because if Tsai Ing-wen cannot win this debate, then other DPP heavyweights stand no chance at all.
Schadenfreude is an unwillingness to see others succeed. It is part of human nature. Competition within the DPP is cuthroat. DPP elders are adopting the attitude: "Another rival has been laid low!" They are not taking advantage of the debate to reflect on the future of the DPP. They are passing up a valuable opportunity to contemplate the DPP's future. Individuals so short-sighted can hardly be entrusted with the heavy responsibility of ruling a nation.

These attacks, leveled against Tsai Ing-wen by DPP elders, merely reveal these elders' own limitations. For example, some elders argue that since Ma Ying-jeou's approval ratings were at their nadir, Tsai Ing-wen should not have agreed to debate him, thereby raising his ratings. But this is wishful thinking. The DPP is vehemently opposed to ECFA. It has even called for a referendum. A debate was inevitable. The DPP has long paid ritual lip service to the democratic process. Surely it does not intend to keep the public in the dark? Surely it does not intend to demand a referendum even as it hides the facts from the people?

Most commentators, not merely those in the Green Camp, think Tsai Ing-wen lost because she came across as an academic or policy wonk immersed in a class debate. Even Tsai Ing-wen herself feels that her political rhetoric was not up to Ma Ying-jeou's. But this underestimates the intelligence of Republic of China voters. After all, the Republic of China holds elections year in and year out. Political rhetoric flies back and forth, day in and day out. Voters long ago learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. The reason the Two Yings Debate was a rout for the DPP was centrist voters. For them the debate offered two clear and divergent paths for national governance.

Ma Ying-jeou has been promoting ECFA. His short term goal is to alleviated the pressure exerted by ASEAN plus One. Affected industries may suffer losses due to high tariffs. The Blue and Green Camps each have their own arguments. But industry losses are a hard fact, Some industries may suffer losses as high as 8 or 9%. Our national leaders cannot turn a blind eye to them. In the medium term, ECFA is a more feasible means to integrate Taiwan's economy with the rising economies of East Asia. In the short term, weak industries may be harmed. But the Ma administration has weighed the risks and benefits. It has offered a workable option that cannot be cavalierly dismissed as "political rhetoric."

Tsai Ing-wen found herself at a disadvantage because she was honest enough to forsake the Democratic Progressive Party's populist, anti-ECFA rhetoric. Unfortunately the alternative she set forth does not appear to be feasible. She wants the WTO's multilateral system to safeguard Taipei's interests. But the WTO has repeatedly blocked the Doha Round negotiations. She wants to adopt the the Washington/Taipei TIFA (Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement) model. But this model is incapable of dealing with Taipei/Washington trade tariff issues. It is even less capable of dealing with FTAs and tariff reduction agreements between major trading nations.

Tsai Ing-wen did not lack eloquence. She lost the debate because her policy proposals were unworkable. At least she made an effort to come up with alternatives. Democratic Progressive Party heavyweights who are secretly gloating should ask themselves a question. What was the real reason they opposed a Two Yings Debate? Was it because they knew that without the cover of Taiwan independence ideology, and charges that their opponents were "pro reunification" or "selling out Taiwan," they were incapable of offering any concrete policy prescriptions?

Even Tsai Ing-wen, who stressed the importance of policy oriented debate, was deeply pessimistic about ECFA. For example, she worried that the products manufactured by Taiwan businessmen on the Mainland would use their tax-free status to undercut manufacturing on Taiwan. But NCCU Professor Chen-Yuan Tung conducted a study of 1019 Taiwan and foreign based companies. If Taipei becomes part of the integrated East Asian economic system, 23 to 37% of the companies surveyed would increase their investments on Taiwan. If Taipei and Beijing entered into economic integration agreements, 29 to 42% of the respondents would increase their investments on Taiwan. Also, every industry unanimously recommended that Taipei first enter into economic integration agreements with Beijing, and only then into agreements with Washington, the European Union, and others.

The study also pointed out that "Taiwan must resort to Sinicization. Only Sinicization could expedite its objective of Globalization." "Sinicization and Globalization go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive."

Chen-Yuan Tung was Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council under the former DPP government. He was also a member of the DPP's China Affairs Committee. If Ma Ying-jeou were to make such a recommendation, the DPP could perhaps ignore him. But these recommendations were made by a middle-aged scholar concerned about Taiwan's plight. They cannot ignore him. The DPP has attempted to overcome cross-Strait problems through globalization. But current trends make it virtually impossible to globalize by bypassing the Mainland. This was Tsai Ing-wen's fundamental problem during the debate.

Given Tsai Ing-wen's dilemma, the DPP has no cause for gloating. Because this is not her personal problem. This is a new international political and economic scenario the DPP must address. If the DPP is unable to address this scenario, winning or losing the debate is a minor matter. Whether the DPP can return to power, that is the truly major matter it ought to worry about!

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.04.29
社論－蔡英文口才沒問題 是政策出問題
本報訊

雙英辯論後，表現不如預期的民進黨黨主席蔡英文，備受對手藍營譏評，並不令人意外；形勢詭異的是，民進黨綠營人暗爽的有之，公開嘲諷的有之，這是個奇怪的反應，因為，如果蔡英文辯論都不能佔上風，其他的民進黨大老能佔上風嗎？

幸災樂禍、見不得別人好，這是人性，更不用說競爭性相當強烈的民進黨。不過，如果民進黨大將抱持「又打下一個對手」這種心態，不能藉由這次的辯論來反省民進黨的未來，就錯失了一個重新檢視民進黨未來的機會，如此短視近利的心態，恐怕很難被付以治國大任。

事實上，就以民進黨大老事後對蔡英文的批評，就可看出很大的侷限性，例如，有大老認為，馬英九聲勢已在谷底，蔡英文不應該同意辯論為其拉抬聲勢，這是掩耳盜鈴。民進黨強烈反對ＥＣＦＡ政策，更主張交付公投決定，則論辯是無法迴避的，對民主程序念茲在茲的民進黨，總不好意思要採取愚民政策，不告知人民詳細內容，就要進行公投吧！

至於，不只綠營、一般評論都認為，蔡英文是敗在太拘泥於學者、專業形象，辯論有如上課，連蔡英文都自認，她比不上馬英九的「政治」語言。不過，這樣的說法稍微低估台灣選民的「政治智商」，畢竟，台灣年年選舉、日日政治口水，選民早就練就從沙礫中找出黃金的功力，雙英辯論之所以評價有差距，其實是中間選民，從中歸納出兩條不同的治國路線。

馬英九提出的ＥＣＦＡ，短期內是要因應「東協加一」生效的需要，即使受影響產業關稅損失，藍綠陣營各說各話，但損失是確定的，有些產業損失更高達八、九個百分點，國家領導人不可能視而不見；另外，中期而言，ＥＣＦＡ是台灣與正在崛起的東亞經濟體接軌、一個較為可行的方案，即使短期內有弱勢產業受損的風險，但這是馬政府權衡利弊得失之後，所拿出的可行方案，不能全以「政治語言」視之。

蔡英文的不利之處在於，她誠實的放棄了民進黨向來反ＥＣＦＡ的政治或民粹語言，但她提出的替代方案，目前卻看不出可行性，她希望以ＷＴＯ的多邊體制來維護台灣利益，但ＷＴＯ杜哈回合談判一再受阻；她希望採取美國、台灣間的ＴＩＦＡ（台美貿易暨投資架構協定）模式，但這模式不但無法處理台美貿易關稅問題，更別說要因應經貿重要國家紛紛洽簽ＦＴＡ減免關稅的趨勢。

因此，蔡英文並不是輸在口才，而是在政策內容的可行性，但她至少努力提出替代方案。那些心中暗爽的民進黨大老可能要捫心自問：如果少了意識形態的保護，不能動輒就抬出「統派」、「賣台」的大帽子，他們還能在辯論場合拿出什麼具體政策方向，這難道是他們認為雙英不應該辯論的真正原因！

其實，即使強調政策辯論的蔡英文，面對ＥＣＦＡ時仍然是充滿悲觀的態度，例如，她擔心台商在大陸的商品利用免稅優勢回銷，打擊台灣產業，但根據政大教授童振源對一○一九家台灣企業與外商的調查，如果台灣加入東亞經濟整合體制，百分之二十三到三十七的受訪企業會增加對台灣投資；如果兩岸簽訂經濟整合協定，百分之二十九至四十二的受訪企業會增加對台灣投資。而且，各類企業均一致建議台灣要簽訂經濟整合協定的優先對象是中國，其次才是美國、歐盟等。

調查更指出，「台灣要借重『中國化』的手段，比較容易達成『全球化』的目標」。「『中國化』與『全球化』是相輔相成，而不是相互對立的」。

童振源不但曾在民進黨政府時代擔任陸委會副主委，更曾是該黨中國事務委員會幹事，民進黨也許可以不管馬英九怎麼說，但是面對中生代學者針對台灣處境所提出的思考，他們卻不應該忽視。過去，民進黨曾經想以全球化來克服兩岸之間的難題，但是，現在的趨勢卻是，跳過中國，幾乎不可能全球化，這才是蔡英文辯論時要面對的根本困難。

所以，面對蔡英文的處境，民進黨大老更沒有幸災樂禍的理由，因為這不是她個人的問題，而是民進黨能不能針對新的國際政經情勢調整，如果答案是不能，則辯論輸贏事小，能不能順利重返執政，才是他們該擔心的關鍵大事！