The DPP: Why Not Become a Smart Opposition Party?

The DPP: Why Not Become a Smart Opposition Party?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 15, 2010

Does the legislature need dissent? Of course. But many of our legislators have a very different way of expressing dissent. The first is to hit people. The second is to walk out. Is it really impossible to strike a balance between the two? Of course it is. Striking a balance between the two is the norm. Only abnormal situations necessitate zero-sum games. During the recent emergency session of the legislature, the DPP opposed ECFA. Therefore DPP legislators first hit people, then walked out. For the DPP, this behavior was typical. As a result, the final resolution on ECFA included no dissenting views. Instead, bills pertaining to cross-Strait relations or other major issues passed during the emergency session reflected only the views of the ruling party. What should have been passed was passed. In this particular case, the result was not bad. But that raises a question, namely, what is the point of having opposition parties?

In its fight against ECFA, the DPP took a beating. The reason was simple. From beginning to end, it failed to offer a convincing case. It failed to offer an argument that would convince even itself. one that was free from the shackles of its own ideology. The Ah-Bian administration ruled for eight years. Whether it should have or not, it opened the doors to most Mainland agricultural produce. it opened the doors to cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, and large scale investments. Its policies and edicts made little attempt to prevent substantive private sector exchanges and investments. After eight years in power, the DPP experienced the bitter taste of losing power. Strangely enough, the DPP still could not bring itself to condemn Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Nor could it dissociate itself from its Taiwan independence voter base -- a voter base which had no hope of ever becoming an absolute majority.

As the party leadership launched its anti-ECFA protest march, local DPP officials openly proclaimed that ECFA would benefit many local industries. When the DPP convened an internal meeting, ECFA doves outnumbered ECFA hawks. But the DPP legislative caucus picked a fight anyway, and suffered even greater humiliation. Even more regrettably, as soon as it finished hitting people, the DPP withdrew from "this particular emergency session." It wanted to make clear that it was refusing to endorse the ruling party's cross-Strait policy. As a result, "this particular emergency session" continued to review bills. The bills had nothing to do with cross-Strait policy. Some were economic bills the DPP has long expressed concern over. They included bills pertaining to the appointment of civil servants, pension system reform, rural regeneration, and disaster prevention.

The DPP walked out of the emergency session. It allowed the Legislative Yuan to conduct its business with exceptional smoothness. In a single day, it passed an amendment to the Ba Wu New System Civil Service Retirement Act. It affirmed the legality of military participation in disaster relief. It enabled the Vice Premier to assume the chairmanship of the Disaster Prevention and Relief Committee, immediately elevating the status of the disaster prevention system. The amendments were responses to the suffering endured during Typhoon Morakot last year. Is the DPP truly unconcerned? Lest we forget, the hardest-hit regions were Pingtung County, Kaohsiung County, Chiayi County, all cities and counties under DPP control. The ruling administration is not about to show favoritism to counties and cities based on political affiliation. As long as the people are suffering, the government must address its inadequacies and must improve its performance. Every time a typhoon or flood occurs, the DPP thunders with indignation. But once the disasters pass, they suddenly develop amnesia. DPP legislators walked out of the emergency session. But which DPP legislator if any turned down overtime pay? Can a political party that knows only how to call others names, but has no idea how to improve disaster prevention, really boast about its solidarity with the people?

Consider the articles pertaining to agriculture. These are what the DPP finds most objectionable. Many of the counties and cities under DPP rule are agricultural regions. The heads of these agricultural counties must fight for everything they can get. Participating in the planning and distribution of the agricultural fund is even more desirable. But when the DPP walked out, it allowed others to reap the rewards. Faced with such a situation, the DPP nevertheless chose not to return. Instead, it held a press conference on the outside, and threatened to hold an all night vigil on Ketegelan Boulevard. If the DPP's opposition was genuine, it should have made its opposition official through a vote. Rural revitalization is a major issue on Taiwan. Unless the land can be revitalized, the population cannot be revitalized, and it will be nearly impossible to induce young people to return to rural areas. The DPP blasted the 150 billion NT agricultural fund as "cash bribes." Indeed, cash bribes may well be involved. But just exactly who is being bribed? Lest we forget, agricultural counties and cities make up the DPP's core support. The DPP has chosen to obstruct this 150 billion agricultural fund. Instead it should think up better uses for this huge sum of money.

The DPP has a limited number of seats in the legislature. Nevertheless it remains the largest opposition party. It represents 35 to 45 percent of the voting public. On social and economic issues, the DPP has the potential to garner considerable public support. Society on Taiwan has entered a more civilized stage. It empathizes with the underprivileged. It supports environmental protection. None of this will change. The direction is clear. Must the DPP remain bound by its own ideology? Must it relinquish opportunities to contribute, merely for the sake of its cross-Strait policies? Oversight does not mean hitting people. Opposition can be expressed more intelligently. They DPP is perhaps unwilling to become a loyal opposition party. But is there any reason it cannot become a smart opposition party?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.07.15
社論－民進黨可以做個聰明的反對黨
本報訊

國會需不需要不同意見？答案毋庸置疑，顯然是肯定的；但是，我們的立法院在處理不同意見、或者不同意見尋求表達的方式格外特殊，一是打架，二是退出。在打與退之間，找不到平衡點嗎？當然找得到！而且，常態上是一定找得到，只是碰到「非常態」的時候，就是非打即退的零和遊戲。這次臨時會，民進黨為了兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ，打一架後退出，就是典型，其結果沒讓ＥＣＦＡ審查做出不同意見的附帶決議，卻讓臨時會非關兩岸關係或政策的重大法案，完全依照執政黨的意思，該過則過。這個結果也沒什麼不好，問題是：那反對黨的存在還有意義嗎？

民進黨在ＥＣＦＡ議題上，一路吃癟，原因很簡單，即始終無法在兩岸政策論述上，說服自己擺脫意識形態的束縛。扁政府執政八年，不論該不該開放，在他們手上已經開放絕大多數的大陸農產品，以及兩岸經貿交流和重大投資，而政策法令上管制，也未曾防堵得了民間的實質交流和投資；八年執政，讓民進黨嘗到失去政權的苦果，但奇特的是，民進黨既棄絕不了貪腐的陳水扁，也依舊陷溺於完全無法過半的獨派票源而不可自拔。

當黨中央發動反ＥＣＦＡ大遊行的同時，民進黨基層首長已經提出警語，甚至還有首長毫不避諱的公開表明兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ，對若干產業的確有利；即使民進黨召集會議，內部見解「不打」遠超過「打」，民進黨團還是無可避免肢體衝突，在一個贏不了的戰場上，輸得更徹底。更遺憾的是，打完一架，民進黨決定退出「這次臨時會」，不為執政黨的兩岸政策背書，結果，「這次臨時會」接續下來審議的法案，不但與兩岸政策無關，還是民進黨始終關心的民生重大法案，包括公務員的任用、退休、撫卹之修法案，還有從農村再生條例草案與災防法的修正案。

民進黨退出臨時會，讓立法院會議事格外順暢，一天就通過了公務員八五新制的退休法案修正、確立法源讓國軍主動投入救災任務的災防法，還讓行政院副院長兼任災害防救委員會主委，直接提高災防體系位階。這個修法案，緣於去年莫拉克風災之痛，民進黨人不關心嗎？不要忘了，災情最重的屏東縣、高雄縣、嘉義縣，都是民進黨執政縣市，執政者不會管縣市長屬於哪個政黨，只要人民有痛，而政府所為不足，就要改進，就要加強，風災雨災來臨時，民進黨人罵聲震天，天災過後難道就忘了嗎？聲言退出臨時會的民進黨立委，有誰拒領臨時會召集所給予的加班薪給？一個只會罵人，卻不會從制度面改善災防建制的政黨，如何還能聲稱自己貼近民意？

還有民進黨最介意的農再條例，民進黨執政縣市不乏農業縣，對這些農業縣市的首長而言，能爭取多少是多少，能參與農再基金規畫與利用更好，但民進黨聲言退出後則是將成果拱手讓人。面臨這種局面，民進黨卻依舊選擇不進場而在場外舉行記者會，揚言不排除夜宿凱道。如果民進黨的反對是貨真價實的，就該進場留下表決紀錄，讓大家知道民進黨的立場。農村活化是一個台灣必須面對的重大課題，土地不活化就不可能談人口活化，就很難吸引足夠的年輕人口回流農村，民進黨批評一千五百億的農再基金是「現金綁樁」，的確，現金綁樁不是不可能，但是，到底綁誰的樁？別忘了農業縣市多為民進黨的基本盤，民進黨與其阻擋一千五百億的農再基金，不如想想如何讓這筆龐大的經費，用在該用的地方。

雖然民進黨的國會席次有限，但終究是最大反對黨，代表至少三成五到四成五的民意，在民生社會議題上，民進黨有很大空間爭取中間選民的認同，畢竟台灣社會發展已經進入文明階段，聲援弱勢、支持環保是一條不可變易之路，方向如此明確，民進黨何須受困於意識形態，為了兩岸政策犧牲自己可以全力發揮的項目？監督，不表示非打架不可；反對，可以有更聰明的做法，民進黨即使不肯成為忠誠的反對黨，總可以當一個聰明的反對黨吧。