The DPP's Desire for Conflict has Wounded the ROC's Democracy

The DPP's Desire for Conflict has Wounded the ROC's Democracy 
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 10, 2010

Sure enough, physical violence erupted over the cross-strait economic framework agreement (ECFA) during an emergency session of the legislature. KMT Legislator Wu Yu-Sheng was hit in the head by an electric timer and left bleeding. After DPP Legislator Huang Wei-che, who threw the timer, offered an apology, the DPP delegation withdrew from the emergency session. But it continued making impossible demands, and prattled on about the "death of democracy" and "the biggest blot on the reputation of the legislature." The DPP refuses to admit that it undermined the dignity of the legislature, trampled on democratic values, and has been habitually unable to control its violent impulses.

Is the DPP truly unaware that violent behavior undermines its party image just as much as it undermined the dignity of the legislature? Julian Kuo is the spokesman for the DPP Legislative Caucus on ECFA. He said the DPP cannot win the current battle over ECFA, and should begin thinking about how it can establish an image of itself as a "tragic, heroic, but rational" political party. It should not persist in initiating physical violence. Instead, he said, "The DPP must think long and hard about how to deal with its imminent defeat."

Has the DPP thought long and hard? DPP Legislator Pan Meng-an revealed that those within the legislative caucus who oppose violence outnumber those who favor it. When interviewed, Ker Chien-ming, Executive Director of the DPP Policy Committee, said, "The ECFA controversy will not be allowed to persist until the five cities elections." In other words, the DPP knows full well that overdoing its protests will be extremely damaging to the party's image and to the party's effort to win over moderate voters.

The DPP should consider the potential impact on the upcoming elections. It should also consider the opinions of its own local level officials. Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu recently visited Kaohsiung County. Spokesmen for the fish farming industry in Yung-an Township affirmed that ECFA was beneficial to fishermen and the fish farming industry. Tainan County Chief Su Huan-chih and Yunlin County Chief Su Chih-fen went to the Mainland to promote sales of agricultural products. Su Huan-chih declined to participate in the DPP's anti-ECFA protest march. He preferred to stay in Tainan and discuss the establishment of a Mainland base for the sale of Taiwan agricultural products. Even Ker Chien-ming spoke openly to the machinery industry. He said the DPP's protests helped Taiwan negotiate more benefits. But he added that the DPP had no objections to the 539 items on the early harvest list. It merely lamented the failure to win another 200 items. These views, expressed by DPP officials, show that the DPP cannot stubbornly insist that ECFA is harmful to Taiwan. If anything, the DPP must acknowledge that ECFA is more or less beneficial. That being the case, must the DPP persist in bloody violence before it is satisfied?

During ruling KMT and opposition DPP consultations, the DPP delegation demanded that President Ma report to the Legislative Yuan. But ECFA was not a treaty ratified by the president. Therefore there is no reason why he should be compelled to report to the legislature. Should the premier report to the legislature? That depends upon the Legislative Yuan, and whether it passes a resolution to that effect. But ever since the proceedings began, total chaos has prevailed. There has been no chance to discuss ECFA, let alone to listen to reports. How can one talk about any "early loss list?"

To be fair, it takes two to tango. During the recent violence in the legislature, Wu Yu-sheng was hit in the head and required eight stitches. But he was not the only one injured. Several DPP legislators fell from the podium. They may not have bled, but their contusions were just as painful. The opposition DPP's scorched earth tactics have proven effective in the past. They often brought the legislature to a standstill. KMT legislators had no choice but to respond in earnest, to prevent DPP legislators from approaching the podium and disrupting the proceedings. TV footage shows ruling party legislators on the podium and opposition party legislators below with stern expressions on their faces. But others had smiles on theirs. Were it not for the thrown timer, the entire altercation might well be dismissed as a vast charade.

After Wu Yu-Sheng was hospitalized, DPP legislators sneered, and accused him of "faking it." Huang Wei-che even denied that he was the one who injured Wu. Huang said he threw a book. But when the closed circuit video footage was made public, Huang Wei-che was forced to admit his guilt and apologize. Other DPP officials however, dug in their heels and continued protesting, accusing the KMT and President Ma of being "tyrannical behavior." But just exactly who was guilty of "tyrannical behavior?" Suppose a KMT legislator had thrown an electric timer and struck a DPP legislator? Would the DPP say the bleeding victim was "faking it?"

A nation's legislature is the benchmark of its democracy. The business of the legislature is to organize, discuss, and reach accomodations between differing views. People who hold differing views may not be able to persuade each other. But submitting to the majority decision is an unchanging principle of democracy. Besides, the DPP must not forget that although some industries on Taiwan may be negatively impacted by ECFA, most industries will benefit. And since the government has promised to compensate vulnerable industries, why can't the DPP view the matter from the perspective of maximizing the good, while minimizing the bad? Why can't it decide to oversee the government's measures, and do what it can on behalf of vulnerable industries?

The legislature must not be an ideological battleground. We may have Blue political parties and Green political parties. We may have pro-reunification parties and pro-independence parties. But public policy affects a nation's progress and the public interest. Cross-Strait policy is no exception. If every cross-Strait policy sent to the Legislative Yuan must be fought over, again and again, to where fists must fly and accusations that the other side is pro-reunification or pro-independence must be hurled back and forth, what hope is there for the nation? ECFA is a cross-Strait agreement. It is also a step Taipei must take during the globalization process in order to arrive at a level playing field. The DPP must put the interests and well-being of the majority of the people ahead of its party ideology. Only then can it win the public trust. No political party should seek victory by initiating physical violence.

民進黨的衝突欲望 撞傷台灣民主價值
2010-07-10
中國時報

果不其然，為了兩岸經濟架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ），立法院臨時會又大打一架，打到國民黨立委吳育昇流血，擲出記時器的民進黨立委黃偉哲道歉後，民進黨團決定退出臨時會，不過，還是強硬聲稱，「民主死亡，國會最大汙點。」民進黨依舊不願面對毀損國會尊嚴、踐踏民主價值的，其實正是他們永遠控制不了的衝突欲望。

民進黨難道不知：肢體衝突損害的除了國會議事的莊嚴性，還有他們的政黨形象嗎？民進黨ＥＣＦＡ因應小組發言人郭正亮直言，ＥＣＦＡ這場仗， 民進黨已經贏不了，該思考如何形塑「悲壯而理智」的形象，不該再製造爆衝，「要怎麼設定輸的場面，民進黨必須深思面對！」

民進黨沒有深思嗎？民進黨立委潘孟安透露，黨團內部「不打」的聲浪大過「打」。民進黨政策會執行長柯建銘受訪時也說，「不會讓ＥＣＦＡ議題燒這麼久，燒到五都選舉去。」換言之，民進黨太清楚，比例失衡的過度抗爭，對黨的形象、對爭取中間選民是大不利。

除選舉利害考量，更直接看看民進黨基層首長反應，高雄市長陳菊日前訪視高雄縣永安鄉石斑魚，肯定ＥＣＦＡ有利於漁民及養殖業；台南縣長蘇煥智和雲林縣長蘇治芬直接登陸推銷農產品，蘇煥智婉拒參與民進黨的反ＥＣＦＡ大遊行，寧可留在台南和業者商討如何建立台灣農產品行銷大陸的據點。包括柯建銘對機械等業界直言無隱，民進黨抗爭可為台灣爭取更多利益，而且民進黨對五百卅九項早收清單沒意見，只會對二百多項早損清單提出看法。從這些民進黨人的觀點和作為看來，民進黨其實無法硬生生地套說ＥＣＦＡ對台灣有害，甚至只能承認多少是有利的，既是如此，有什麼必要非打到頭破血流才罷手？

朝野協商時，民進黨團要求馬總統赴立院報告，但ＥＣＦＡ並非總統批准的條約案，沒道理強求總統赴國會報告。至於是否邀請行政院長報告，那得看立院全體議決，然議事程序一開始，場面立刻混亂，連討論空間都沒有，還聽取什麼報告？還談什麼關切早損清單？

持平而論，一個巴掌拍不響，這場國會衝突，受傷的不只是額頭流血縫八針的吳育昇，還有從議事台上摔落的民進黨立委，即使沒流血，皮肉之痛也夠嗆的了，但是，若非民進黨過去焦土抗爭策略頻頻奏效，讓國會議事嚴重遲滯，國民黨立委不可能採取全面防堵的戰術，不讓民進黨立委接近主席台。從電視畫面上看，主席台前後圍攏的朝野立委，有人神色慘烈，卻也不乏眉眼盡是笑意者，如果不是那個砸傷人的計時器，這場肢體衝突還有可能成為朝野累積相罵本的「消暑大秀」。

吳育昇送醫後，民進黨立委的反應是「嘜假了」，黃偉哲在第一時間甚至否認砸傷人的是他，說他砸出去的是書。當國會錄影帶公布後，黃偉哲倒不失正派地承認且道歉，但民進黨人依舊抗議，指國民黨和馬總統鴨霸，鴨霸的到底是誰？如今天砸出計時器的是國民黨立委，而受傷的是民進黨立委，民進黨做何反應？會說「嘜假了」嗎？

國會是民主政治的指標，國會議事就是整合、討論、協調不同意見的場域，不同見解有可能無法完全彼此說服，但服從多數決是基本不變的道理，更何況，民進黨不要忘記，即使台灣社會有部分產業會受到ＥＣＦＡ衝擊，但是，多數產業會因此得利，且政府已允諾會有配套措施輔助弱勢產業。民進黨為什麼不能從趨利避凶的角度，監督政府落實配套措施，也可為弱勢產業爭取到最大保障？

國會不該是意識形態的戰場，政黨容或有藍綠、統獨的分野，公共政策卻攸關國家社會發展和人民利益，包括兩岸政策亦然，如果任何兩岸政策送進立法院，都要一打再打，打到用拳頭標籤對方是統是獨，台灣還有何希望？ＥＣＦＡ是兩岸協議，也是台灣邁向全球化過程中，取得公平競爭利基必須走得一步，民進黨必須把台灣的利益、台灣多數民眾的福祉，擺在政黨意識形態之前，才能再取得民眾的信賴。打架，絕對不該是政黨爭勝的手段。