Where is the DPP's Platform for the Five Cities Elections?

Where is the DPP's Platform for the Five Cities Elections?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2010

In its campaign for the Five Cities Elections, KMT leaders have chosen to play the ECFA card. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, who is also the DPP candidate for Xinbei City mayor, lashed out at them. "Once again, they are wrong!" Tsai Ing-wen argued that the Five Cities Elections are merely local elections. Only when the presidential and legislative by-elections roll around, will cross-Strait and foreign affairs become important. Tsai Ing-wen is partly right, and partly wrong. Regardless, neither the DPP nor the KMT have offered a coherent platform for the Five Cities Elections. As a result, the campaigns have lost their focus. They have become name-calling contests, in which neither side listens to the other. Voters are left with no basis on which to cast their votes -- no political platform, no policy prescription, and no political record.

In one sense, Tsai Ing-wen is correct. The Five Cities Elections are not central government elections. They need not address central government issues. But in another sense, Tsai Ing-wen is wrong. From day one, the Five Cities Elections have not been local elections. Every candidate for the Five Cities Elections is a "Party Prince." Whoever emerges victorious from these elections will be the Blue and Green Camp's rising stars. Even those who are defeated, may be able to run for president in 2012. That is why the candidates are sparing no effort or expense to run.

Tsai Ing-wen is right in another sense. Cross-Strait and foreign issues are usually relevant only during presidential and legislative elections. Basically they should never have been raised during the Five Cities Election campaign. But Tsai Ing-wen is wrong in another sense. The Five Cities Elections are simply too important. The five cities are too populous. Their areas are too large. Their outcome of the Five Cities Elections is sure to affect the political strength of the Blue and Green camps. Most importantly, the Five Cities Elections cannot be compared to past county and municipal elections. Anyone who emerges victorious from them will be assured a place in the pantheon of power. Taipei, Xinbei City, and Kaohsiung City became essential stepping stones to the presidency during the last three presidential elections. Naturally, both ruling and opposition party candidates must answer for their own policy proposals.

Tsai Ing-wen's opponent is KMT nominee Chu Li-lun. In an interview with this newspaper, Chu cited some numbers that demonstrated the revelance of ECFA for local politics. Chu noted that Xinbei City was the beneficiary of a 35 billion NT increase in annual trade, and 13,000 additional job opportunities. The other four cities have also benefitted significantly from ECFA. That is why all three Kaohsiung mayoral candidates, Blue and Green alike, have expressed total or conditional support for ECFA.

Such expressions of support are an embarrassment for Tsai Ing-wen. After all, she is DPP Chairman. Article One in the DPP's literature for the Five Cities Election campaign is opposition to ECFA. The DPP's stand on ECFA has changed constantly. The DPP has gone from opposing ECFA to ignoring ECFA to demanding a referendum on ECFA. It has gone from instigating strident protests to beating a quiet retreat. The DPP's strategy is clear. Before July, ECFA was its main battlefield. After August, it withdrew from this battlefield. Before the third reading of ECFA, the DPP pummeled the KMT, relentlessly. The KMT is hardly about to let the DPP set the agenda and tempo of the election. The DPP waffled on ECFA. It was irresolute on cross-Strait policy. Of course the KMT is going to hit the DPP over the head with ECFA. Of course it will remind the public what the DPP's eight year long Closed Door Policy did to the nation.

In short, whether to bring up ECFA is a matter of election strategy. The Blue and Green camps each have their own game plan. Each plan has its own pros and its cons. For the moment it is hard to say which is better. The tempo of life on Taiwan is fast. Public opinion shifts rapidly. The moment ECFA underwent its third reading, the debate should have ended. The case should have been closed. Since the DPP no longer wishes to fight this on this battlefield, it must find a new battlefield. Fortunately for the DPP, it is an opposition party. It can address whatever topic it prefers. It can harp on the president's governing ability. It can question the cabinet's accomplishments. It can cast doubt on its opponent's qualifications and experience. Every one of these can become the target of its campaign rhetoric.

Every election ploy has weaknesses as well as strengths. For example, the Tsai Ing-wen campaign accused Chu LI-lun of leaving behind a deficit far larger than any previous Taoyuan County Chief. His debt allegedly approached the debt limit, and made it "nearly impossible" for his successor to "hammer out a budget." This is certainly a matter of public policy worth discussing. Xinbei City is not alone. The other four cities face similar situations. Over the twenty years since political liberalization, "construction loans" to local governments have become central government routine. Chu Li-lun admits leaving Taoyuan County with over 15 billion NT in debt. But during his eight years in office, the wealth in county coffers increased by more than 220 billion NT. The debt was purely for construction. Construction attracted financial resources. The public is hardly going to object.

The same was true for Su Tseng-chang, DPP candidate for mayor of Taipei. Su Tseng-chang was Taipei County Chief for eight years. He left behind hundreds of billions in debt. But Taipei County residents remain impressed. They consider Su Tseng-tsang a capable county chief who promoted local development. The Tsai Ing-wen campaign fired a shot. Alas, it failed to strike its target. If anything, many DPP officials with local government experience are shaking their heads, wondering how to respond.

No one likes negative campaigning. But in order to elect officials of integrity and ability, the candidates' records must be subjected to public scrutiny. Only then can the candidates win voter support. The candidates' records must be subjected to review, criticism, and suspicion. When interviewed by the media, Chu Li-lun offered a new framework for Xinbei City development. Does the DPP wish to wage a positive campaign? If so, rather than cast suspicion on the ability of its rival to set the agenda, it ought to offer its own policy blueprint.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.08.25
社論－五都選舉 民進黨施政藍圖在哪
本報訊

因應五都選戰，國民黨大打ＥＣＦＡ牌，民進黨主席、新北市長參選人蔡英文直斥，「他們又搞錯了！」蔡英文的論點是：五都終究是地方選舉，只有在總統、國會改選時，兩岸、外交才會成為重要議題。蔡英文的說法有對、也有錯，但不論對或錯，目前，民進黨和國民黨都沒提出統合五都的政黨政見，使選舉全面失焦；你罵你的、我批我的，誰也不理誰，選民根本無從就政見、政策或政績，做為評比投票的參考。

蔡英文的看法沒錯，五都不是中央選舉，沒什麼道理繞著中央議題跑；蔡英文錯的是，五都選舉從一開始就不只是地方選舉，因為五都選戰牽涉的都是天王級參選人，誰能勝出就是下一梯次接班的藍綠明星；甚至誰若落敗，就可能直取二○一二，成敗輸贏間還頗費周章。

蔡英文還有一點是對的，兩岸、外交通常都是總統、立委選舉時的議題，五都選舉根本不該拿出來做主打；蔡英文錯的是，因為五都太重要，不論就人口數或面積，年底五都戰績勢必牽動藍綠政黨版圖。當然，最重要的，還是因為五都已非過去單一縣市長選舉可以比擬，任何一都勝出者都將位列接班梯隊；北市、新北市和高雄市已經是最近三次總統大選逐鹿中央者的必要資歷，參選者不論朝野當然要對自己的重大政策主張負責。

蔡英文的對手、國民黨提名的新北市參選人朱立倫接受本報專訪時，直接以數據印證ＥＣＦＡ與地方事務的關連性。以新北市來說，每年因此增加的貿易額達三百五十億，增加一萬三千個就業機會，其他四都同樣將因兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ實際受惠。這也是為什麼高雄的三位參選人，不分藍綠都對ＥＣＦＡ表態支持、或有條件的支持。

蔡英文的尷尬只是因為她是民進黨主席。民進黨第一支五都文宣就是反ＥＣＦＡ；精準的說，民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的態度一路轉進，從反對到不談反對只談公投；從發動抗爭到軟性撤守。民進黨的策略很清楚，七月之前以ＥＣＦＡ為主戰場，八月之後，就要從這個戰場撤離，ＥＣＦＡ三讀前一路挨打的國民黨，又怎麼可能輕易讓民進黨主導選戰議題、節奏？民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的反覆、對兩岸政策的猶疑，當然是國民黨必須一路追打的主軸，並藉此不斷喚醒民眾對民進黨執政八年半鎖國的反感和排斥。

質言之，談不談ＥＣＦＡ都是選戰策略；藍綠各有各的盤算，談與不談的利弊得失，此刻還真的很難評估。台灣社會節奏極快，民意變化迅速，ＥＣＦＡ簽署後完成三讀的那一刻開始，這個話題在民意市場上，應屬「原則結案」的話題，民進黨既然決定不在這個戰場上纏鬥，就得另闢戰場。好處是，身為在野黨什麼話題都能談，從挑剔總統的能力、質疑內閣的政績、到批判對手過去的資歷經驗，無一不能成為帶動選戰議題的標靶。

不過，打選戰不可能只有利沒有弊。舉例而言，蔡英文競選總部嚴厲質疑朱立倫在桃園縣長任內，舉債遠遠超過歷任縣長，舉債逼近上限，讓繼任者「幾乎編不出預算」。這肯定是非常值得討論的公共政策，不只新北市，其他四都同樣面對類似狀況，因為政治開放廿多年，「舉債建設」幾乎是從中央到地方的基本施政理念。朱立倫不諱言，他卸任時桃園縣舉債多了一百五十億，但八年下來縣庫資產足足多了兩千兩百多億，舉債只要是建設，建設能帶進更多財源，沒有民眾會反對。

這個狀況，和民進黨台北市長參選人蘇貞昌在台北縣主政八年，留下上千億債務並無二致。台北縣民對蘇貞昌的舉債並無惡評，相反的，還認為蘇貞昌是有能力帶動地方發展的好縣長。蔡英文競選總部掀起的炮火，可想而知，又是打不到痛處，卻很有可能讓民進黨內有過許多地方執政經驗的黨公職搖頭嘆息，不知從何說起。

沒有人喜歡負面選舉，但選賢與能的過程中，必須提出實例，以爭取選民認同；檢討、批評和質疑，都是無可避免的，但當對手朱立倫接受媒體訪問，已經提出一套他對新北市建設發展輪廓時，民進黨若要帶動正面選戰，與其不斷懷疑對手的議題設定能力，不如提出自己的施政藍圖。