The DPP's Two-Faced Nature

The DPP's Two-Faced Nature
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 1, 2010

It is impossible for any long term observer of politics on Taiwan not to be appalled by the two-faced nature of the Democratic Progressive Party. Last year the DPP demanded that Liu Chao-hsuan step down. They accused him of taking time out to get a haircut during a typhoon. Yet it now insists that Chen Chu taking time out for a nap during a typhoon was "a matter of urgency." Another example is Borough Chief Lin Chi-mei. Lin filed a lawsuit against Chen Chu for dereliction of duty vis a vis flood prevention and flood relief. Party members immediately threatened to revoke her party membership. Yu Tien recently directed a barrage of personal attacks against Jason Hu's crippled wife. Yet Tsai Ing-wen came to his defense, and lauded him as "a man of virtue."

Consider Lin Chi-mei and Yu Tien. Just exactly whose words and deeds were inappropriate? Lin Chi-mei is borough chief for the hardest hit disaster area. As she sees it, the Kaohsiung City Government was derelict in its flood prevention and flood rescue responsibilities. Both water pumps and flood retention basins failed to do their job. The result was catastrophic losses by local citizens. That is why she filed a dereliction of duty suit against city government officials with the local prosecutor's office. Lin Chi-mei's lawsuit is an accurate reflection of public sentiment. It is a legitimate exercise of a citizen's rights. Yet the DPP's immediate reaction was to revoke her party membership. To the DPP, "Our interests trump the nation's laws." What does such an attitude represent, but the mindset of mob bosses?

To the DPP, "Those who obey me will prosper, those who defy me will perish." The DPP puts the party's interests above all else, even the interests of the nation. It goes without saying that the party's interests trump the interests of an insignificant little Borough such as Benhe. Secondly, party discipline trumps the civil rights of party members. Party members are not granted autonomy. Thirdly, party members are not permitted even to comment on the performance of high party officials, let alone file lawsuits them.

Lin Chi-mei filed suit against Chen Chu for dereliction of duty. She did so out of a sense of responsibility as borough chief, and out of a desire for justice. All citizens have this basic right. Yu Tien mocked Shao Hsiao-lin at a political rally. He jibed that "her brains were scrambled." He mocked Jason Hu as a gimp. By contrast, Yu Tien was engaging in vicious personal attacks. Yu Tien is a legislator. Yet he evinces no respect whatsoever for the dignity of other human beings. He has no qualms about treating his opponent's physical impairments as an object of mockery, merely in order to win an election. His campaign tactics are uncouth beyond belief. Five years ago doctors sympathetic to the DPP violated medical ethics by leaking Jason Hu's confidential medical records. Yet the DPP still refuses to condemn Yu Tien's uncouth behavior. Tsai Ing-wen still rationalizes away his behavior, and praises him as "a man of virtue." Wu Nai-jen lamented that "a single word brought down the entire group." But he did so only because he knew Yu Tien had crossed the line. Also, the "entire group" Wu referred to was merely the DPP, not society or the nation as a whole.

As we can see, the DPP judges right and wrong based not on society's perception of moral values, based not on democracy or the rule of law, but solely on its impact on the interests of a single political party. That is why yesterday it used one set of standards to criticize others, but today it applies an entirely different set of standards to itself. Remember how the DPP bent over backwards to rationalize away Chen Shui-bian's corruption? Now see how the DPP is attempting to demonize Hau Lung-bin over water spinach. The double-standards are mind-boggling.

The DPP will not allow Lin Chi-mei to sue Chen Chu. Yet it condones Yu Tien's crude and vicious personal attacks against Jason Hu. The DPP boasts that it occupies the moral high ground, even as administers poison under the table. Ironically, when it comes to contradictions between its words and its deeds, the DPP is consistent. For example, Chen Shui-bian was clearly guilty of massive corruption and unbridled greed. Yet the DPP spun the "Cape Number Seven" seven hundred million as a "Taiwan independence war chest." For example, Tsai Ing-wen denounced ECFA as an agreement that sold out the nation. Meanwhile Green Camp mayors tripped over each other in their stampede toward the Mainland. The remained utterly indifferent to their own duplicity as they rushed to sell their products and services on the Mainland market. The DPP's two-faced behavior is routinely rationalized away with sophistries and equivocations. It is cavalierly dismissed as mere tactical measures. The DPP is a political party whose actions bear no resemblance to its words. It is a political party whose actions reflect two entirely different sets of standards. How can the public find its way out of the DPP's maze of verbal contradictions?

Take for example the DPP's rhetorical question, "Which is more important, a haircut, or a nap?" The issue is not which was a matter of greater urgency. The issue was the context and political integrity. When Liu Chao-hsuan took time out a haircut, he was not a frontline commander in the disaster area. He had already made the proper administrative arrangements. He was in constant contact with the onsite team. He went for his haircut two days after the flood was over. It was an entirely reasonable part of winding down before returning to his residence to get some badly needed sleep. Where was the urgency? By contrast, when Chen Chu returned to her residence to nap, she was a frontline commander. She had witnessed with her own eyes the flooded streets in Kaohsiung. The flood was still ongoing. Therefore the question we must ask is, was there really no urgency to the safety of the public at this time?

Lin Chi-mei is a humble borough chief. She was merely exercising her basic right as an ordinary citizen. Yet the DPP put her to the sword. Yu Tien repeatedly exploited his background as a performer to enact his tasteless game of political theater. Yet the party leadership obstinately chose to rationalize away his faux pas. Such inversions of right and wrong, such reversals of black and white, and such glaring double standards, are why the public finds it so difficult to trust the DPP. If the DPP wants to expand its support base beyond its fundamentalist core, the first thing it must do is change its morally opportunistic political tactics.

民進黨不可理喻的兩面性
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.10.01

長期觀察台灣政治的人，對於民進黨的「兩面性」，不可能不感到困惑。就像去年民進黨以劉兆玄在颱風天「理髮」為由要求他下台，現在卻辯稱陳菊在水災時睡覺有其「急切性」。又如本和里長林紀美控告陳菊治水救災不力，黨內馬上揚言要開除其黨籍；而余天對胡志強夫婦進行人身攻擊，蔡英文竟替余天護航，說他是「好人」。

先看林紀美和余天，究竟誰的言行比較不當？林紀美身為重災區的里長，他認為高雄市府未善盡防洪救災之職，不僅抽水機運作失靈，滯洪池亦無法發揮作用，致使里民損失慘重，因而向地檢署控告市府團隊瀆職。林紀美提告，其實是反映民意，依法行使一個公民的正當權利，而民進黨卻馬上要將他開除黨籍；這種把「家規」看得比「國法」還大的心態，豈不是幫派作風？

這種「順我者昌、逆我者亡」的邏輯是：一，黨的利益大於一切，大於國家，當然更遠大過區區一個本和里；二，黨員的公民權要聽命黨紀約束，沒有自主空間；三，黨籍首長的表現如何，黨員任何時候都不能公開評論，遑論控告。

林紀美控告陳菊團隊瀆職，是基於里長的責任請求司法裁決，這是普通公民均擁有的基本權利。相對的，余天在站台造勢時指邵曉鈴「腦筋不清楚」、胡志強走路「一跛一跛」的，這不僅是惡意的汙衊，更是人身攻擊。試想，余天身為立委，卻連尊重他人的基本素養都不及格，不過為求勝選，竟拿對手的肢體病痛作為嘲弄對象，這是多麼不入流的選戰策略。但令人驚訝的是，在五年前演出過胡志強「病歷事件」後，民進黨這次對於余天的低級演出竟仍不以為意，蔡英文還直誇他是「好人」，幫他護航。事後，吳乃仁發出「一言喪邦」之嘆，只因他知道余天之言踩到了社會道德的紅線；但他口中的「邦」，指的其實是「民進黨」，而不涵蓋整個國家社會。

由此可見，民進黨論斷是非對錯，不是根據社會大眾認知的道德價值，不是根據民主政治的國家法理，而是完全根據其一黨的利益得失而定。於是，昨日罵別人是一套標準，今天說自己又是另一套標準；且看民進黨當年捍衛陳水扁的貪腐，與今天打郝龍斌的空心菜，這是多麼不可理喻的雙重標準？

不許林紀美控告陳菊，卻縱容余天粗話傷人，民進黨這類「明唱道德高調、暗施詭計傷人」的矛盾言行，其實俯拾皆是。包括：陳水扁明明大貪特貪，民進黨卻可將海角七億說成是為了台灣「獨立建國」的資金。包括蔡英文指控ＥＣＦＡ是賣國協議，綠營縣市長卻爭相登陸訪問行銷，完全不在乎自己表裡不一。這種雙重性格，往往很快被民進黨的言詞善辯所混淆或掩蓋，或者當成「戰術」層次的問題，而輕輕帶過。但是，一個行動完全不必對言論負責的政黨，一個始終操弄表裡兩套不同標準的政黨，民眾如何能在它言語的迷宮中找到民主政治的出口？

包括「理髮與睡覺孰重？」的辯論也是一樣，基本上，該拿來作比較的不是這兩件事的「迫切性」，該比較的是兩件事的情境與政治誠信。劉兆玄理髮時，他並非災區第一線指揮官，又已做完行政安排，且隨時與團隊保持連絡，何況當時已是水災過後兩天，而理髮畢竟是比回官邸睡覺具正當性的紓壓方法，他有何「迫切性」？而陳菊回官邸睡覺時，她是第一線指揮官，且已親眼目睹高雄街頭四處淹水，災禍正是現在進行式，請問：此時滿城市民的安危沒有「迫切性」嗎？

林紀美不過是區區小里長，他行使的只是普通公民的基本權利，民進黨要用大刀鍘他；而余天一再利用其演藝背景作低級趣味的演出，黨中央卻一味偏袒護短。這種顛倒是非、混淆黑白的雙重標準，正是民眾對民進黨難以信任的原因所在。民進黨要突破綠色基本盤，先應改變自己的道德投機戰術吧！