Harping on Water Spinach, Ignoring the Platform for the Coming Decade

Harping on Water Spinach, Ignoring the Platform for the Coming Decade
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 12, 2010

One of the magic tricks spin doctors are able to perform, is to alter people's perceptions of issues by giving them their own spin. This phenomenon figures prominently in the five cities election. Trivial matters have constantly been blown out of proportion. Major failures on the other hand, have constantly been trivialized. The Green Camp has blown the Flora Expo water spinach non-issue into a "major scandal." Meanwhile, the DPP's "Platform for the Coming Decade," announced during the party's anniversary celebration, remains nothing more than empty rhetoric.

The DPP announced its Platform for the Coming Decade, hoping that a fresh new political platform would help cleanse the negative image left behind by the Chen Shui-bian regime. It hoped to gain public support by casting itself as an opposition party with a political vision, qualified to lead the nation. The DPP announced the platform during its 24th anniversary celebration on September 28. A controversial article entitled, "Ethnic Diversity," first proposed in August, was repeatedly excluded. During this year's anniversary celebration, the DPP haphazardly proposed an article pertaining to "Judicial Reform," not included in the original twelve articles. The article attempted to hitch a ride on the "White Rose Judicial Reform Movement" bandwagon. It was an ad hoc response to emerging circumstances. Apparently the Democratic Progressive Party's Platform for the Coming Decade, if not stillborn, is at least experiencing a difficult birth.

The reasons the Platform for the Coming Decade is experiencing a difficult birth are simple. One reason is internal. Differences of opinion within the DPP make it impossible for the party leadership to reconcile the conflicting views. When a consensus is impossible, such matters are best shelved. A second reason is strategic considerations. The five cities elections are imminent. If the Platform for the Coming Decade is introduced now, it will be susceptible to outside attacks because the details have yet to be worked out. The election comes first. It is better to delay introducing the platform. A third reason is real world limitations. The DPP has long been a giant at rhetoric, adept at debate. But the DPP has long been a midget at governing. It has never been able to implement its ideas, especially those pertaining to economic development and cross-Strait relations. Starting out from an anti-[Mainland] China and anti-ECFA standpoint, it has with great difficulty agreed on a policy that can benefit Taiwan. But if it changes its fundamental position, it may reveal its internal contradictions, and end up appearing indecisive.

DPP Secretary General Wu Nai-jen recently denounced the DPP's political rivals as "bums." The Green Camp carefully crafted its campaign strategy. But Wu's remarks inadvertently exposed the gap between the DPP's rhetoric and actions. The DPP vehemently opposes allowing members of the media or general public to question its candidates during the five cities mayoral debates. Wu Nai-jen said "Masters fight one on one. Only bums seek out helpers to engage in group brawls." The implication was that if members of the media and the general public had the temerity to question the DPP's mayoral candidates, they would be "bum's helpers."

The Secretary-General's attitude was shockingly coarse. More shocking still, this was a political party that once held the fate of the nation in its hands. Yet it held the Fourth Estate and respected civic leaders in such contempt, and felt nothing for them except seething hatred. Election debates on Taiwan are nothing new. Questions from members of the media or the general public, or both in turn, have a long history. Consider the 2008 televised presidential debate. Does anyone really believe the format was unfair to the DPP? The format for these election debates were either suggested by the DPP, or at least agreed upon by both sides in advance. They were conducted according to principles of reciprocity and fairness. But lo and behold, this year the DPP chose to throw a temper tantrum. It denounced anyone who dared question the DPP candidates as "bum's helpers," and the debate as a "group brawl."

Wu Nai-jen is hardly a political novice. His fallacious statement is hardly a slip of the tongue. Therefore the so-called "bum" thesis reflects the DPP's feeling of being trapped in a confrontation with no escape. It also reflects the DPP's secret contempt for the public. The DPP habitually boasts that it "respects the will of the people." The DPP routinely demands "public referendums," almost at the drop of a hat. Yet it vehemently opposes questioning of DPP candidates by members of the general public. Are people nothing to the DPP but voting machines? Are they qualified only to robotically cast their ballots for the DPP, but not to participate in greater depth in political debates?

The Flora Expo is a stage on which the Republic of China can exercise its soft power. Yet the DPP has no qualms about making political hay with a few bunches of water spinach. For selfish election advantage, it is willing to distort the larger picture. Meanwhile, the DPP's commitment to its Platform for the Coming Decade, has vanished without a trace amidst the "fog of war." Contrast what politicians care about and are willing to give priority, with what they are not. Politicians are adept at donning political masks and distorting the facts. How unpredictable they are. How impossible it is to defend against them.

Most importantly, voters must not allow themselves to be confused by the fog of war. They must maintain their focus. They must retain the ability to discern when they are being manipulated. If one sees only half of dish of water spinach, but cannot see the main course, the Platform for the Coming Decade, then what is the Democratic Progressive Party's "democratic feast," but self-deception?

只見半碟空心菜，不見十年政綱佛跳牆
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.10.12

政治的神奇功效之一，就是能透過議題設定改變人的認知與觀感；反映在五都選戰的現象，就是小事不斷被放大，大事不斷被縮小。所以，偌大的花卉博覽會，被綠營用幾株空心菜爆炒成一個天大的「弊案」；至於民進黨原承諾在黨慶時提出的「十年政綱」，到如今卻仍是只聞樓梯響，未見人下樓。

民進黨最初之所以宣示提出「十年政綱」，是希望藉一次全新的治國論述，清洗陳水扁時代失敗的執政形象，重新展現自己作為在野黨的執政視野和格局，爭取民眾認同。然而，原承諾在九月二十八日廿四週年黨慶提出的政綱，自八月間首度提出備受議論的「多元族群篇」之後，期限即一延再延。今年黨慶，民進黨又僅草草提出不在原先規劃的十二篇中的「司法改革」，借搭「白玫瑰司改運動」的便車，應景了事。看來，民進黨的十年政綱若非已然胎死腹中，至少已是難產。

十年政綱之所以難產，不外幾個原因。其一是內部因素：民進黨內意見分歧，黨中央無力整合各方看法，難達共識，不如擱置。其二是策略考量：五都選舉迫在眉睫，若此際提出十年政綱，反易因內容未盡妥善而招致外界批評；在選舉優先的考量下，拖延才是上策。其三是現實的侷限：民進黨一向是論述的巨人，雄辯滔滔；卻是行動的侏儒，無力實踐自己的主張。尤其在經濟發展、兩岸關係等議題上，倘仍由仇中、反ＥＣＦＡ的立場出發，已難發展出對台灣有利的政策主張；但若要改變基本立場，又恐露出自我矛盾的馬腳，因此舉棋不定。

對照民進黨秘書長吳乃仁最近的「癟三論」，更可看出綠營過度精打細算的策略化經營，如何暴露了自己在論述和行動之間的嚴重差距。所謂「癟三論」，是民進黨強烈反對五都選舉的競選辯論由媒體或公民參與提問，吳乃仁說：「高手就要單挑，只有癟三才找幫手打群架。」言下之意，媒體和公民參與提問，都是「癟三的幫手」。

令人驚訝的，不僅是一個秘書長用字遣詞如此粗鄙不堪，更是一個曾經手握國家權柄的政黨大老，竟對代表第四權的媒體和社會公民如此鄙夷與仇視。競選辯論在台灣早已不是新鮮事，不論是媒體提問或公民提問，或者兩者交叉進行，均曾在近年的各項選舉辯論中出現過；例如二○○八年總統大選的電視辯論，有誰認為那樣的形式對民進黨不公？這些選舉辯論會的形式，若非民進黨主動提議，至少都是經過雙方同意，而在對等、公平的原則下進行的。孰料，今年它一翻臉，就把參與提問的人貶為「癟三的幫手」，把辯論形容成「打群架」。

吳乃仁不是初出社會的菜鳥，他的這番謬論當然不會是由於「失言」。從這個角度看，所謂的「癟三論」，除了反射民進黨不可自拔的「對立意識」，是否也映照了它內心深處的「反社會」情結？一向言必稱「尊重民意」、動不動就要舉行「公民投票」的民進黨，今天卻極力反對公民參與辯論提問；難道，人民只是一個投票機器，沒資格在更具深度的政治論辯中扮演角色？

花博是台灣向世界展現軟實力的舞台，民進黨卻拿了幾株空心菜窮追猛打，為了選舉利益，扭曲大局；相形之下，民進黨承諾展示的「十年政綱」，卻在漫天的選舉硝煙中消逝得無聲無息。兩相對照，政治人物關照的輕重和先後，多麼不成比例；政治人物變換臉孔及扭曲事物的能力，又多麼令人防不勝防。

重要的是，選民要如何不被選舉的砲火和硝煙所迷亂和混淆，要如何在一定的關注中保持對政治操作的辨識力。如果只看到半碟空心菜，卻不見主菜十年政綱這罈佛跳牆出菜，民進黨的這桌民主宴席難道不是自欺欺人？