Cheng Hung-yi's Crocodile Tears

Cheng Hung-yi's Crocodile Tears
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2010

An uneventful election has made people sleepy. But a shocking campaign rally has made people queasy. Yesterday evening Cheng Hung-yi mounted the podium and denounced President Ma, shouting, "F**k your mother!", again and again. The next morning however, he wrung his hands in anguish, and wept in sympathy for the widows and orphans of Taiwan. His mercurial mood shifts are truly astonishing. Cheng Hung-yi can apparently change his demeanor at the drop of a hat. But what about the mobs whose resentment and anger he has adroitly stirred up? Who will help them resolve the hatred in their hearts?

Cheng Hung-yi's subsequent apology brimmed with calculation and hypocrisy. He admitted he should not have spewed obscenities. But he spun his intemperate outburst as boundless compassion. He attributed it to his dismay at seeing Taiwanese suffer. Only then, he insisted, did his obscenities slip out. But Cheng Hung-yi expressed no regret whatsoever for the false accusations he leveled against others. Cheng Hung-yi's inappropriate behavior was contrary to his role as a media star. He fabricated rumors for political motives. He incited mob hatred. If an individual occasionally lets slip foul language in a moment of passion, or confuses the facts out of ignorance, he can be forgiven. But to deliberately incite social divisions, and to deliberately fabricate falsehoods, is unforgivable. The tears that fell from Cheng Hung-yi's eyes that day were not tears of compassion, but tears of deceit.

Cheng Hung-yi knew full well that the 30,000 NT subsidy for Mainland students was originally instituted by the Lee Teng-hui administration. He knew full well that the policy was continued by the Chen Shui-bian administration, which increased the amount. The policy was maintained by Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Tsai Ing-wen. How can Cheng Hung-yi blame it all on Ma Ying-jeou? How can he assert that it is all President Ma's fault? Tsai Ing-wen and Joseph Wu felt the subsidies would help the Mainland better understand Taiwan's position. But when the Ma administration did exactly the same thing, why was it suddenly accused of "pandering to [Mainland] China" and of "indifference to whether people on Taiwan lived or died?"

Cheng is a recognized political commentator with strongly held political beliefs. That is his prerogative. As a media figure, Cheng Hung-yi may boldly show his political colors. But he may not deliberately disseminate rumors in order to incite mob passions. Cheng Hung-yi not only over-estimated his own role as a media star and as a Green Camp mouthpiece. He lept onto the political stage and assumed that his halo would provide others with a boost at the polls. In the end however, this talking head lost all sense of his own worth. Even Su Chia-chuan, the candidate Cheng was stumping for, was afraid to acknowledge that Cheng was speaking on his behalf.

Cheng Hung-yi was not the only one who wound up looking like a fool. So did the entire Green Camp. Is Tsai Ing-wen truly unaware of the origin of the subsidies for Mainland students? Yet she played dumb, in the hope that scapegoating the Blue Camp would give the DPP a boost in the five cities election, on the cheap. Are Joseph Wu and other DPP legislators truly unaware that the DPP issued these very same subsidies for years? Yet they remain tight-lipped and say nothing. They hide in the shadows and cackle at poor Ma Ying-jeou, who is taking the rap for "selling out Taiwan." Whose mother was insulted is irrelevant. Cheng Hung-yi insulted every mother on Taiwan with his obscenities. Yet normally aggressive women's organizations and educational organizations remained utterly silent about Cheng Hung-yi's vulgar display.

This is the paradox inherent in the five cities election. Public sentiment resembles a pendulum. It detests the old and yearns for the new. The Democratic Progressive Party's initial strategy was to keep a low profile. This appeared enough to create an image of rationality. The DPP would be able to do nothing, yet shatter the myth of KMT "governing capability." Now however, Chen Hung-yi's "F**k your mother!" incident has reminded us that confrontation within Taiwan society continues unabated. The brief peace during the current election is an illusion. So-called "ethnic divisions," (more accurately termed "social divisions") are not obvious in Taichung. Yet the Green Camp is attempting to use them to scapegoat political rivals and sow social divisions. This shows that the calm prevailing during the current election is merely the eye of the hurricane.

Elections on Taiwan are haunted by the spectre of Adolf Hitler. His ghostly image appears in many guises. It appears in cabbies who rip up newspapers. In elected officials who incite mobs to tear down signs. In zealots who issue CDs and DVDs filled with political smears. In politicians who shout themselves hoarse. At first glance, they brim with enthusiasm for reform. At first glance, they gush about fairness and justice. In fact their goal is to fan the flames of hatred and confrontation. In order to incite public passions, their words and emotions must become ever more more extreme. In order to intensify their appeals, they knowingly spread lies and distortions. The DPP issued subsidies to Mainland students for eight years. Chen Hung-yi said nothing. But as soon as the Ma administration issued the very same subsidies, it became a "traitor to Taiwan." Other than hatred and prejudice, what possible motive is there for such accusations?

Actually, this was not a solo performance by Cheng Hung-yi. It was a group performance by the entire Green Camp. Chen Hung-yi choked back tears and gushed sympathy for the downtrodden. But what really stuck in his craw, was his contempt for Ma Ying-jeou, Mainland students, and Mainland China. Using justice as a pretext for individual political bias was the modus operanda of Adolf Hitler and his ilk. Have we forgotten how the German people danced to his tune back then?

看他從眼角滴出了謊言
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.10

一場沒有高潮的選舉，讓人感到乏味；但一場激情亢奮的造勢，卻教人毛骨悚然。鄭弘儀前一夜在台上振臂大罵馬總統「幹Ｘ娘」，第二天卻雙手合十含淚述說對台灣弱者的關懷，此種快速跳接的變臉戲法，令人瞠目結舌。鄭弘儀自己收放自如，但那些被挑起怨恨和憤怒的群眾，誰來幫他們化解心中的仇恨？

鄭弘儀的道歉，充滿狡偽。他承認不該爆粗口，但把自己的激情形容為悲天憫人，全因不捨台灣民眾受苦，才脫口說出髒話。然而，對自己的不實指控，鄭弘儀卻隻字未提，亦毫無歉意。鄭弘儀的失格，在他違背了媒體人的角色，為政治目的而虛構事實、煽動群眾仇恨。因一時情緒失控而爆粗口，或偶因疏忽而不明事實，並非無可饒恕的事；但處心積慮挑起民眾的對立，乃至故意虛構造假抹煞事實，卻是不可原諒的行徑。那一天，從鄭弘儀眼角滴下的不是眼淚，而是謊言。

對陸生的三萬補助，鄭弘儀明明知道是李登輝時代就開始的決策，也明明知道陳水扁時代亦蕭規曹隨，甚至提高金額擴大補助。那麼，這個李登輝、陳水扁、蔡英文一脈相承的政策，鄭弘儀何以獨獨將它套在馬英九頭上，指控說這全是馬總統的罪孽？再說，如果蔡英文和吳釗燮覺得運用經費補助陸生有助加深彼岸對台灣的認同，為何馬政府做同樣的事，就是在媚中傾中，是不顧台灣人死活？

作為一個政論名嘴，持有強烈的政治認同，那是個人的選擇自由。但回到一個媒體人的角色，鄭弘儀可以色彩鮮明，卻不可故意造謠來煽惑群眾。鄭弘儀不僅過度放大了自己的媒體人角色，以綠色喉舌自居；他更跳上舞台助選，以為自己的光環足為別人加持。最後，這個得意忘形的名嘴，弄到連蘇嘉全都不敢承認他在幫自己站台。

出醜的不只是鄭弘儀，而是整個綠營。蔡英文會不知道陸生補助的緣起和由來嗎？她卻裝聾作啞，希望整起「嫁禍」演出能為民進黨五都選舉賺到一點額外的便宜。吳釗燮乃至其他立委會不知道民進黨長期發過這筆錢嗎？他們卻悶不吭聲，躲在暗處笑看「賣台」的帽子落在倒楣的馬英九頭上。一些平日活躍的親綠婦女及教育團體，對鄭弘儀汙辱母親（不管是誰的母親）的低俗演出居然也緘默不語。

這次五都選舉，最弔詭之處就在於此。在民意「厭舊」的鐘擺效應下，民進黨的策略原是保持低調，似乎如此即足以塑造理性形象；什麼都不必做，即能以「治理能力」的神話將國民黨擊倒。但鄭弘儀「幹Ｘ娘」事件卻提醒我們：台灣社會的內部對峙危機片刻未曾稍歇，眼前選季的太平只是一戳即破的假象。連在台中這種族群界線不明顯的地方，綠營都要用這種手法來栽贓、分化，顯示冷淡的選情只是颱風眼的表面寧靜罷了。

台灣的選舉天空，屢屢飄浮著希特勒式的鬼魅，他們以不同的面貌出現：有撕報紙的轎夫，有率眾拆牌匾的官員，有自製非常光碟的狂熱者，有聲嘶力竭的政治人物。乍看之下，他們都滿懷改革熱情；乍聽之下，他們皆滿口公平正義；實際上，他們的目的卻是在點燃仇恨和對立。為了挑激情緒，他們使用的言語和情緒就需要更加偏激；為了強化訴求，他們任意虛構造假、扭曲事實。試想，民進黨發給陸生補助八年，鄭弘儀未曾置一詞；而馬政府一發，即變成台灣罪人。除了仇恨與偏見，其間還有什麼邏輯可以解釋？

這個事件其實不是鄭弘儀的獨舞，而是綠營的集體演出。當鄭弘儀哽咽訴說對弱者的同情時，卡住他喉嚨的，是對馬英九、對陸生、對中國的厭惡。用正義來包裝個人的政治偏見，正是希特勒之輩擅長的事，更別提當年德國人如何瘋狂隨他起舞了。