From Water Spinach to the 18% Interest Rate

From Water Spinach to the 18% Interest Rate
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 18, 2011

The DPP touched off a conflagration over the 18% interest rate issue. But the winds changed direction, and they wound up accidentally burning Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. The Green Camp accused the Ma administration of attempting to undermine Tsai Ing-wen's presidential bid. But its conspiracy theory is patently ridiculous. It is truly regrettable that the underlying issue has been lost amidst the 18% interest rate controversy, and increased social confrontation for no good reason. The DPP passed up a golden opportunity to win a debate through appeals to reason.

The underlying issue has been derailed because amidst the melee, the ruling and opposition parties lost their heads. They lost the ability to contemplate the problem and solve the problem. When the DPP was in power, it knew perfectly well the 18% interest rate problem could be solved. DPP legislators were among those who amended the new law last July. But they suddenly did an about face and fanned the flames of controversy. They deliberately lied. They demonized military personnel, civil servants, and teachers. They indiscriminately blasted away. As a result, Tsai Ing-wen and a number of Green Camp elders caught stray bullets. The free for all artillery barrage resulted in friendly fire casualties.

The Democratic Progressive Party blasted the 18% interest rate. Their own party chairman became collateral damage. This is reminiscent of the Green Camp's previous campaign against the Flora Expo. It undermined Su Tseng-chang's election prospects in Taipei City. It too was the result of a loss of focus. It too was the result of a lack of proportionality. Green Camp city council members demagogued the Xinsheng Avenue Overpass scandal. They tried to characterize the Flora Expo as rife with corruption. They attempted to smear the entire Flora Expo over 500 NT bunches of water spinach. They got the public all worked up, over nothing. Now, looking back, we can see that the allegations were completely groundless. They merely revealed the DPP's viciousness. They object was not really to expose corruption. In the end, apart from benefitting a small number of extremist city council members, what did it do for the public?

The 18% interest rate controversy involves a number of related issues, with far deeper social implications than water spinach. They deserve to be explored in greater detail. But the DPP persists in raking muck, rattling its sabers, and demonizing military personnel, civil servants, and teachers, It has no intention of introducing more clarity to the problem. It is making no effort to seek a more socially acceptable solution. In fact, the 18% interest rate provision has undergone repeated revisions over the past 20 years. It no longer bears any resemblance to its original form. Besides, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party was once faced with the same problem. It chose to leave the problem untouched and intact. Today, when the DPP engages in the same old finger-pointing, their efforts merely boomerang. People naturally ask, "So why didn't you take care of it while you were in office?"

Does the DPP wishe to be rational? If so, it should focus on reforming the "income replacement rate." It should underscore the gap between the income replacement rate for labor on the one hand, and civil servants and teachers on the other. It should highlight the need to review retirement benefits for civil servants and teachers. That is more likely to resonate with the public. But the DPP is incapable of jettisoning its outdated mindset. It finds it easier to demonize the 18% interest rate. It is incapable of adopting new modes of thought. It persists in playing the same old 18% interest rate card. As a result, whenever it encounters an underprivileged, low income bracket civil servant, their rhetoric falls on deaf ears. Also, the DPP persists in wallowing in its own moral righteousness. It equates opposition to the 18% interest rate with being on the side of truth and justice. Who knew that once the curtain was pulled back, the person sitting in the hot seat would be their own party chairman.

The problem with the DPP is its addiction to demagoguery. The problem with the KMT is its unresponsiveness, procrastination, and passivity. The new law has addressed the problem of "fat cat high officials, thin cat low officials." But it has saved only 100 million in expenditures. Meanwhile, it has muddied the waters, for no good reason. This was the trade-off. Such "reform" is a misnomer. During the debate, the Examination Yuan and the Executive Yuan were unable to explain the issues. Instead they shot their mouths off, adding fuel to the fire, provoking public outrage. Any benefits were outweighed by the losses. Suppose the original version proposed by the Examination Yuan had taken public perception and social justice into account? Suppose it had incorporated the "exclusion of the wealthy" clause into its design? Wouldn't it have been met by far greater public approval? Suppose the Ma administration had considered the times we live in and changes in the financial burden? Suppose it had calculated the income replacement rate in advance? Would it have provided its opponents with so many pretexts for criticism? Would it have turned so many military personnel, civil servants, and teachers into live targets?

One melee has followed another. The ruling and opposition parties must learn from the experience. They must change the way they debate the issues. Only then can they lead democracy on Taiwan out of its cycle of hatred, and its abyss of confrontation. The opposition DPP must forsake its practice of smears, mockery, and epithets. It must adopt a clearer, more purposeful, more specific, and more constructive manner of debate. Only then can it win for itself greater public approval. The ruling KMT must abandon its bureaucratic status quo mentality. It must become more sensitive to public sentiment, more responsive to change, and more open to criticism. Only then can it rid itself of its reputation of being indifferent to injustice.

President Ma called for "excluding the wealthy" from the 18% interest rate program. The Green Camp blasted him. This unwittingly conferred upon Ma Ying-jeou the image of a "reformer." Their words showed they were in a funk. Their logic showed that the problem was in their heads. If the opposition DPP had been the ones to point out the problem, they would have boasted, "We did it all for Taiwan." But when the ruling KMT implements the very same policy, why can't the DPP simply say it was the result of a joint effort? Why worry about who came out ahead? The crown of victory should adorn the heads of the people. Only that makes sense. Preoccupation with winning or losing, is merely the way politicians think. .

空心菜到十八趴：論戰的比例和原則
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.18

民進黨點燃十八趴的戰火，結果風勢逆轉，意外延燒到主席蔡英文。綠營指控，此一發展是馬政府為破壞蔡英文總統選情而發，這種「陰謀論」未免無稽。真正令人惋惜的是，十八趴之爭在辯論中失焦，平白升高了社會對立，民進黨則錯失了勝之以理的機會。

此事之所以演成脫軌，主要是朝野均在混戰中失去就事論事的理性，也就失去解決問題的積極思考。尤其民進黨，執政時即知十八趴是有待時日始可解決的問題，其立委去年七月也參與了新法的修正，此時卻煽風點火，蓄意妖魔化十八趴及軍公教。正因為毫無節制地裝填炮火亂轟，反而讓蔡英文和一批綠營大老意外受傷；大砲打鳥的結果，是炸傷了自己。

民進黨猛攻十八趴，回火灼傷黨主席；這和綠營先前以空心菜追打花博，卻壞了蘇貞昌的北市選情一樣，都出在論戰失去焦點，攻擊違反比例原則。當時綠營議員擴大渲染新生高弊案，將花博說得弊影幢幢，企圖以五百元的空心菜一舉否定整個花博，弄得人心沸騰。如今回看，那些指控完全是捕風捉影，只反射了民進黨的嗜血本性，目的並不在揭弊打假。最後，除便宜了少數極端議員，對社會公眾有何助益？

十八趴的相關問題，其實有比空心菜更深刻的社會意涵，值得更細緻地探討。但民進黨卻依舊流於敲鑼打鼓式的「驅魔法」，刀劍棍棒齊上，對軍公教一陣亂打，卻無意將問題呈現得更清晰，也未提出更能贏得社會認同的解決主張。事實上，十八趴之爭經過廿年來幾度修正，已非其初始形貌；何況，民進黨執政八年也曾面對同一問題，卻把攤子幾乎原封不動地保留了下來。如今，民進黨卻還在延續早年的招式死纏爛打，勢必產生「迴力棒效應」，民眾當然會反問：「你執政時為何不做？」

如果理性的話，民進黨應把論戰焦點改放在「所得替代率」，藉由勞工及公教所得替代率的反差，來凸顯公教退休給付的必須檢討，那樣更容易引起社會共鳴。然而，民進黨一方面無法擺脫自己的思維窠臼，覺得妖魔化的十八趴打起來順手，即不再開闢新思緒，只把自己反鎖在十八趴的論述老套中。結果，一遇到弱勢的底層公教人員，這套說法就破功了。另一方面，民進黨也耽溺於自己的道德幻想，以為反十八趴就代表著真理和正義；誰料，簾幕拉開，才發現「妖魔」的溫床上正躺著自己的黨主席。

若說民進黨的問題在只追求煽風點火的快感，國民黨的問題則是遲鈍、因循、不點不亮。新法雖是在修正前朝「肥大官、瘦小吏」的缺失，但僅節約一億支出，卻無端又攪動了一池渾水，且是顧此失彼。這樣的「改革」，名不副實。而在論戰過程，考試、行政兩院說不清楚緣由，反而信口開河，火上加油，挑起眾怒，得不償失。試想，當初的考試院版本若能顧及社會公平及民眾觀感，主動作出「排富」設計，不是更能贏得掌聲嗎？而如果馬政府思量時代環境變遷及財政負擔，早一步精算調整所得替代率，又豈會提供對手這麼多攻擊口實，讓軍公教變成箭靶？

經過一次次的混戰之後，朝野政黨都應該記取教訓，學習調整政策辯論方式，才能把台灣的民主政治帶出仇恨的循環及對峙的深淵。在野黨應把純粹抹黑、譏嘲、叫罵式的指控，轉化為目標更清晰、指向更具體、主張更具建設性的論述；那樣，才能為自己爭取到更廣大群眾的認同。而執政黨則須拋棄安於現狀的官僚心態，敏於因應變化，虛心接受批評，才能甩掉不公不義的陳年包袱。

馬總統指示十八趴設排富條款，綠營批評，這讓馬英九平白得了「改革者」形象，言下心中頗有不甘。此一邏輯，仍是心態的問題。如果在野黨拋出問題，是為了台灣更好，而執政者採納，那就是朝野的共同成就，豈能說誰占了便宜？勝利的光環，要戴在人民頭上，才有意義；斤斤計較政黨的輸贏，那只是政客的算盤。