Tsai Ing-wen Take Note: Players May Not Double As Referees

Tsai Ing-wen Take Note: Players May Not Double As Referees
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 21, 2011

Two controversies arose during the DPP presidential primaries. The first was over whether to nominate the candidates on the basis of a "nationwide poll," or whether to nominate the candidates on the basis of a "party member ballot." Those who advocated a nationwide poll prevailed. The other was over whether to hold a "traveling townhall debate," or whether "the less debate, the better." So far, the two sides are at loggerheads. Neither side has gained the upper hand.

Those who advocate "the less debate, the better," feel that political debate will inevitably result in fratricide. In 2008, Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh went at each other, no holds barred. Even arguments such as "changing the subject cannot change the perpetrators' guilt" were trotted out. Those who advocate more debates, feel the party cannot talk only about the candidates, and not about policy. They feel that because party chairman Tsai Ing-wen has election momentum, and holds the upper hand, she is both a player and a referee. They think she avoiding debate to maintain her advantage. They think this is unfair to the other candidates. Annette Lu has accused Tsai Ing-wen of making empty promises. Her rivals imply that Tsai's momentum has not been tested during political debate.

After evaluating the situation, the DPP decided it was better to hold additional, in-depth political debates. One. Tsai Ing-wen is herself a candidate. She cannot be an impartial referee. She has the power to manipulate the rules to counter the moves of rival candidates. Two. The decision has been made to hold a nationwide poll. Therefore even more public debate should be held. This would allow the public to evaluate each candidate's political views, and to make decisions accordingly. This is particularly true because the current presidential election involves major political controversies that cannot and should not be avoided.

During past presidential elections, voters were regaled with such slogans as "new centrist path," "believe in Taiwan," or "consistent from beginning to end." Such slogans were mere soap bubbles. They sparkled on the outside, but werem empty on the inside. The current presidential election however, involves matters of flesh and blood. They include such matters as the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, One Naition on Each Side, ECFA, Three Links and Direct Flights, the Economic Cooperation Committee, and whether to continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration. Soap bubbles such as "believe in Taiwan" may help a candidate dodge the issues. But the candidates really must take a stand on issues such as the 1992 Consensus.

Frank Hsieh advocates an "overlapping constitutional consensus" as a replacement for the 1992 Consensus, and "One Constitution, Different Interpretations" as a replacement for "One China, Different Interpretations." But some within the party have denounced his proposals as an absurd mess. Taiwan independence elements say that it follows the the same internal logic as the One China Constitution. Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, advocates a "Taiwanese Consensus." He advocates the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. He maintains that "survival is paramount, democracy is the foundation." That of course, is merely another soap bubble. Frank Hsieh has confronted Su Tseng-chang. "How can you oppose One China, Different Interpretations?" "Do you accept the Constitution of the Republic of China in its entirety?" Chen Shui-bian also had his two cents worth. From inside prison, he blasted both Frank Hsieh's "constitutional consensus," and Annette Lu's, "1996 Consensus," as "sophistry." He said they were not as good as his own "One Nation, each Side." Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, remains mired in opposition to ECFA, repudiation of the 1992 Consensus, claims that the Republic of China is an exiled alien regime, and assurances that if the DPP wins, it will continue the previous administation's cross-Strait policy. Tsai's position is a self-contradictory mess. Her "Political Platform for the Coming Decade" is all thunder and no rain. How can the Democratic Progressive Party wage a presidential campaign based on this mess? How can it govern the nation assuming it is elected? How can we avoid debating such matters? How can we not hold a series of in-depth debates?

Those who say "the less debate. the better," say they are concerned about preserving unity. But under the circumstances, any such "unity" would constitute complicity in fraud. It would evade debate in order to deceive the Green Camp party faithful. It would use the nationwide poll to provide false hope. It would blow yet another soap bubble to deceive swing voters. This trick was used during the five cities elections. What were "Happiness" and "Glory," but more soap bubbles? Does the DPP really think it can win the presidency merely by donning a pink T shirt?

Chen Shui-bian ran for president in 2000. To enable him to win, the DPP published its Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But then the DPP ruled for eight years. It attempted to ram through the "rectification of names," the "Referendum to Join the UN," "One Country Each Side," and the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." It has already shredded the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. How should the DPP presidential candidate sort out this mess before entering the debate? One. The candidate must help the party regroup, internally. Two. The candidate must explain the party's position to the public, Three. The candidate must declare the party's position to Beijing and the international community.

Tsai Ing-wen is both a player and a referee. Years ago, when she was MAC chairman, she prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus and from restoring the National Unification Council. Today, she is vying for the presidency. When she stands for election, she must make clear her position on the constitution and cross-Strait policy. She must explain her position to the Green Camp and voters in public debate. Or does she intend to correct her "Five Noes" only after she becomes president, through her newly appointed Mainland Affairs Council Chairman?

蔡英文應注意球員兼裁判的操作
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.02.21


民進黨總統候選人初選辦法有兩項爭議。一是「全民調」與「黨員投票」，如今「全民調」定案；另一是「巡迴政見辯論」或「愈少政見辯論愈好」，爾今仍相持不下。

主張愈少政見辯論愈好者認為，辯論起來不免刀刀見骨，二○○八年蘇謝殺到「轉移焦點不能改變涉案事實」的地步，可謂殷鑑不遠。至於主張多辦辯論者，則認為不能「只談人選，不談政策」；再者，亦認為如今在民氣上好像較佔優勢的黨主席蔡英文，似有「球員兼裁判」以迴避辯論來維持優勢之嫌，對有意競逐者有失公平。呂秀蓮指蔡英文「每天光鮮亮麗給人希望」，即暗指蔡的聲勢未經政見辯論的考驗。

盱衡情勢，民進黨仍以多辦幾場深入的政見辯論為宜。一方面，蔡英文自己是「球員」，不能恃「裁判」地位以操控比賽規則來抵制其他參賽的「球員」；二方面，既是「全民調」，則更應透過多場公開辯論使社會公眾評比各參選人的政見，憑以選擇；尤其重要的是，本屆總統選舉是一明顯存有重大政見爭議的選舉，不可逃避，不應逃避。

在往昔總統大選中，聽到的口號是「新中間路線」、「相信台灣」，或「一路走來，始終如一」，其實皆像是肥皂泡，在亮晶晶的外膜裡頭空無一物；但是，本屆總統大選所涉卻皆是有血有肉的真實題材，比如「九二共識」、「一中各表」、「一邊一國」、「ＥＣＦＡ」、「三通直航」、「經合會」、「執政後將延續前朝兩岸政策」等等。「相信台灣」之類的肥皂泡，也許吹一口氣就能躲過別人的針鋒；但「九二共識」之類的事實擺在眼前，總該有個說法。

謝長廷主張以「憲法重疊共識」取代「九二共識」，以「憲法各表」取代「一中各表」；但黨內有人斥其荒唐、胡搞，而獨派則指其「含有憲法一中的內在邏輯」。蘇貞昌則提「台灣共識」，主張以《台灣前途決議文》為主，守住「生存是王道，民主是基石」兩大原則（又是肥皂泡）；自顧不暇的謝長廷質問蘇貞昌：「你要怎麼反對一中各表？」「中華民國憲法你全盤接受嗎？」陳水扁亦不甘寂寞，在獄中批謝長廷的「憲法共識」與呂秀蓮的「九六共識」皆是「硬掰」，不如他主張的「一邊一國」。至於蔡英文，如今仍陷於「反對ＥＣＦＡ」、「否認九二共識」、「中華民國是外來流亡政府」及「民進黨若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」的亂七八糟之中，其「十年政綱」也久雷不雨。如此亂象，民進黨如何選總統？若選上更如何治國？因而，如何可以不辯論？又如何可以不多辦幾場深入的辯論？

主張少辦辯論者說是為了「團結」，但在現今情勢下，這種「團結」卻不啻只是勾串共謀一個「騙局」而已。亦即以迴避辯論來欺騙綠營內部及「忠貞黨員」，待稀裡糊塗地憑「光鮮亮麗給人希望」的直覺印象經全民調推出候選人後，再即興吹一個肥皂泡去欺騙「中間選民」；這一套已經用在五都選舉的「幸福／光榮」（不是肥皂泡嗎？），難道又想以一件粉紅Ｔ恤去騙取一個總統大位？

二○○○年陳水扁競選總統，民進黨尚為他發表《台灣前途決議文》；然而，民進黨八年執政，經「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」、「一邊一國」、《正常國家決議文》，已將《台灣前途決議文》撕成碎紙。因此，在民進黨總統參選人之間，當然應對如何整理此一亂局進行辯論，一以整合內部，二以向國人交代，三以向對岸及國際宣示其政策立場。

如今球員兼裁判的蔡英文，當年在陸委會主委任內曾隻身力阻陳水扁承認「九二共識」及回復國統會。如今她自己將競逐總統大位，更豈可不在參選時就其憲法認同及兩岸政策，經由辯論向綠營及國人交代清楚；難道要待若就任總統後，卻由她的陸委會主委來糾正她的「四不一沒有」？