Su, Tsai, and Hsu: How They Did During the First Primary Debate

Su, Tsai, and Hsu: How They Did During the First Primary Debate
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 10, 2011

The DPP has held its first presidential primary debate. The debate however, failed to lay out the candidates' policy positions. But judging by the candidates' presentations so far, one would have to say that Tsai Ing-wen's was hollow, that Su Tseng-chang's was evasive, and that only Hsu Hsin-liang evinced any sincerity.

In order to come across as convincing during a political debate, two conditions must be met. First, a candidate's speech must be reasoned and logical. Only then can his speech take flight. But if his speech is all flash and no substance, if it is transparent subterfuge, he will lose credibility. Secondly, only a heartfelt appeal will ring true. The candidate must be in tune with his presentation. If the candidate is not in tune with his presentation, it will ring false. Yesterday Su and Tsai delivered eloquent closing arguments. But their 10 minute closing arguments were filled with evasions. Their words failed to ring true. Therefore they as candidates failed to ring true. Hsu Hsin-liang on the other hand, was in tune with his presentation. As a result he moved listeners, who repeatedly broke out into applause and laughter.

Last April, during the "Two Yings Debate," Tsai Ing-wen took on Ma Ying-jeou. The result was disappointing. The consensus was that Tsai Ing-wen lost the debate over a single issue -- ECFA. Yesterday the framework of the debate was expanded to include a wider range of issues. But Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric was even emptier than before. She was unable to reconcile the internal contradictions in her own position. This was truly unexpected.

Yesterday Tsai Ing-wen clung to the same line as during the "Two Yings Debate." If anything, she was more evasive. When responding to questions about cross-Strait issues, she said that cross-Strait issues cannot be decided by individual leaders. They must be made democratically. They must be made collectively. The day before she said "they should be made by the next generation." But 40 minutes later, during her closing arguments, she said leaders must make the decisions. She said "Problems cannot be left to the next generation." On the very same dais, she advanced truly incomprehensible contradictions. In recent years, Tsai Ing-wen has refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She has opposed ECFA, and she has opposed the Chiang-Chen Summits. But which of these was not a unilateral proposal by the DPP? Were any of these submitted to the public for their approval? How does Tsai Ing-wen stand on them? Does she still support them as she did before?

Tsai Ing-wen reiterated that macro level problems cannot be resolved in piecemeal fashion. But she boasted that during DPP rule, charter flights and the three mini-links were quite successful. She addressed cross-Strait relations in piecemeal fashion, isolating it from the ruling DPP's macro level policy failure. Next, she opposed the pursuit of economic growth. She said the policy of favoring industry over agriculture should be reversed. But she failed to take into account economic growth, without which she can hardly realize her welfare state. Finally, she reiterated her desire for "multilateral international relations." But she failed to explain how such a state of affairs could be achieved given her advocacy of "globalization without [Mainland] China."

Su Tseng-chang was the first to present his political platform. He pontificated about "not taking the wrong road, lest we miss important opportunities." Listeners can be forgiven for thinking he was conducting a post mortem of the DPP's eight years in office, when it "took the wrong road, and missed important opportunities." But as it turns out, he was referring merely to public transportation and public housing policies. Such a political platform might have made sense four years ago. But four years later, it left the impression that Su was blowing smoke for 10 minutes. Not "everyone on Taiwan is smiling." The reason they are not, is the result of issues far more critical than public transportation and public housing.

Su Tseng-chang apparently engaged in greater soul-searching than Tsai Ing-wen. He was apologetic and beat around the bush. He said that on Taiwan, if a political party comes to power, half the people feel abandoned. He described the problem, but offered no solution. Su Tseng-chang did not say, "Leaders cannot decide cross-Strait policy on their own." He reaffirmed the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. He adopted a clearer posture than Tsai Ing-wen. But the DPP remains a political party that persists in walking the Taiwan independence high wire. Besides, Chen Shui-bian has already discredited the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Isn't this precisely why "when one political party comes to power, half of the people feel abandoned?"

During this political debate, Hsu Hsin-liang gave voice to political views once regarded as "betraying the party and selling out Taiwan." This was the debate's greatest achievement. Hsu believes that the One China Principle is not a problem, because today's globalized political and economic system is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo. When addressing industrial policy, he said that as long as we boldly open our doors and discontinue our past policy of "be patient, avoid haste," Taiwan's economy will grow by leaps and bounds, The wealth earned can then be used to increase social equality. He even characterized the Ma administration's opening to the Mainland as overly conservative. He said if we were to open to the same degree as Hong Kong, and allow 20 million Mainland tourists onto Taiwan each year, we would enjoy a boom in domestic demand. Hsu Hsin-liang said that if Acer had not bowed to the policy of "be patient, avoid haste," it would already have become the world's largest electronics company. He blasted the DPP for exploiting social movements while it was in the opposition, but then abandoning the weak and the poor once it was in power.

Hsu's speech may have bordered on the fanciful, but his words were sincere. In particular, he recalled the frustrations of political life. He addressed Green Camp members, both those on and below the dais. He reminded them that no one in the DPP had sacrificed more. He asked them which DPP official was the poorest while in public office? The audience roared with laughter. The DPP exploited then discarded this party elder. Was the Green Camp laughter tinged with regret? One has to wonder.

The candidates each had 20 minutes to read their speeches. Each was asked softball questions. Even the questioners used the opportunity to snipe at the Ma administration. A political debate such as this has little real significance. During the next three debates, the media should be allowed to ask questions, Either that, or the three candidates should ask each other questions. The candidates should stop talking past each other. The candidates should stop talking to themselves.

評蘇蔡許首場初選政見會表現
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.10

這是民進黨總統初選的首場政見發表會，似尚未展現三位參選人政見體系的全貌。但若僅以這場政見會的表現作一評價，可說是：蔡英文空洞、蘇貞昌迴旋、許信良真誠。

政見辯論的說服力有兩個主要因素。一、書面講稿的理路、邏輯及境界：由於有講稿，因此修辭較美；但若美到虛無縹緲的地步，遁詞知其所窮，即失真誠。二、人格感染力的發揮：也就是能否給人真誠的感覺；人格與講稿合體即有真誠感，人格與講稿分離就顯虛假。昨日蘇蔡二人申論及結辯講稿的辭藻均不錯，但似乎皆多少是用避重就輕的詞句去「塞滿」那二十分鐘，文不真誠，人也失真誠。倒是許信良人稿合體，幾次帶動的掌聲與笑聲皆可見其動人之處。

蔡英文在去年四月與馬總統「雙英辯論」，評價不如預期。一般認為，那是因蔡英文在E CFA這個單一議題上比較吃虧；但昨日的議題架構拉開放大，蔡英文的論述卻較「雙英辯論」時更空泛無物，甚且矛盾不能自圓其說，這卻有些出人意表。

蔡英文昨仍然接續「雙英辯論」的論述主軸，但更加閃爍其詞。她在回答關於兩岸的問題時強調，兩岸問題不能由領導人一個人決定，必須經由民主機制，由大家一起來決定（日前她曾說「應當由下一代決定」）；四十分鐘後她在作結辯時，卻又說領導人必須作出決定，「不能把問題留給下一代」。在同一講台上出現此種矛盾，是難以理解的；何況，蔡英文近年來所作「否認九二共識」、「否認ECFA」、「反對江陳會」的決定，又有哪一件不是出自民進黨的片面主張？又有哪一件經由民主機制？而蔡英文在此時對這些主張的立場是否堅持如故？

蔡英文一再強調，整體的問題不能切割處理。她自我表揚說，民進黨執政期間的小三通及包機做得很成功；卻似乎「切割」掉了民進黨執政八年在兩岸關係上的「整體」失敗。再如，她主張不要只追求「經濟成長率」，應當「翻轉」「重工輕農」的經濟政策；卻未交代，沒有「經濟成長率」，如何實現她的「福利社會」？另如，她又重申她的「國際多邊體系」，但仍未申論她那一套「排除中國的全球化」如何實現？

蘇貞昌是這場政見會的第一個發言者，破題就沉痛地說了一長串「不能走錯路，否則會錯失機會」的話語，令人以為他是要對民進黨八年執政「走錯了路，錯失機會」提出檢討，結果說的竟是公共交通與住宅政策；這類的政見，四年前可以說，四年後也可以說，令人覺得只是想「拖」過那十分鐘。台灣之所以不是「人人有笑容」，恐怕有比公共交通與住宅政策更重要的議題。

與蔡英文相較，蘇貞昌表現了較大的反省、歉疚與迴旋。但他說，台灣的政治，一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄；這說出了現象，卻未說出解藥。蘇貞昌沒有說，「領導人不能一個人決定兩岸政策」，他回到了《台灣前途決議文》，顯示他比蔡英文有立場；但是，民進黨仍是一個《台獨黨綱》高懸的政黨，且陳水扁已全盤撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》，這是否正是「一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄」的根本原因？

許信良能在這場政見會上，說出以前被視為「叛黨賣台」的政見，是這場政見會最大的政治成就。他認為，「一中原則」根本不是問題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」足可維持「兩岸現狀」。在論及產業政策時，他說，只要「大膽開放」，不要再「戒急用忍」，台灣的經濟即能巨幅成長，可以用於改善社會公平；他甚至指馬政府的開放太過保守，若像香港那樣，一年開放二千萬陸客來台，台灣的內需榮景可期。許信良說，倘若當年宏碁不是尊奉「戒急用忍」，如今應當已成為全球最大的電子企業。此外，他又痛批民進黨，在野時利用社運團體，執政後就遺棄貧弱大眾。

許信良的發言雖是洋溢浪漫，但情辭俱見真誠。尤其，他回述坎坷的政治生涯，令人驚覺昨日在台上及台下的綠營諸人，可謂沒有一人對民進黨較他付出更多、犧牲更大；他並當場問，民進黨中那一個曾任公職者比他更窮？全場哄堂大笑，但面對這位被民進黨糟蹋至此地步的前輩，綠營難道不覺笑中帶淚？

二十分鐘念稿子，三個海闊天空的提問，甚至提問者也跟著表演辱罵馬政府；這樣的政見會沒有太大意義。未來三場，應開放媒體提問，或由三人交互詰問，不要再各說各話、自說自話。