Candidates for Elective Office Holding Government Positions: Not A Problem

Candidates for Elective Office Holding Government Positions: Not A Problem
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 30, 2011

Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Den-yi have formed a presidential/vice presidential ticket. Now the DPP is insisting that Wu Den-yih may not "run for elective office while holding down a government position." It is demanding that he immediately resign as premier, to preclude the abuse of administrative resources, and unfair election results. In response, Wu Den-yih has argued that "the law does not prohibit" candidates from holding down a government position. But he promised to maintain administrative neutrality.

Experience and logic tell us that '
The proposition that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions" is a phony one. The DPP's demands are completely unreasonable. But Wu Den-yih's response left something to be desired also. The most obvious example is the last presidential election. The DPP's Hsieh/Su ticket did not include anyone in a government position. But Premier Chang Chun-hsiung, at the behest of Chen Shui-bian, abused the power of his office by offering "a perk a week," in a flagrant attempt to buy off the voters. That was the real catastrophe. Superficially the issue is "candidates for elective office who hold government positions." In reality the issue is the abuse of government resources with utter impunity. Does the ROC really wish to revisit this nightmare?

Now consider the matter from the perspective of political theory, The proposition that a "candidate for elective office may not hold a government position," is riddled with internal contradictions. First of all, in a democratic election, anyone seeking re-election as Chief Executive is clearly a candidate for elective office who holds down a government position." The DPP knows perfectly well that it cannot possibly demand that President Ma disqualify himself as as a candidate merely because he holds down a government position. Yet it makes this demand of his running mate. This puts the cart before the horse, and is utterly illogical. Secondly, under a democracy, the ruling party assumes total responsibility for any of its administration's failures. It accepts the judgment of the voters. When an opposition party takes aim at a specific individual however, its motive is clearly to engage in political harassment. Thirdly, the issue is not whether a candidate for elective office may hold down a government position. The issue is whether he or she has maintained administrative neutrality.

Suppose four years ago President Ma had emulated President Chen's strategy with Chang Chun-hsiung? Suppose he refrained from appointing Wu Den-yih premier, thereby enabling Wu to concentrate on the election? Suppose he had instead appointed a new, interim premier to handle the transition, specifically to dole out benefits for the sake of Ma's campaign? Suppose he had written voters a stack of rubber checks, to be paid for by what unknown party, by what unknown date? This "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions" rhetoric is ludicrous. Who has the cheek to say it is in the interests of the public?

Chang Chun-hsiung made a comeback. He doled out "a perk a week," throwing money about left and right. Even more frightening however, was the atmosphere of confrontation during the general election. The Chen regime totally ignored the public condemnation. It did whatever it pleased. After the Green Camp lost the election, Chang Chun-hsiung withdrew from politics. He evaded all responsibility. The candidate may not have held a government position. But holders of government positions engaged in rampant misconduct. Clearly the demand that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions" is utterly beside the point.

Let's take a closer look. In May 2007 Su Tseng-chang resigned as premier. He resigned not because he was to be Frank Hsieh's running mate in the general election. He resigned not because he was taking the initiative to avoid a conflict of interest. He resigned because even though he enjoyed the advantage of being the premier, he still lost to Frank Hsieh in the party primaries. He resigned because he had no choice. Therefore helped Chen Shui-bian regroup and do battle. Yet the DPP would have the public believe that Chang Chun-hsiung's return as premier set an example worthy of emulation. The DPP would have the public believe that it demonstrated a commitment to the principle that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions." That is simply a lie.

Lest we forget, in April that same year, Su Tseng-chang put on a show. He presented himself as a champion of the notion that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions." But Chen Shui-bian asked him to stay on, and that was the end of that charade. Ironically, when Su Tseng-chang wanted to quit as premier, it was not to demonstrate strict adherence to the principle of political neutrality. It was because several presidential aspirants joined forces with DPP Chairman Pro Tem Trong Chai. They turned the screws and demanded his resignation, to ensure fairness in the party primaries. Therefore the DPP's insistence that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions" was nothing more than the result of an internecine power struggle.

Furthermore, during the 2008 general election, Chen Shui-bian could no longer run for re-election. But he continued using the power of the presidency to manipulate the election. He used government resources to launch his "referenda" and to create chaos. As we can see, the problem is not candidates for elective office who hold government positions. The problem is officials who hold government positions abusing their power, even when they are not candidates for elective office. The problem is the government and the ruling party's lack of political integrity. The DPP is guilty of so many past abuses. Yet it can boast, with a straight face, and without changing color, that its "candidates for elective office did not hold government positions." One simply must learn how they do it.

The proposition that "candidates for elective office may not hold government positions" is utterly phony. The ruling and opposition parties must not turn it into a political football. It is farce that need be enacted only once, to know that it was a mistake. We need not play it out a second time. If Wu Den-yih reneges on his commitment to administrative neutrality, the public will render its judgment on election day. But being a candidate for elective office while holding down a government position in not a problem.

帶職參選的爭論是一個假議題
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.06.30

「馬吳配」成形後，民進黨要求吳敦義不能「帶職參選」，應立即辭去閣揆，以免濫用行政資源，造成選舉不公。對此，吳敦義則辯稱「法律沒有禁止」帶職參選，也承諾會謹守行政中立。

其實，不論從經驗法則或從政治邏輯看，所謂「不能帶職參選」，都是個假議題；民進黨的要求完全無理，但吳敦義的回答也不很對味。最明顯的例子是，上屆總統大選，民進黨的「謝蘇配」都未有公職在身，但回鍋閣揆張俊雄在陳水扁授意下濫用「一周一利多」的政策大放送助選，那才是可怕的災難。表面上是「不帶職參選」，實際上卻肆無忌憚地濫用國家資源，台灣還要重回這個噩夢嗎？

從政治原理看，「不能帶職參選」的語境和邏輯都充滿著悖論。第一，在民主選舉制度中，任何尋求連任的行政首長，都必然是帶職參選。民進黨深知無法要求馬總統不帶職參選，卻要求其搭檔的副手迴避，無疑是本末倒置、邏輯不通。第二，在民主政治中，執政黨本需概括承受全部執政責任，接受選民檢驗；反對黨針對特定個人而發，目的只在政治干擾。第三，問題不在是否帶職參選，而在是否行政中立。

如果馬總統取法四年前陳水扁任用張俊雄的策略，讓吳敦義免兼行政院長，專心競選；同時任命一名過渡性之新揆，專門配合馬吳配的選戰策略釋放利多，向民眾開出一堆不知要由誰兌現的美麗支票。這種荒謬的「不帶職參選」演出，誰敢說更符合台灣人民的利益？

張俊雄那次回鍋，除了「每周一利多」的大手筆撒錢到不可開交之外，更可怕的是，在大選對峙的氣氛下，整個社會輿論對扁政府的針砭已形同失效，只能任其為所欲為。綠營敗戰後，張俊雄隱退政壇，要如何追究他的責任？參選者不帶職，但在職者卻胡作非為，這種「不帶職參選」有何意義？

進一步觀察，二○○七年五月蘇貞昌之所以辭去行政院長，並不是因為要搭配謝長廷角逐大選，主動作出「不帶職參選」的選擇；而是因為他挾閣揆之優勢，卻在黨內初選敗給謝長廷，只好黯然交出閣揆，方便陳水扁重新布置戰局。故而，張俊雄回鍋擔任閣揆，若要誇示為民進黨「不帶職參選」的範例，分明就是名不副實。

更別忘了，那年四月，蘇貞昌確有過一次未遂的「不帶職參選」演出，卻遭陳水扁「慰留」收場。諷刺的是，那次蘇貞昌要辭去閣揆職務，也根本不是為了向台灣民眾彰顯什麼行政中立，而是因為黨內幾個同樣有志總統大位的天王們聯合代理黨主席蔡同榮共同施壓，要求他辭職，以便初選能公平競爭。由此可見，民進黨的「不帶職參選」的台詞，說穿了不過是其鬥爭助興的狼煙罷了。

再說，二○○八大選，陳水扁已不能競選連任，但不斷地以總統地位操縱選舉，例如動用國家資源發動「入聯公投」等，鬧得天翻地覆；可見，問題其實不在候選人是否帶職參選，政府中不參選者若要濫權操縱選舉反而更可怕，因此，問題是在政府與執政黨的政治誠信。但是，有這麼多不堪檢視的過去，民進黨依然能把「不帶職參選」的神話說得那麼臉不紅氣不喘，值得人們深加探究。

是否帶職參選，既然根本是個假議題，朝野沒有理由借題發揮。一首荒謬練習曲，彈過一次就知道是個錯誤，自不必再練第二回。吳敦義若未謹守行政中立的承諾，就留待輿論聲討，但帶職參選不是問題。