The Two Yings Should Hold No Less than Four Debates

The Two Yings Should Hold No Less than Four Debates
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2011

Ma spokesman Yin Wei has challenged the DPP to a debate on ECFA. Tsai Ing-wen said "Many people want to debate Ma. Let private citizens debate him first."

Yin Wei's move was of course tactical, But the fact that he could provoke Tsai Ing-wen into such a response, is already a victory. Tsai Ing-wen should have said that once the election had began in earnest, she would debate Ma in depth. Recently she expressed "a willingness to sit down with [Mainland] China and discuss a sustainable framework for cross-Strait interaction." But now she wants the Ma campaign to debate private citizens. Tsai is clearly hedging her bets, both left and right. Yin Wei's tactical move flushed Tsai Ing-wen from her cover. It highlighted Tsai's evasiveness and her cowardice behind her bravado. Tsai continues to refuse to debate. The public is unlikely to understand or approve.

The two Yings showdown is the biggest difference between previous presidential elections. The candidates truly ought to engage in political debate. The Democratic Progressive Party held its presidential primaries in April. It held four debates over 12 days. By this standard, the two Yings ought to hold at least four debates during the presidential campaign. Actually this is far too few. But four ought to be the very minimum.

We suggest that the candidates hold at least four debates. The topic for these debates should be 1. Cross-Strait policy, 2. Allegiance to the nation and the constitution 3. Economic policy, 4. Other major national policy matters. One look at this framework is enough to tell us that four debates is insufficient. But four debates should be the minimum. Otherwise it will be difficult to expose the similarities and differences between the two candidates' platforms. It would betray the voters.

Cross-Strait policy, allegiance to the nation and the constitution, and economic policy are where Ma and Tsai and differ the most. Therefore these should be the topics debated. The debate should be in-depth. It must get to the bottom of the matter. The debate must address the issues. Failure to do so would leave the candidates' positions unarticulated. It would leave any shortcomings concealed and easy to evade. It would make it difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Take cross-Strait policy. Ma Ying-jeou upholds the 1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations, and no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force. Tsai Ing-wen rejects the 1992 Consensus. She refuses to uphold the principle of"no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force. Take allegiance to the nation and the constitution. Ma demands adherence to the "constitutional framework of the Republic of China." Tsai, by contrast, says the "Republic of China is a government in exile." Take economic policy. Ma wants to continue current policy. Tsai, on the other hand, proposes a "localized economy." She opposes "economic growth as a priority." She wants to overturn the "industry first, agriculture second" policy. She opposes "export-orientation." As we can see, Ma and Tsai are literally poles apart on these policies that bear on our national prosperity, How can we not hold debates over these ideas? How can we hold fewer than four debates?

Ma and Tsai are running for president. They are competing for the opportunity to determine national policy for the next four years. The two presidential candidates seek four years in power. The very least they can do is take two hours out to explain where they stand on cross-Straits relations, on allegiance to the nation and the constitution, on economic policy. We are essentially giving them four years in power in exchange for two hours of debate. Do the voters really have no right to expect a debate? Do the presidential candidates really have the right to refuse?

Debates should address specific topics. The "candidate interaction cross-examination" process used during the 2008 presidential debates should be preserved. This is one of the best ways to probe a political candidate. Otherwise, it will be too easy for a candidate to speak a totally different language, and talk right past the voters. For the most part, questions from the audience should be asked by professional journalists. Their record has been imperfect. But they may be better at grasping the essence than experts and scholars. As for the recent practice of allowing the public to ask questions, it may appear "democratic." But the debate is likely to degenerate into chaos, enabling candidates to evade serious questions. The debate would then be a total waste. This option should be discarded.

Two debates were held during the 2008 presidential election. Frank Hsieh predicted that Ma Ying-jeou would default on his "6:3:3" promises. His prediction came true. Frank Hsieh also predicted that if Ma were elected, cross-Strait direct flights would be delayed 10 years. But less than a year later, direct flights were a reality. Hsieh blasted what he termed a "one China market." He even characterized the general election as "a referendum on the one China market." He warned that "Taiwan men will be unable to find work. Taiwan women will be unable to find husbands. Taiwan children will end up as child labor in Heilongjiang.” The dire scenario painted by Frank Hsieh failed utterly to materialize. Ma Ying-jeou clearly won Frank Hsieh's "referendum."

The political differences between Ma and Tsai are even greater than those between Ma and Hsieh. The KMT and DPP are diametrically opposed on issues such as cross-Strait relations, allegiance to the nation and constitution, and economic policy, Ma seeks re-election. Tsai seek to displace him. Their policy platforms must be make clear to voters. They must publicly debate their pros and cons. After all, whoever wins the presidential election will not merely seize power. He or she will represent the will of the people regarding national policy.

During its party primaries, the Democratic Progressive Party held four debates, merely to nominate the party's candidate. Ma and Tsai are now running for president. They warrant more than four debates. Certainly they warrant no less than four debates. Ma and Tsai have the responsibility to work together to upgrade the quality of the election. Four debates is the very least they should offer voters.

雙英至少應有四場政見辯論會
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.06.29

馬辦發言人殷瑋邀請民進黨辯論ＥＣＦＡ，蔡英文說「很多人想跟馬辦辯論，民間人士先開始」。

殷瑋所為當然是一個戰術性的動作，但他能引出蔡英文的這一句話，已經賺到了。照理說，蔡英文應稱，進入選舉程序後，即可與馬英九深入辯論；但她日前說「願與中國坐下來談可長可久的兩岸互動架構」，現在竟又要馬辦與民間辯論，皆是顧左右而言他。殷瑋的這個動作，再次凸顯了蔡英文的躲藏閃避與色厲內荏；蔡若對政見辯論續採這種排拒態度，恐難獲得民意的理解與認同。

雙英對決，可謂是歷屆總統直選中競選政見差異最大的一次，因而候選人也最應進行政見辯論。四月的民進黨總統初選，在十二天內舉行了四場政見辯論會；依照這個標準，雙英的總統大選，四場政見辯論會仍嫌不足，但至少亦應有四場才行。

我們的建議是：至少辦四場辯論會，且四場各定專題，一場是兩岸政策，一場是國憲認同，一場是經濟路線，再一場是其他重大國政。見此架構，即知四場辯論也不夠；但至少要有四場，否則難以呈現兩位總統候選人的政見異同，不能向選民交代。

兩岸政策、國憲認同及經濟路線，是馬蔡二人政見出現最大差異處；自應設定專題，深入辯論，打破砂鍋辯到底。如果不進行專題辯論，候選人的主張不能完整呈現，其缺陷卻極易閃躲掩藏；難以建立真相，探求是非利鈍。例如，在兩岸政策，馬英九主張「九二共識，一中各表」、「不統，不獨，不武」，蔡英文則不承認「九二共識」，亦不呼應「不統，不獨，不武」；就國憲認同言，馬言必稱「在中華民國憲法架構下」，蔡則曾謂「中華民國是流亡政府」；以經濟路線而言，馬主張維持目前的全方位政策，蔡則強調「在地經濟」，反對「成長掛帥」，並主張翻轉「重工輕農」，反對「出口導向」。自以上略舉即可看出，馬蔡二人在這些國家命脈政策上的差異極大，簡直已是南轅北轍；豈能不進行「專題辯論」？又豈可少於四場辯論？

馬蔡競選總統，即是競奪四年的主政地位。那麼，兩位總統候選人，為四年主政，就兩岸、國憲、經濟三大政策路線，至少應各以一場兩小時的專題辯論向選民交代清楚，這形同是「你給我兩小時辯論，我給你四年主政」，難道選民不應要求辯論？又難道總統候選人可以抵拒辯論？

除應設定「專題辯論」外，亦當延續二○○八年總統大選政見辯論的「候選人交互詰問」，這是探測候選人政見深度的最佳方法；否則即易形成雞同鴨講、全無交集的場面。再者，現場提問者，宜以專業媒體人為主；他們的表現雖未臻理想，卻可能較專家學者的提問能掌握要領。至於近年試行的「公民提問」，也許民主意味較高，卻使問答成為雞零狗碎、實問虛答，形同虛耗了一場辯論，或許不必再採。

二○○八年的總統大選，舉辦了兩場政見辯論會。謝長廷在政見會中預言，馬英九的「六三三」會跳票，這個預言已經應驗。至於謝長廷又說，馬當選後，兩岸直航要十年，但馬上任後不到一年即直航告成。再者，謝猛轟「一中市場」，甚至謂大選即是對「一中市場」的「公民投票」，且又稱台灣將「查埔找無工，查某找無尪，少年囝仔去到黑龍江」，如今情勢顯亦不如謝長廷所言，而馬英九則贏得了謝長廷所說的「公民投票」。

如今馬蔡之間的政見歧異更遠逾於馬謝當年，而國民黨在兩岸、國憲及經濟上的政策路線，更與民進黨已形同南轅北轍。因此，馬欲連任，或蔡欲取而代之，皆應就政策內容向選民說清楚，並公開辯論其是非利鈍；畢竟，總統大選不是誰能奪到權力而已，而是要看誰的國家政策能獲民意支持。

連民進黨總統初選亦有四場政見辯論會，馬蔡總統大選更應有超過四場的辯論會，或至少不應少於四場。馬蔡二人有責任共同提升大選品質，應將四場辯論會作為向選民負責的最起碼回應。