Different Time, Different Place: But One Still Needs a Platform

Different Time, Different Place: But One Still Needs a Platform
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 28, 2011

Summary: An expression has become all the rage: "Different time, different place." This expression has practically become DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's mantra. Apparently she finds it pretty handy. The political scene on Taiwan has undergone significant change. It has experienced two changes in ruling parties. Both the ruling Blues and the opposition Greens have been in office before. Neither can eradicate the record of the road they once traveled. Government and opposition leaders may try to rationalize their past policies by saying, "different time, different place." But we must subject them to harsh scrutiny. We must ask them, are the time and place really so different?

Full Text below:

An expression has become all the rage: "Different time, different place." This expression has practically become DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's mantra, Apparently she finds it pretty handy. The political scene on Taiwan has undergone significant change. It has experienced two changes in ruling parties. Both the ruling Blues and the opposition Greens have been in office before. Neither can eradicate the record of the road they once traveled. Government and opposition leaders may attempt to rationalize their past policies by saying, "different time, different place." But we must subject them to harsh scrutiny. We must ask them, are the time and place really so different?

Consider the subsidies for elderly farmers. The DPP approved an increase from 6000 NT to 7000 NT. The Ma administration followed suit. It refused to let this become and election season trump card for the DPP. But this plank in the DPP campaign platform is an elephant in the living room. When the DPP was in office, Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen firmly opposed this subsidy increase.

The Chen administration cited any number of reasons for opposing the subsidy increase. One was that the government was in fiscal straits. The DPP was placing emphasis on the National Pension System. Under the National Pension System, additional allowances would be incorporated into the system as a whole. Unfortunately, neither the Democratic Progressive Party administration, nor the Ma administration made proper plans. Both failed to fully implement the program. Now that the general election is around the corner, both are attempting to curry favor with voters by offering cash bribes.

The Ma administration's problem is that after three years in office, it has yet to fully implement the policy. The DPP continues to force the KMT to up the ante. Tsai Ing-wen's problem is that she opposed the increase then, but favors it now. Her excuse is, "different time, different place." But are conditions really that different from three to five years ago? The government is still in dire fiscal straits. The National Pension Plan has been implemented. Why is it necessary to increase subsidies for elderly farmers, when they should have been incorporated into the National Pension Plan long ago? Consider agricultural policy. During its eight years in office, the Chen administration opened the market to Mainland agricultural products. It attempted to abolish the Agricultural Cooperative Credit Department. Farmers protested in front of the presidential palace, on a scale far larger than today. Yet Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to shirk responsibility for the Chen administration's policy, with an airy "different time, different place." She even had the chutzpah to visit the grassroots and gladhand the protesting farmers.

This is hardly the first time Tsai Ing-wen has fallen back on a "different time, different place." Last year the DPP lambasted the Ma administration for providing government subsidies to Mainland students. But it soon became clear that this policy was a legacy from the Lee Teng-hui era. The subsidies provided by the Chen administration during a single year, far exceeded the subsidies provided by the Ma administration over two years. Tsai Ing-wen's excuse was, yet again, "different time, different place." This was even more incomprehensible. During the Ma era cross-Strait exchanges were more frequent than during the Lee era and Chen era. How can the Ma administration be criticized for tightening controls?

Consider another example, Tsai Ing-wen blasted the Ma administration over rice wine price cuts. She said "A lot of people do not see this as a major achievement." This is even more bizarre. During the Chen era, Taipei was trying to join the WTO. Tsai Ing-wen's chief negotiator argued, "Our government began negotiations on rice wine prices only after the dispute settlement panel arrived at its decision on Japanese shochu prices. Negotiations took place after the WTO emphasized legal discipline. Legally, we had very little room to maneuver." She even argued that given high living standards on Taiwan, we could afford to buy slightly more expensive wine, that we had no need to dwell on rice wine prices. Given her desertion in the face of fire at the front, was it really necessary to hold the line at the rear?

Tsai Ing-wen could not bring down rice wine prices. The Ma administration could. Taipei was a WTO Member State. Yet the Ma administration could do something the DPP administration could not. It could get different tax rates for cooking wine and drinking wine. If this is not a major political achievement, what is? Such incidents are not confined to rice wine. Let us not forget how the DPP administration agreed to open the market to US beef imports. It even agreed to forsake Taiwan standards for Ractopamine and Clenbuterol in meat inspections. This matter was never satisfactorily resolved. The repercussions are still being felt in Taipei/Washington relations. But the Ma administration has refused to make concessions or to give up. It fights on.

Tsai Ing-wen is DPP chairman. She is competing for the highest office in the land. Before Tsai Ing-wen trots out specific policy proposals, she would do well to review the road she has already traveled. She was a member of the National Security Commission under Lee Teng-hui. She was MAC Chairman and Vice Premier under Chen Shui-bian, Many of her policies remain in force, even today. Many policies still bear her imprint. They are not something a simple "different time, different place" can erase from our collective memory.

She opposes the 18% preferential interest rate for retired civil servants. But upon leaving office, she continued to collect her 18% preferential interest rate payments, and to deposit them in her personal bank account. That is one of the more striking examples. When she was vice premier she pressured EIA officials to approve the Taichung Science Park Project during Phase Three environmental impact assessment. That is another striking example. Tsai Ing-wen may have erased these incidents from her memory. But during the election process, they will inevitably resurface, again and again. There is nothing unfair about this. Just the opposite. This is precisely how candidates must be evaluated. They must undergo rigorous examination. Anything less is an injustice to ROC voters.

Politics may be characterized as clever rhetoric, able to deceive people in the near term. But politics can never erase words uttered in the past. In the process of winning votes, politicians must speak the truth. They must grant voters a modicum of respect. They must not assume that everyone has a short memory, and can easily be fooled. They must be responsible for their words and deeds. They must be responsible to the people. Anyone aspiring to the office of the president must meet these conditions. Why else is the opposition DPP reminding voters that President Ma reneged on his "6/3/3" campaign pledge? Why can't Ma simply say "different time, different place?"

「時空背景不同」 還是要提政見
2011-07-28 中國時報

最近政壇流行一句話，「時空背景不同。」這句話幾乎成了民進黨主席蔡英文的口頭禪，但似乎真的很管用，因為台灣政壇變化確實很大，台灣經歷過兩次政黨輪替；但是，正因為朝野藍綠都執政過，沒有政黨可以忘記自己走過的路，當朝野領袖要把自己的主張歸咎於時空變換，企圖昨是今非的時候，就必須受到檢驗：時空背景真的差這麼多嗎？

以老農津貼調漲案為例，民進黨拍板決定加碼從六千到七千元，馬政府同樣定調跟進，不讓這個選舉利多成為民進黨的專利。尷尬的是，民進黨執政過程中，就在蔡英文擔任行政院副院長的時候，她堅定反對調漲！

當年扁政府反對調漲老農津貼的原因很多，一是國家財政考量，二是民進黨政策主軸是國民年金，在國民年金的規畫下，所有額外津貼照常理都該配套吸納。遺憾的是，民進黨政府到馬政府，所有的配套顯然都沒妥善規畫和落實，鬧到大選在即，還是得用現金加碼的方式討好選民。

馬政府的問題是，執政三年沒做好配套，還是被民進黨逼著跟進加碼；蔡英文的問題是：為何當年反對如今贊成？她的說法是「時空背景不同」，三、五年能有這麼大差別嗎？國家財政依舊緊迫，國民年金已經實施，為什麼還得加碼早該整體納入國民年金的老農津貼？從老農津貼看農業政策，扁政府八年開放大陸農產品、企圖廢止農會信用部，讓農民走上凱道抗議，其規模遠比今日農民上凱道要大得多。蔡英文一句話，完全推卸了扁政府的政策責任，還理直氣壯地在基層與農民搏感情。

蔡英文的「時空背景」變了不只這一次。去年，民進黨嚴厲批判馬政府補助大陸學生，結果發現，這個政策早在李登輝執政末期就開始實施，扁政府時代每年補助的大陸學生數目，比馬政府執政二年還要多得多。蔡英文的解釋同樣是「時空背景不同」，這就更讓人無法理解，馬政府時代的兩岸交流遠比李、扁時代更頻密，李、扁的政策，馬政府強化管理繼續實施誰曰不可？

再舉一例，蔡英文對馬政府調降米酒價格一事批評，「很多人不會把這當成重大政績」，這就更奇怪了，蔡英文當年還是台灣加入ＷＴＯ的第一線談判人員，她的說法是，「我國的米酒談判時刻是在爭端解決小組對日本燒酒已作成決定之後，而且是在強調法律紀律的世貿組織成立之後，故我們在法律上及談判上纏鬥的空間並不大」。她甚至認為，台灣的生活水準有資格買貴一點的酒，不必再屈就米酒。第一線棄守，後方如何堅持？

蔡英文談不下來的價格，馬政府做到了，台灣還是ＷＴＯ會員國，卻做到民進黨政府做不到的事：將料理用酒與飲用酒分離課稅，這不是政績是什麼？類似事件不只米酒，別忘了同樣是在民進黨政府執政時期同意美國牛肉開放進口，還可以不在台灣標準查驗瘦肉精，此事仍未善了，後遺症仍在台美外交關係中發酵，但是，馬政府可沒退讓放手，依舊堅持。

身為民進黨主席，準備競逐大位，蔡英文要提出具體主張前，最好從頭回溯自己走過的路，不論是在李登輝時代充任國安會幕僚，或者陳水扁時代出任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，每一樁此刻仍在執行的政策，都有可能仍存在她自己的身影與痕跡，不是一句「時空背景不同」就可以抹煞。

她反對公務員退休金十八趴政策，自己卸任後卻依舊領了十八趴優惠存款利率，是最鮮明的例子；她擔任副院長時親電環評委員關切中科三期環評案又是一例，這些發生過的案例，蔡英文可能遺忘，但在大選過程中，會一而再、再而三被提出來檢驗，這不是對蔡英文不公平，相反的，只有公平且嚴格地檢驗候選人，才是對台灣選民最公平的做法。

政治，可能是高明的修辭術，但蒙混得了一時，終究抹不了過往說過的話語，在爭取選票的過程中，做為政治領袖至少要表達起碼的誠意，對選民要有起碼的尊重，不要以為每個人的記憶力都很差，可以輕易糊弄過關，唯有對自己言行負責的人，才能對人民負責，這是所有要競逐總統大位者應具備的基本條件。否則，在野黨何必還要動輒就質疑馬總統的六三三跳票，馬是不是也可以拿「時空背景不同」來回應？