The New Three Little Pigs: Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, Chao Li-yun

The New Three Little Pigs: Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, Chao Li-yun
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2011

Summary: The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd. The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.

Full Text Below:

The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd.

The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.

Many pundits consider the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy highly successful. Presumably they mean at the technical level. The DPP is using the Three Little Pigs to hypnotize the public. It has completely evaded questions about public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. It has dodged the issues. It has made people miss the forest because they were staring at the trees. In a sane election, which appeal would prevail? A list of nominees for legislator without portfolio that offers hope for the nation's future? Or irrelevant distractions such as the Three Little Pigs?

Elections on Taiwan have a reputation for being superficial contests of electioneering skill. Elections on Taiwan often ignore matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. This must change. The public must turn its attention away from plastic pigs, to matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles.

Tsai Ing-wen has been mired in controvery over her "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. Her "Three Little Pigs" ploy is like a smoke bomb in a wuxia novel, touched off by one of the characters when he or she desperately needs to make a getaway. This smoke bomb temporarily obscured her "best nominees List" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. But once the KMT announced its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, it forced the DPP's "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals back into the public consciousness. As a result, the more the DPP demagogues the Three Little Pigs non-issue, the more devoid of content its campaign will appear.

The DPP has turned the Three Little Pigs into a political allegory. But apparently it forgot the moral of this timeless fairy tale. The first little pig built his house out of straw. The second little pig built his house out of sticks. The third little pig built his house out of bricks. The unintended moral of the DPP's political allegory is that Su Jia-chyuan's house was built out of straw, Ker Chien-ming's house was built out of sticks, while Chao Li-yun's house was built out of bricks.

Chao Li-yun could have been elected to a second term as KMT legislator without portfolio. But her "farmhouse" drew political fire. She tearfully announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing her candidacy. She said she "did not want to become the rat dropping that spoils the entire pot of porridge." But if Chao Li-yun is a "rat dropping" in the KMT's pot of porridge, then Ker Chien-ming is a "diseased rat" in the DPP's pot of porridge. Su Jia-chyuan is a "rat corpse" in the DPP's pot of porridge. In this "New Edition Three Little Pigs" political allegory, Chao Li-yun has pulled out of the race, Ker Chien-ming and Su Chia-chyuan persist in running. The "rat dropping" has left. But the "diseased rat" and the "rat corpse" hang on. So which little pig is more likely to weather the political storm? Which little pig has displayed greater moral fiber? Which little pig is more likely to win public approval?

Actually any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. The upcoming two in one election involves more than just a choice betweeen Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, and Chao Li-yun. It involves a choice between Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong. It involves a choice between a house of straw, a house of sticks, and a house of brick. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are not the plastic pigs found at Green camp election rallies. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are different public policies, different candidate qualifications, and different moral principles. They include the lists of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They include judgments rendered upon the "rat droppings" and the "rat corpses."

Tsai Ing-wen said that the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio was "the best list of nominees possible given existing limitations." But Ma Ying-jeou showed that Tsai Ing-wen's "existing limitations" could be overcome. Tsai Ing-wen's "best list of nominees" has become a punch line. The public looks at Chao Li-yun, who knew enough to withdraw, at Su Jia-chyuan, who insists on hanging on, and renders its judgment. The public looks at Ma Ying-jeou's 1992 Consensus, at Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus," and renders its judgment. Just whose house is made of straw? Just whose house is made of sticks? Just whose house is made of bricks?

When the Su Jia-chyuan scandal came to a head, some said Su ought to have a "rat droppings consciousness," and withdraw voluntarily. They said Tsai Ing-wen ought to realize that she was occupying a house made of straw, and replace her running mate. Compare the KMT and DPP's list of nominees for legislator without porffolio. Others others said the DPP Central Standing Committee should convene an emergency session and revise its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They said the "rat droppings" and "rat corpses" should be removed from the list. People will of course ask, if Chao Li-yun can withdraw, why shouldn't Ker Chien-ming nd Su Jia-chyuan?

To repeat, any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. Consider the matter of character, Chao Li-yun was adjudged a "rat dropping," yet she knew enough to withdraw. Su Jia-chyuan and Ker Chien-ming were "rat corpses," yet they obstinately chose to hang on. Whom will voters support? Yaung Chih-liang is 19th on the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Frank Hsieh is 20th on the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Whom will voters support? Now consider the matter of policy, Which policies will voters support? Will they support the 1992 consensus, one China, different interpretations, and peaceful development? Or will they reject the 1992 consensus, undermine the foundation for cross-Strait peace, and allow the superstructure to collapse on top of their heads? In other words, will they choose the house of straw, the house of sticks, or the house of brick?

The plastic pigs are making their exit. Let the "New Three Little Pigs" make their entrance!

新三隻小豬：蘇嘉全、柯建銘、趙麗雲
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.18 02:39 am

在國民黨不分區立委名單的對照之下，愈發顯得民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作，民粹、虛無、膚淺與荒謬。

現在，民眾的目光，已從一隻一隻塑膠豬的身上，轉移至國民黨不分區名單中一個一個有血有肉的真人實事上。兩相對比，民進黨若愈操弄「三隻小豬」，將愈發顯得只是一顆「空心菜」。

眾曰民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作十分成功，這應是指其技術層次的表現；然而，民進黨卻是利用這一陣子的氛圍，操弄一種近似催眠及蠱魅的手法，幾乎完全迴避及掩蓋了關於政策、團隊及道德風格的探討辯論，這畢竟是避重就輕、捨本逐末。試問：在一場健康正常的大選中，不分區立委名單及三隻小豬，誰主沉浮？

台灣的選舉，一向稱譽技術層次的膚淺操作，卻輕視政策、團隊及道德風格上的本質追求。現在，國人應將目光從塑膠豬的身上，轉移到政策、團隊及道德風格的競賽上。

有一陣子，蔡英文久陷她的那一份「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」的困境中；「三隻小豬」就像是武俠小說人物落荒而逃時擲出的煙幕彈，立時將「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」均予遮蔽。但是，國民黨的不分區名單發布，將民進黨的「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」又逼回輿論焦點；在這種對比下，民進黨若繼續操弄「三隻小豬」，豈不是愈發顯得主帥只是一顆「空心菜」？

民進黨將「三隻小豬」操弄成充滿童趣的政治風潮，卻顯然忘了《三隻小豬》這則雋永童話的原始啟示。這則童話的本事是：一隻小豬蓋茅草屋，一隻小豬蓋木板屋，一隻小豬蓋磚屋；對比之下，令人發現，在面對政治颶風時，蘇嘉全蓋的是茅草屋，柯建銘蓋的是木板屋，趙麗雲蓋的則是磚屋。

趙麗雲原本可能連任國民黨不分區立委，但因其「農舍」引發議論，含淚宣布自動退出提名評選；她說，「不希望變成團隊的老鼠屎」。相對於趙麗雲的「老鼠屎」，柯建銘的程度堪謂是民進黨這鍋粥裡的一隻「病老鼠」，而蘇嘉全的程度則不啻已是一隻「死老鼠」。如今，在這一則《新三隻小豬》的政治寓言中，趙麗雲退，柯建銘、蘇嘉全留；「老鼠屎」退，「病老鼠」、「死老鼠」留。試問：哪一隻小豬的抉擇在政治颶風中較能控制損害？哪一隻小豬的風品較應獲得社會的認同？

其實，任何一場民主選舉，皆是對「三隻小豬」的選擇。這場二合一選舉，非但是對蘇嘉全、柯建銘及趙麗雲這「三隻小豬」的選擇；也將是對馬英九、蔡英文、宋楚瑜這「三隻小豬」的選擇，也就是要對「茅草屋」、「木板屋」及「磚屋」作出選擇。此處所說的三隻小豬，當然已非綠營造勢場合的塑膠豬，而是指不同的政策、團隊及道德水準，當然也包括不分區名單及競選團隊中「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」的含量比較。

蔡英文說，民進黨的不分區立委名單是「局限範圍內的最佳名單」；如今馬英九的表現則證實，蔡英文所稱的「局限」不是不能突破，而蔡英文所謂的「最佳名單」更已成為笑柄。此時，國人不但比較趙麗雲的「老鼠屎退」與蘇嘉全的「死老鼠留」；也同時在評量，馬英九的「九二共識」與蔡英文的「台灣共識」，究竟誰蓋的是茅草屋、木板屋？誰蓋的是磚屋？

當蘇嘉全的醜聞鬧得正兇時，有人建議他應有「老鼠屎意識」，引咎請退，而蔡英文也應有「茅草屋危機」而更換副手。如今，以國民黨不分區名單與民進黨的相比，又有人建議民進黨應考慮召開臨時中常會，更換不分區名單，將其中的「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」剔去。人們自會詰問：趙麗雲可以退，何以柯建銘、蘇嘉全不能退？不應退？

重申前論，任何民主選舉皆是對「三隻小豬」的抉擇。就人品風格言，是選趙麗雲「老鼠屎」退，或選蘇嘉全、柯建銘「死老鼠」留？是選楊志良的不分區十九名，或選謝長廷的不分區二十名？就政策主軸言，則是要選「九二共識／一中各表／和平發展」，或是選「否定九二共識／基礎不保／大廈將傾」？亦即，究竟要選「茅草屋」、「木板屋」或「磚屋」？

塑膠豬該退場了，讓《新三隻小豬》登場吧！