The DPP Would Do Well to Listen to Different Voices

The DPP Would Do Well to Listen to Different Voices
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2012

Summary: DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew it would do well to listen to different voices.

Full Text Below:

DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. By doing so, Tsai Ing-wen behaved appropriately. Unfortunately this was soon followed by a vendetta against Taiwan entrepreneur Cher Wang and HTC brand mobile phones, by a DPP member of the Taipei City Council. It was followed also by Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to meet American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt. By refusing to meet with Burghardt, Tsai and the DPP have evinced a closed-minded, "pity poor me" attitude. This can only be detrimental to the political fortunes of the largest opposition party on Taiwan.

Following the election, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan immediately began a second round of competition. The Ma administration announced a new cabinet. This new cabinet would begin implementing the administration's blueprint for a "Golden Decade." But the KMT government would not have the stage to itself. Sean Chen's cabinet must soon face the newly-elected legislature. The DPP will soon surface and play an important role in legislative oversight. When that happens, how will the ruling and opposition parties react to each other? What sort of sparks will fly? Will it be a case of the expert finessing the situation? Or will it be a case of "the scholar encounters the soldier?" The Chen cabinet cannot relax. It must begin work immediately. The same is true for the DPP leadership. It can no longer remain clueless. After all, thorough soul-searching by the DPP is also a priority.

This is why the "explanation" the DPP leadership offered for the DPP's defeat has left observers incredulous. According to reports, the DPP has offered two reasons for its defeat. Reason Number One. Former American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal publicly supported the 1992 Consensus prior to the election. This had a major impact on the general election. Reason Number Two. Rumors of voting irregularities on election day.

First, let us address the alleged voting irregularities. The quality of civil service personnel on Taiwan is high. So is the quality of civil service training. Allegations of large scale vote tampering, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of votes, are utterly nonsensical. The DPP's attitude is indistinguishable from an ostrich with its head in the sand.

The charges of voting irregularities are outrageous. That said, the list of reasons the DPP offered for its defeat put the U.S. government's attitude at the top of the list. This reveals an even more peculiar attitude. Dozens of entrepreneurial heavyweights came out in support of the 1992 Consensus. Yet the DPP singled out the United States for blame. Tsai Ing-wen even refused to meet with Raymond Burghardt, who was visiting at the time. What can one say? The DPP has long followed Uncle Sam's lead in diplomacy. Yet this was their reward. Their feelings can be summed up in the expression, "I gave my heart to the moon, but the moon cast its light in the gutter."

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP blame the United States. But why don't they ask themselves whether their perceptions and expectations of the United States were mistaken? During the debate over ECFA Tsai Ing-wen castigated the Ma administration. She accused it of pandering to Mainland China. She accused it of changing the strategic balance in the Asian-Pacific region. She implied that the relationship between the United States and Mainland China was a zero sum game. She implied that Taiwan was getting too chummy with Mainland China, and that this was something the U.S. and Japan do not welcome. But the United States and even Japan made clear their attitudes during the general election. They made it clear that US-China relations were be both competitive and cooperative, that it was not a zero-sum game. They made it clear that the US did not welcome heightened cross-Strait tensions. In fact, WikiLeaks revealed that the AIT Director conveyed this message to the DPP, well in advance of the election. But the DPP failed to get the message, intentionally or otherwise. As a result, it misjudged the situation and it paid the price.

More importantly, it matters not how much the DPP values the United States. As Raymond Burghardt pointed out, the United States does not have that much influence. The final choice was made by the public on Taiwan. The DPP can blame the United States. It can can blame Cher Wang, Terry Gou, and other entrepreneurs. But Americans did not vote in the election. Entrepreneurs on Taiwan had only one vote apiece. The DPP casts blame left and right. Instead it should try to understand why those who championed the 1992 Consensus were able to sway other voters.

For politicians, a presidential election is a winner take all proposition. But for voters, it is a referendum on the nation's future. Therefore, any blueprint for the nation's future, drafted by any campaign committee, must understand the problems. Only then can it offer realistic solutions. The DPP has a major problem. It might not talk about reunification vs. independence during its election campaigns. But it never stops thinking about it. The DPP painted the Ma administration as "reunificationist." It insisted that the 1992 Consensus would undermine "Taiwan's sovereignty." By doing so, it moved further and further away from public opinion. Because for voters on Taiwan, reunification vs independence long ceased being an issue. The Republic of China's sovereignty is not in jeopardy. Voters on Taiwan are concerned about other matters. They are concerned about their fate amidst globalization and Asian-Pacific regional competition. They are afraid of being marginalized. They want to find a new economic niche for themselves. The DPP fails to understand the problem. Naturally it is unable to render a correct diagnosis.

Election defeat is a painful experience. Especially since the DPP had such high hopes for this particular election. But as the saying goes, a day of jubilation is plenty. By the same token, a day of mourning is also plenty. A pragmatic political party should be willing to engage in earnest soul-searching. Only that will ensure future victory. But soul-searching is merely the first step. The DPP must take a bold step forward. It must listen to different voices. During the the election, Tsai Ing-wen promised that in the event the DPP won, it would form a coalition government. She promised to listen to different voices. The DPP should not renege on its commitment because it has lost instead of won.

The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew, it would do well to listen to different voices.

民進黨何妨聽取不同的聲音
2012-02-02中國時報

民進黨總統候選人蔡英文的敗選感言，不但在台灣備受肯定，甚至在對岸引起深遠的迴響，成為台灣民主的象徵；但在蔡英文的完美表現後，隨之而來的卻是民進黨市議員扺制企業家王雪紅旗下的ＨＴＣ品牌手機，以及這兩日的拒見美國在台協會主席薄瑞光事件，這其間流露出的受害、封閉心態，對最大反對黨未來的發展，可說是有害無益。

大選後，台灣的朝野政黨立即展開第二回合的競爭，馬政府風風火火啟動新閣，要開始著手完成黃金十年藍圖；但是，國民黨或馬政府不可能唱獨角戲，很快的，當陳內閣面對新國會，民進黨將浮出檯面，而且在國會監督中擔綱重要角色，屆時，朝野政黨會爆出何種火花？是高手過招？還是秀才遇到兵？如果說，陳內閣毫無喘息的空間，必須馬上上手；同樣的，民進黨的菁英們，也不能一出場就毫無章法，歸根究柢，民進黨的徹底反省檢討，同樣也是當務之急。

正因如此，民進黨中央日前提出的敗選檢討，特別令人錯愕；據報導，民進黨中央提出的兩項敗選原因，分別是一、前美國在台協會辦事處（ＡＩＴ）處長包道格選前公開支持九二共識，對大選造成影響；第二、投票當天傳出開票作業異常。

先就開票作業異常而言，以台灣公務人員的素質及訓練，任何人試圖在開票時大規模做手腳，做掉數十萬選票，皆是匪夷所思，民進黨若提出這樣的「檢討」，簡直和鴕鳥無異。

作票指控離譜，但民進黨敗選報告中優先挑出美國政府的態度，則更有特殊的情結。事實上，大選時有數十位重量級的企業家跳出來挺九二共識，民進黨中央獨責美國，蔡英文甚而拒絕和來訪的薄瑞光會面，只能說，民進黨自認外交向來以美國老大哥馬首是瞻，卻得到這樣的回報，頗有「我本將心向明月、奈何明月照溝渠」、感情受傷害之嘆。

但是，蔡英文或民進黨在責怪美國之前，何妨深思，他們對美國一直有錯誤的認知及期待。蔡英文曾在ＥＣＦＡ大辯論時批評，馬政府政策傾中，可能會改變亞太地區的戰略結構，言下之意，美中是零和關係，台灣太靠近中國，是美日所不樂見；但美國、甚至日本在大選期間所表現的，卻顯示出美中關係是既競爭又合作，並非零和之爭，兩岸關係緊張，非美國所樂見；事實上，維基解密透露，歷任ＡＩＴ處長早已向民進黨傳達這樣的訊息，民進黨不論是有心或無意，都因為誤判而付出慘痛的代價。

更重要的是，無論民進黨多看重美國，正如薄瑞光所說，美國人沒有那麼大的影響力，最後還是台灣人民所做的抉擇；民進黨可以怪美國，可以怪王雪紅、郭台銘等企業家，但美國人沒有選票，企業家頂多也是一人一票，民進黨與其怪東怪西，何不好好去了解，為何這些支持九二共識的聲音，能夠說服選民！

對政客來說，總統選舉輸贏無異是贏者全拿的零和競爭，但對選民而言，其實就是選擇一個心目中可行的國家方向；因此，任何競選團隊提出的治國藍圖中，必須包含正確的現狀，然後才可能開出務實的藥方。民進黨最大的問題在於，他們在這次大選雖然絕口不談統獨，但卻無法脫離統獨的架構來打選戰；當民進黨將馬政府都打成統派、九二共識會傷害主權時，其實和民意愈離愈遠；因為，對台灣選民來說，統獨早就不是問題，台灣主權也沒有受傷之虞，他們關心的是，台灣如何在全球化、亞太區域競爭中，不被邊緣化、重新找到利基；民進黨對現狀解讀錯誤，當然就無法提出正確診斷。

敗選當然是個傷痛的經驗，尤其民進黨對此次選舉寄望甚深；但就如大家經常說的，勝選高興一天就夠了，同樣的，敗選也是難過一天就夠了；務實的政黨會誠實檢討敗選原因，未來才可能勝選。但自己人的檢討，只是第一步，民進黨有必要跨出去，了解不同的聲音，正如大選時蔡英文曾經承諾，如果勝選將籌組大聯合內閣，包容各種不同聲音，這樣的承諾不該因為敗選而失效。

不挺民進黨，不代表這些人傾中賣台，民進黨要重新站起來，何妨先從聽取不同的聲音開始！