Traitor? Turncoat? Feudal Thinking in the Modern Era

Traitor? Turncoat? Feudal Thinking in the Modern Era
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2012

Summary: Former Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing has been appointed Ma administration cabinet minister without portfolio, His former DPP comrades have excoriated him as a "turncoat." One could say the Green Camp "has a bee in its bonnet" about anyone becoming a "turncoat," and about anyone "not one of us," who therefore must be "one of them." By contrast, the Blue Camp has a more subtle issue with "traitors." This is a feudal conception of loyalty. As long as these two attitudes persist, politics on Taiwan cannot be rational.

Full Text below:

Former Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing has been appointed Ma administration cabinet minister without portfolio, His former DPP comrades have excoriated him as a "turncoat." One could say the Green Camp "has a bee in its bonnet" about anyone becoming a "turncoat," and about anyone "not one of us," who therefore must be "one of them." By contrast, the Blue Camp has a more subtle issue with "traitors." This is a feudal conception of loyalty. As long as these two attitudes persist, politics on Taiwan cannot be rational.

As Yang Chiu-hsing noted, for politicians to switch political parties is nothing new. In other countries Britain's Winston Churchill and Japan's Ichiro Ozawa changed parties. On Taiwan, former President Lee Teng-hui, Huang Kun-hui, Chen Ming-wen, and Chang Hua-kuan changed parties. The political arena is filled with people who have changed political parties. The fact is, in modern democracies the nation trumps any party, Political parties are voluntary associations. If one remains in agreement, one stays. If one finds oneself in disagreement, one leaves. This ought to be the norm. Conversely, when one puts political party and ideology ahead of all else, and carelessly hurls feudalistic accusations of "turncoat" or "traitor," one is does more harm than good to one's party and one's nation. One merely demonstrates one's indifference to one's nation.

The general election has just concluded. DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen made a commitment during her presidential campaign, one that still rings in our ears. If the Democratic Progressive Party wins office, she vowed, the campaign committee will not be the ruling administration. Not will her administration transcend partisanship, she vowed, it will even form a grand coalition. What does it mean to "transcend partisanship?" What does it mean to "form a coalition?" Doesn't it mean co-operating and communicating with different political parties? Doesn't it mean recruiting the most talented individuals, regardless of party affiliation? When the DPP recruits people from other parties, the DPP praises them as "individuals of talent." But when the KMT recruits people from the DPP, the DPP swiftly denounces them as "turncoats."

The DPP once lacked governing experience. Its ruling administration had a serious shortage of individuals with talent. It desperately needed to transcend partisanship, Only then would these talented individuals be able to contribute at the crucial moment. The most obvious example was Tang Fei. During the 2000 change in ruling parties, the first in the Repubic of China's history, he served as Premier, even though he was ill at the time. The ruling DPP refused to agree to KMT demands for party to party consultations as a precondition of his recruitment. As a result Tang Fei found himself alone in the DPP cabinet for 140 days, after which he was denounced as a "stumbling block" and rushed off the stage. But during this first change in ruling parties, Tang Fei played an crucial role. He reassured the public. He even bolstered the morale of the armed forces. History will remember this.

Another example was Vice President Vincent Siew. When the Democratic Progressive Party was in office, Siew was not part of the government. Yet he was willing to act as economic advisor to the Chen Shui-bian adminstration. The pressing concern was the overall economy. When the DPP government was in office, it appointed New Party official Hau Lung-bin as EPA Chief. Hau defied the local political bosses and cleaned up the Erhjen Creek. As a result, public support for the administration soared. This was the most successful example of DPP transcending partisanship while recruiting talent.

The DPP must seek talent from outside the party. So why not the KMT? The Republic of China during election season may be a nation divided down the middle. But the Ma administration cannot be a government for half the people. The new government and the new cabinet must recruit the most qualified individuals for the job. If it can recruit from other parties, that will surely help it govern the nation. Even though the KMT is a century old political party, the new cabinet is not really a dyed in the wool Kuomintang cabinet. Yang Chiu-hsing was recruited from the DPP. Minister of the Interior Hong-Yuan Lee and MAC Vice Chairman Chen Chang Hsien-yao were recruited from the People First Party. Interior Minister Jiang Yi Hua and the majority of academics in the cabinet are independents.

Of course President Ma Ying-jeou's non-partisan staff have encountered obstacles within the party. In 2008, shortly after Ma took office. he nominated Green Camp leader Shen Fu-hsiung and Chen Hui-chang to the Control Yuan. Ma nominations were sharply rejected by Kuomintang legislators. Tang Fei helped stabilize the political situation. Yet KMT elders were still critical of his decision to serve the DPP. This preoccupation with "traitors" is completely out of touch with modern politics. In ancient times a minister would not serve two masters. But in modern democracies, political parties alternate, Individuals of talent do not belong to any one party, because they served the people.

By comparison, the DPP's preoccupation with "turncoats" is more serious. Party politics is about open competition between different political beliefs. But communications and consultation are also priorities for political parties. Alas, many Green Camp people see competition among political parties as battles between good and evil, between "them" and "us," Therefore they see no middle ground. To them, the KMT is the enemy, Anyone who suggests cooperation and communication with the KMT therefore, is a "traitor" and a "turncoat." Sad to say, political parties may use ideology to evaluate their opponents. But they also use it to persecute their own comrades. When political parties go down such a partisan road, they move farther and farther away from the people.

When Yang Chiu-hsing served as Kaohsiung County Chief, his governance was highly praised. He was referred to as the "five-star county chief," The Ma administration has recruited this individual of talent. The DPP ought to give him its blessing. More importantly, if one day the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will need to draw on talent from the KMT, This should give them pause. When such feudal concepts as "turncoats" and "traitors" persist with the DPP, it is going to have a hard time forming a competent ruling cabinet.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.02.10
社論－背骨？貳臣？現代還需要封建思想？
本報訊

前高雄縣長楊秋興出任新內閣政務委員，昔日民進黨戰友痛批他「背骨」；可以說，綠營有濃厚「背骨」情結：非我族類、其心必異；相對的，藍營則有微妙的「貳臣」情結，這是封建時代的忠君思想；只要這兩種情結還在，台灣就難有理性問政的一天。

正如楊秋興所說，政治人物轉換政黨並非新鮮事。在國外，從邱吉爾到日本的小澤一郎，在台灣，從前總統李登輝以下，到黃昆輝、陳明文、張花冠等人，政壇中轉換政黨者比比皆是，事實上，現代民主國家中，國家高於政黨，政黨是志願性社團，合則來、不合則去，應該是常態；相反的，當有人將政黨、意識形態無限上綱、動輒抬出「背骨」、「貳臣」如此封建的觀念時，則不啻是以黨害國、心中完全沒有國家的存在。

大選才剛結束，民進黨總統候選人蔡英文當時的承諾言猶在耳：如果民進黨執政，競選團隊不代表執政團隊，不但用人要超越黨派，甚至還要組成大聯合政府；何謂超黨派、何謂「聯合」，不就是要能與不同黨派溝通合作、跨黨派拔擢最適人才嗎？總不能民進黨任用他黨人才就是菁英，但被國民黨重用的民進黨人士，就成了「背骨」吧！

事實上，民進黨過去缺乏執政經驗，治國團隊嚴重不足，確實需要跨黨派用人，這些人才也都在關鍵時刻發揮作用。最明顯的例子就是唐飛，他在二千年台灣首次政黨輪替時，毅然抱病出任閣揆，即使當時民進黨政府不同意國民黨中央「黨進黨出」的做法，讓唐飛隻身入閣一百四十天後，就被當成絆腳石、匆匆下台；但是唐飛在台灣首次政黨輪替時，發揮的穩定民心、甚至軍心的關鍵力量，未來的歷史必然要記上一筆。

另一個例子是副總統蕭萬長，民進黨執政時，蕭萬長雖未進入政府，但是他之所以願意出任陳水扁政府的經濟顧問，念茲在茲的還是台灣的經濟大局。另外，民進黨政府當時任用新黨藉的郝龍斌出任環保署長，他不畏地方勢力整治二仁溪等作為，讓其民意支持度一度飆到最高，也是民進黨跨黨派用人的成功典範。

民進黨必須從黨外尋覓人才，國民黨何嘗不是如此？台灣在選舉時也許是一個五十對五十的國家，但馬總統治國，卻不能只做一位百分之五十的總統，因此新政府新內閣，用人除了要適才適所外，若能兼容各黨派，當然有助政府施政。確實，即使國民黨是百年政黨，新閣的國民黨屬性並不強，除了楊秋興曾是民進黨外，內政部長李鴻源、陸委會副主委張顯耀是親民藉，而內政部長江宜樺則和多數剛入閣的學者一樣，都是無黨藉。

當然，總統馬英九的跨黨派用人，也曾在黨內面臨重重阻力，二○○八年他上任後不久，提名屬性偏綠的沈富雄、陳耀昌擔任監委時，就硬生生被國民黨立委否決；唐飛即使對穩定政局有貢獻，國民黨仍有大老對其有微詞；這樣的「貳臣」情結，和現代政治完全脫節，過去是改朝換代，一臣不事二主；但現在是民主國家的政黨輪替，人才不屬於任何黨派，因為他們是為人民服務。

相較起來，民進黨的「背骨」情結更嚴重。政黨政治是本諸不同理念、公平競爭，但溝通協商也是政黨要務，只是，很多綠營人士卻將政黨競爭視為敵我、善惡之爭，因此毫無中間地帶，國民黨形同敵人，和國民黨溝通合作的就是「叛徒」、「背骨」；可悲的是，政黨可以用意識形態來檢驗對手，同樣也可以用來鬥爭同志，當政黨走上這樣黨同伐異的道路，也就離多數民意愈來愈遠。

楊秋興任高雄縣長時，多次得到施政第一的肯定，號稱五星級縣長，馬政府重用這樣的幹才，民進黨何妨祝福；更重要的是，假如有一天民進黨重新執政，屆時勢必也要借重國民黨的人才，他們現在該深思的是，當背骨、貳臣這樣的封建觀念揮之不去，民進黨恐伯無法組成像樣的治國團隊！