Non-Partisan Perspective on Major Policy Issues

Non-Partisan Perspective on Major Policy Issues
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 7, 2012

Summary: Amidst intense controversy, the Sean Chen cabinet has set forth four conditions for U.S. beef imports. If we examine these conditions, we find they are not that different from the conditions set forth by the Chen administration when it allowed US beef imports in mid-2007. Basically it follows Japan's dual track approach. The difference today is that the roles of the two parties have been reversed. The Ma administration has gone from being the opposition party, to being the ruling party responsible for making policy. The DPP has gone from advocating US beef imports to opposing them.

Full Text below:

Amidst intense controversy, the Sean Chen cabinet has set forth four conditions for U.S. beef imports. If we examine these conditions, we find they are not that different from the conditions set forth by the Chen administration when it allowed US beef imports in mid-2007. Basically it follows Japan's dual track approach. The difference today is that the roles of the two parties have been reversed. The Ma administration has gone from being the opposition party, to being the ruling party responsible for making policy. The DPP has gone from advocating US beef imports to opposing them.

Such a change in policy positions may be informed by the two parties' status as ruling and opposition parties. But it also reveals the shallowness of partisan politics on Taiwan, It leads to chronic missteps in political debate and decision making. In theory, the ruling party must consider the larger interests of the nation. When faced with incompatible alternatives it must weigh the pros and cons and make difficult choices. Opposition parties do not bear this burden, They can dig in their heels on any issue they choose. As long as they can embarrass the ruling party, they can score points. But when faced with major national issues, the ruling and opposition parties must find an alternative to gridlock.

Take the clenbuterol and ractopamine controversy, If the issue were only national health and national dignity, then of course, we should not compromise. But the United States has linked U.S. beef imports to the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). If we fail to resolve the clenbuterol and ractopamine controversy, far-reaching bilateral economic and trade agreements will be put on indefinite hold. This is the point at which the ruling and opposition parties must modify their position. They must agree not to undermine national health, then find a way to ensure the safety of US beef imports. That must be their priority. Japan and Korea have provided us with excellent examples of how to handle the U.S. beef imports controversy.

Five years ago the Blue Camp opposed the import of clenbuterol and ractopamine treated US beef. This led to the Ma administration's current dilemma. This offers us a profound lesson. Now take the DPP. When it was the ruling party it insisted that ractopamine was "safe." It went so far as to secretly discontinue inspections. Today the shoe is on the other foot. The DPP is now blasting the Ma administration for selling out the nation's health. The DPP was initially respectful, but later obdurate. It was also self-contradictory. Worse still, the Ma administration allowed the import of US beef containing clenbuterol and ractopamine out of concern for the nation's larger economic and trade interests. The Chen administration discontinued inspections of U.S. beef containing clenbuterol and ractopamine in exchange for allowing Chen Shui-bian to transit the United States. The motives in the two cases were hardly comparable.

Nor was U.S. beef imports the only issue. In recent years, political parties have flip-flopped repeatedly, They have contradicted themselves endlessly. Among them, the DPP has been the worst. The most notorious examples are the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant project, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, and subsidies for elderly farmers. In every one of these cases the Green Camp said one thing while in power, and another thing when it was out. It repudiated everything it said before. It disregarded the immense price paid by the nation and by society.

The DPP finds it easy to indulge in these inconsistencies. The main reason is its incorrect understanding of the role of an opposition party. During its early years the DPP opposed anything and everything the government did. Doing so enabled it to break the KMT's monopoly on power. As a result it concluded, incorrectly, that the raison d'etre of an opposition party is obstructionism. The DPP concluded, incorrectly, that only by singing a different tune can it check and balance the power of the ruling KMT. Such reasoning betrays an immature and irrational political consciousness. When carried to the extreme, it is often harmful to the national interest. Moreover, the DPP was the ruling party for eight years. It made who knows how many decisions. Now it finds itself in the opposition. If it now persists in irrational obstructionism, in utter disregard of the larger national interest. it merely exposes its own capriciousness, its lack of enduring convictions, its lack of guiding principles.

Advanced democracies long ago arrived at non-partisan/bipartisan means of compromise in order to solve major national controversies. When ruling party change becomes the norm. opportunities that arise while one in the opposition, become obstacles when one is in power. That is why political parties must begin by considering the national interest. That is why they must adhere to their core values. On U.S. beef imports in particular, the ruling and opposition parties must be on the same page. They must ensure food import safety. They must implement TIFA, This is the real "Taiwan consensus." They must not engage in bloody internecine conflict. Otherwise the ruling and opposition parties will each go their own way, provoking public anxiety. In the end, the government will still be forced to open the doors to U.S. beef imports. The opposition might get some small pleasure out of drawing blood. But would it be in the nation's interest?

Party interests must not trump the national interest. This is the basic premise behind non-partisan consultation. This is how the ruling and opposition parties must begin to think about national affairs. In 2007 COA chairman Su Chia-chuan spoke out on the U.S. beef imports controversy. He said that medical experts have proven that clenbuterol and ractopamine are beneficial to the livestock industry. Therefore banning clenbuterol and ractopanine is unreasonable. At the time Ma Ying-jeou, who was running for president, vowed to protect the public health, He opposed the double standard for clenbuterol and ractopamine, which banned pork but not beef. Today the two sides have switched places, They may wish to rethink their positions before and after. Consider this a lesson for both the ruling and opposition parties, one that hopefully will teach them the value of transcending partisanship.

以超黨派視野面對國家重大議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.07 01:56 am

在漫天爭議中，陳?內閣就美國牛肉安全性提出四項條件，作為開放進口的管理方向。仔細比較，這些條件和二○○七年扁政府計畫開放美牛的構思，其實沒有太大差異，走的都是日本的「雙軌制」。不同的是，如今朝野角色對調，馬政府從當年的反對者變成決策者，民進黨則從主張開放站到了反方。

這樣的立場轉變，雖是執政與在野的角色易位使然，卻也說明了我國政黨政治文化的淺薄，導致政治論辯和決策的顛躓反覆。理論上，執政黨必須有整體的國家治理考量，在面對難以兩全的選擇時，必須權衡大局理出輕重得失，作出取捨。在野黨則無此負擔，可以在單一議題上全力杯葛，只要讓執政者難堪，自己就能得分。問題是，面對國家重大議題時，朝野除了對立，難道沒有第二條路可走？

以瘦肉精議題為例，若只從國民健康及主權尊嚴的立場看，當然不該有任何妥協。然而，當美方將美牛和美台貿易暨投資架構協定（ＴＩＦＡ）掛勾，不解決瘦肉精問題，影響深遠的雙邊經貿協定即無限期擱置；此時，朝野談論問題的視野自須隨之調整，如何在不損及國民健康的前提下一致對外，尋求最周全的進口管理，才是重要主軸。這些，從日、韓處理美牛問題的先例，都提供了極佳借鏡。

對馬政府而言，藍軍五年前杯葛瘦肉精開放，導致今天自己窮於面對此一棘手難題，當然是一個深刻的教訓。反觀民進黨，當年執政時聲稱萊克多巴胺是「安全的」，甚至私下偷偷解除了瘦肉精的行政檢驗；今天卻倒轉立場，反咬馬政府出賣國民健康，不僅前恭後倨，且自我矛盾。尤有甚者，馬政府今天開放瘦肉精，是著眼於台灣更大的經貿利益；而扁政府當初停驗美牛瘦肉精，只是為了交換陳水扁過境美國，兩者的用心設想，不能同日而語。

不僅美牛議題如此，近年來，政黨政策立場反覆不定、甚至自我矛盾的事件層出不窮；其中，尤以民進黨更為嚴重。最有名的例子，如核四案、國光石化案、老農津貼案等，無一不是綠色執政時說一套，在野時又全盤推翻，絲毫不考慮國家、社會付出的巨大成本。

民進黨之所以如此易於出爾反爾，主要原因是對「反對黨」角色作了錯誤解讀。民進黨早年靠著千方百計的杯葛和抵制，突破了國民黨的一黨獨大，這使它誤以為反對黨的角色就只有杯葛，以為只有和執政黨唱反調才是民主制衡。這種想法，其實並不是真正成熟、理性的政治態度，一旦推到極端，更往往會危害國家利益。更何況，民進黨有過執政八年的歷史，經手的決策不知凡幾；若一味為反對而反對，不顧國家整體利益，只會暴露自己的反覆無常，缺乏一貫信念及中心思想。

事實上，觀察先進民主國家的做法，早就發展出一套「超黨派」（Bipartisan）的妥協方式，來解決國家的重大爭議。亦即，一旦政黨輪替成為常態，所有在野時遇到的「機會」，都會成為自己在朝時的「風險」；那麼，政黨在思考問題時就不能不從更高的國家利益出發，並掌握自己的核心價值。在美牛這種問題上，朝野政黨更重要的是一致對外，做好進口把關，以便向ＴＩＦＡ進發，這才是最大的「台灣共識」，而不是只會在內部自相殘殺。否則，以目前朝野的各說各話繼續發展，民眾的恐慌被煽起，而政府最後仍得向美牛開放門戶，結果在野黨賺到了一點殺伐的快感，那會更符合台灣的利益嗎？

政黨的利益，不該高於國家的利益，這是「超黨派」協商的基本思維，也是朝野學習思考國家大政的出發點。二○○七年，農委會主委蘇嘉全面對美牛問題時說，若醫療單位證明使用瘦肉精對畜牧業有幫助，「禁瘦肉精就沒道理」；而正在競選總統的馬英九則聲言要維護國民健康，反對瘦肉精「禁豬不禁牛」的一國兩制。如今，雙方易地而處，不妨好好想想自己立場的前後顛躓變化，就當作朝野共同學習超越黨派的一課吧！