Do KMT Legislators Still Expect to Govern?

Do KMT Legislators Still Expect to Govern?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 22, 2012

Summary: The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?

Full Text below:

The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?

The Republic of China is a democracy. Legislative Yuan protests are the norm. But it has never witnessed a legislative session end without the passage of a single bill. The ruling and opposition parties bicker then make up. This has long been their tacit agreement. Less controversial bills are dealt with first. More controversial bills are dealt with last. Legislators negotiate even as they posture. They inevitably pass the bills before the Speaker brings down the gavel. They vote. Either that, or the minority party withdraws in protest and the majority party passes the bill in its absence. This time however, the situation was entirely different, from the very outset. The most controversial U.S. beef imports bill was placed at the very top of the agenda. The DPP decided from the outset not to let the U.S. beef imports bill pass. Sure enough, the day before the five day recess, the DPP forcibly occupied the podium yet again. The opposition DPP deployed its forces. The ruling KMT must respond with equal resolve. Otherwise the public will only be able to look upon the legislature and sigh.

Over 380 bills. Perhaps not all 380 could be placed on the agenda. But surely 38 could have? No matter how incompetent the legislators might be, surely eight bills could have been given priority and passed? Would the DPP have forcibly occupied the legislature in advance? The Legislative Yuan could have dealt with economic issues first. This would have preempted the Democratic Progressive Party's mobilization. But the KMT passed up this opportunity and did nothing. The U.S. beef imports bill failed to pass. Even the typhoon related labor rights paid leave bill failed to pass. Can the majority KMT, the ruling party, completely disown responsibility?

Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng, a KMT legislator without portfolio, said he disapproved of the use of police power. This is his standard disclaimer, and no surprise. Wang refuses to order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to restore order. But why were DPP legislators able to enter the legislature in advance and occupy the podium? Why didn't Wang order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to guard the podium in advance? Was Wang concerned that a phalanx of of Sargeants at Arms arrayed before the podium might hurt our image as a democracy? If so, why didn't Wang allow KMT legislators to enter the legislature in advance? The DPP has 40 legislators. Half of them were able to occupy the podium. Couldn't the KMT with 64 legislators find 20 legislators to enter the legislature in advance to prevent the podium from being occupied? Suppose the situation were reversed? Suppose KMT legislators were lined up on the podium to prevent it from being occupied? Would the DPP dare resort to violence? Would it dare drag them off the podium or [punch them with their fists?

Put bluntly, KMT legislator never had any intention of mobilizing. Their response was half-hearted. Their "Grade A Mobilization Order" just before the recess was nothing more than a "Grade P (for Phony) Mobilization Order." Even DPP legislator Chiu Yee Ying, who was undergoing chemotherapy, traveled north to Taipei to take part. The KMT could not mobilize even 40 legislators. The failed to match the DPP even in numbers. Their majority is nothing more than "a plate of loose sand." How can they possibly govern? The public blasted the DPP, saying it "collected its pay but refused to meet, ate its fill then returned to sleep." But at least they all showed up. Where was the KMT? Some say Blue Camp legislators were under pressure from their local constituent. They were afraid the DPP would demand their recall. They had no choice but to adopt a passive stance on U.S. beef imports. But U.S. beef imports was hardly the only issue. The real issue is whether KMT legislators are good for anything whatsoever? If over half the KMT legislators are useless, then a DPP recall motion is unnecessary. Blue Camp supporters will be angry enough to demand their recall. Their election victories were utterly meaningless. They might as well be recalled and replaced.

The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the KMT originally intended to convene an emergency meeting over the US beef imports issue. The typhoon led to a postponement until July. The KMT legislative caucus has been mocked as "unable to keep it up for even ten minutes." If it persists in doing nothing when the legislature reconvenes, the majority party will become a laughing stock. Whether the U.S. beef imports bill will pass remains unknown. The Minister of Finance has stepped down. The capital gains tax will come to nothing. The terms for NCC commissioners will expire at the end of July. The president's NCC commissioner nominations are on hold. The new commissioners are unavailable. The old commissioners have already returned to academia. Visualize the following scenario. The Ma administration's NCC nominees are unable to review cases, perhaps because they lack a quorum, The legislators nominated by the KMT are unable to review bills. The re-elected Ma administration has been idle for four months. Does it intend to remain idle for four years? When their leadership has come to this, what is there left for the public to say?

Many years ago violent physical clashed in the legislature led to comprehensive re-elections. The ROC transitioned to true democracy. Over 20 years have passed since comprehensive Legislative Yuan re-elections were held. The nation has undergone not one, but two changes in ruling parties. Do the ruling and opposition parties intend to continue playing this childish "King of the Hill" game? At home DPP legislators gobble down U.S. beef. Inside the legislature they oppose US beef imports. Inside the legislature they oppose nuclear power generation. Inside the legislature and at home they turn their air conditioners on full blast. They say one thing while doing another. The KMT must find the resolve to expose the DPP's lies, and the hypocrisy of its "occupy" theatrics. If the KMT cannot pass even this hurdle, then the Ma administration will not be able to get anything passed over the next four years. The Ma administration will find the going rough. But four years later, it will be replaced by someone else. Unfortunately over the next four years, the public on Taiwan will need to live. The public on Taiwan likes efficiency and order. It will not tolerate ineffective rule. KMT legislators must think clearly. You are each members of the ruling party caucus, Can you really sit idly by and shirk responsibility?

中國時報 　2012.06.22
社論－再擺爛，國民黨立委還想執政？
本報訊

    　剛結束的立法院會期，可謂一事無成！三百八十五個法案全部擺爛，包括爭議數月的美牛案，民進黨以超乎比例原則的抗爭方式，從夜宿議場到五花大綁議長席，各界批評多矣！然而，做為過半數的執政黨，國民黨的議事策略更值得檢討，如果少數黨抗爭都能鬧到法案全數卡住，此例一開形同「少數執政」，將使馬政府寸步難行，令不出府院，台灣還有何前景可言？

    　台灣是民主社會，立法院議事抗爭更是常態，但從來沒有會期結束前一案都未過的例子。朝野在打打和和中，早就建立一定的默契，爭議少的議案排前面，爭議大的案子擺後面，邊談邊表決，實在沒辦法還是能在議長敲槌散會前打一架通過、表決通過、或少數退席抗議聲中通過。這一次，從沙盤推演起就和過往完全不同，爭議最大的美牛案擺第一，民進黨從一開始就鎖定不能讓美牛案過關，果然在五天延會期前一天就進場綁架議長席，在野陣仗既已擺開，多數執政的國民黨若不強力排除，就只能望議場而興嘆。

    　三百八十多項法案，不要說全部排進院會，總找得到卅八個法案吧，再不濟，找出八個法案列為優先法案，民進黨還會提前封鎖議場嗎？院會議事進度民生為先，至少破解民進黨動員先機，國民黨捨此不為，結果，不但美牛案過不了，連與勞工權益息息相關的颱風有薪假的修法案都過不了，過半數執政的國民黨又豈能完全卸責？

    　身為國民黨不分區立委的立法院長王金平不認同動用警察權，這是他一貫的理念，不足為怪，但是，駐衛警可以不動手，為什麼民進黨立委可以提早進場綁住議長席，立法院駐衛警不能提前進場護衛議長席呢？如果擔心議長席前一字排開都是警察，於民主形象有損，那麼國民黨立委總可以提前進場吧？民進黨四十位立委，半數就能綁架議場，難道六十四席立委的國民黨就找不到廿位立委進場護衛議長席嗎？情境轉換，如果今天是國民黨立委一字排開站在主席台前護駕，民進黨膽敢再冒暴力政黨的風險上前拉人或打人嗎？

    　說穿了，國民黨立委從一開始就動員無心，反抗爭無力，延會結束前的「甲級動員令」，不折不扣成了「假級動員令」！民進黨團連化療中的立委邱議瑩都北上，國民黨卻四十席立委都動員不到，連數人頭都敗陣，多數竟成為一盤散沙，談何執政？民進黨被輿論批評為「領錢不開會，吃飽繼續睡」，好歹全員進場，國民黨立委人都在哪裡？有人說藍委選區壓力大，擔心民進黨發動罷免，只能對美牛案消極以對，但這已經不只是美牛案的問題，還是國民黨立委到底有沒有作用的問題，如果過半數都無用，不必民進黨發動罷免，藍營支持者也會氣到呼應罷免，與其選出來毫無作用，不如罷免換人算了！

    　為了美牛案，府院黨原本有意加開一天臨時會，剛巧碰到颱風順延到七月，如果國民黨立院黨團屆時依舊意興闌珊，甚至被譏嘲「撐不了十分鐘」，這樣的多數黨就等著被人看笑話了。美牛案能否過關猶在未定之天，鬧到財政部長下台的證所稅案肯定不了了之，還有七月底任期即將屆滿的ＮＣＣ人事案，全部都擺著，新人不來舊人泰半歸建回學校，想想看這個場景，馬政府任命的ＮＣＣ委員不審案或者未過半數不能審案，國民黨提名的立法委員也不能審案，馬政府連任當選已經空轉四個月，難不成還要空轉四年？領導統御至此，台灣人民夫復何言！

    　當年，國會肢體衝突抗爭為的是全面改選，為的是台灣真正民主轉型，國會全面改選已經廿年過去，政黨輪替都已經兩次了，朝野還要玩焦土抗爭這種幼稚的遊戲嗎？民進黨立委場外吃美牛，場內反美牛，議場內外喊反核，議場家裡都大開冷氣，軟弱不能求和，要戳破民進黨建構在謊言上的抗爭，國民黨得拿出實力和本事，這一關都過不了，未來四年馬政府什麼都甭過了。馬政府不好過，頂多四年後再次政黨輪替，問題是，未來四年台灣人民還有生活要過，習慣效率與節奏的台灣人，不會長期忍受無效能的執政，國民黨立委可得想清楚，自己也是執政團隊的一員，豈能放手無視肩頭上的責任！