Ma/Su Meeting Will Birth a Dialogue Mechanism

Ma/Su Meeting Will Birth a Dialogue Mechanism
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 8, 2012

Summary: A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.

Full Text below:

A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.

Party politics is one of the foundations of a democratic society. Checks and balances between political parties are a safety mechanism to avoid excessive concentrations of power, and deviations from national policy. But the Taiwan Region of the Republic of China is different from other countries. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan clash over national identity. Their conflicts revolve around the definition of the nation and whether people are "loyal to Taiwan." The conflicts are too fierce and the stakes are too high. Compromise is nearly impossible. This leads to deeper social divisions and undermines national unity.

Over the years, arguments have raged over "who loves Taiwan," "who is selling out Taiwan," "who is defending Taiwan," and "who is harming Taiwan." This unnecessary and pointless infighting has made progress on Taiwan impossible. By contrast, look  at the other Asian Tigers, at South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Every one of them is progressing by leaps and bounds. They have all left Taiwan in the dust. International competition is fierce. The global economic outlook is bleak. Can Taiwan really afford to engage in such internal squabbling?

Political struggle is often a zero-sum game. No wonder politicians are often reluctant to set the ball and allow someone else to spike it. Ruling and opposition party interactions are inevitably the result of careful political calculation about whether they will win points for their side. Which party is putting the public good ahead of the party's good? Which party is worrying only about its own interests? Which party is ignoring whether the nation survives or perishes? The people are watching. They will decide. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan stand in fierce opposition to each other. They lack dialogue. They ignore right and wrong. They oppose each other blindly. They remain locked in a vicious and mutually destructive struggle. Whoever wins office will have a hard time getting anything done.

In fact, the ruling and opposition parties do not really need to oppose each other so fiercely. We are all in the same boat. There is no need to sink it out of mutual spite. The leaders of the two major parties should sit down and exchange views. This would help ease ruling vs opposition party tensions.

When Chen Shui-bian was president, he and Ma Ying-jeou held two Chen/Ma meetings. The first time was on April 3, 2006. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou visited the United States, returned, then requested a meeting with Chen Shui-bian, to offer him some suggestions on cross-Strait policy. The second time was on April 1, 2008. Ma Ying-jeou was then president-elect. During these two meetings, Chen and Ma clashed over whether or not there was a 1992 consensus. Sparks flew. But after the first Chen/Ma meeting, then Premier Su Tseng-chang expressed his approval. He encouraged the ruling and opposition parties to dialogue often, "because we all want the best for Taiwan."

When Ma Ying-jeou became president, the dialogue between the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties stopped. The Presidential Office repeatedly expressed its willingness to talk with DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. But Tsai repeatedly refused. The Two Yings finally met during the presidential campaign, when they debated ECFA. But the debate was televised. It came across as a warm-up match to the presidential election. Each side spoke its peace. Each side appealed to its own constituents. Neither side listened to what the other had to say or sought common ground.

During the presidential campaign Ma Ying-jeou promised that if re-elected, he would issue an invitation to opposition party leaders every six months, to discuss the affairs of state. When Su Tseng-chang was elected DPP Chairman, President Ma phoned him, congratulating him on his victory. President Ma invited Su to meet with him to talk. Su Tseng-chang did not turn him down. Su even said "The KMT and DPP should talk about how to increase the general welfare. If a Ma/Su meeting can achieve this goal, there is no reason to refuse." He apparently favored a Ma/Su meeting. The public would welcome a face to face meeting between the ruling and opposition party leaders

No one is naive enough to think that the chairmen of the KMT and DPP can meet and melt away their differences with a smile. No one is naive enough to think that the opposition party will no longer denounce the ruling party in the Legislative Yuan. But the ruling and opposition parties are important assets to the politics of democracy. Each has considerable public support. If the leaders are willing to meet and communicate, that expresses respect for their rivals. It also expresses respect for the public. They will not be able to reach a consensus on many issues. But it will not hurt to listen to each others thoughts, and to admit that we all share a common goal - Taiwan's survival, growth, and dignity. Our goals are the same. Therefore we should communicate more about policy. The administration wants to promote reforms. It should speak to the opposition parties. It should listen to what they have to say.

Taiwan is our common destiny. We have no internal enemies. Political parties must compete. But they must not engage in vicious infighting. Ruling and opposition party leaders should consider the expectations of the public. They should consider the future of the nation. They should seek mechanisms that enable political parties to move forward, together.

催生馬蘇會 建立對話互動機制
2012-06-08
中國時報

本報日前所做民調顯示，有高達六六％的民眾期待馬蘇對話。在相當程度上，這反映出民意對藍綠長期惡鬥，以致國家元氣虛耗、在國際競爭中節節落後的憂心。政黨之間固然必須爭奪政治版圖，但民眾要的是良性競爭，而不是惡鬥不斷，朝野政黨領袖應該積極回應民意的期待。

政黨政治是民主社會的基礎之一，政黨之間的監督制衡，也是避免權力過度集中及政策偏失的安全機制。不過，和其他國家不同的是，台灣藍綠政黨的最大對立點是國家定位，環繞著國家定義及對台灣忠誠度的爭論，因為上綱層次太高，衝突太過重大，難有妥協空間，帶動的社會分裂也更為深化，對國家團結的傷害至為嚴重。

多年來，為了誰愛台、誰賣台、誰衛台、誰害台，台灣的前進腳步被這些無謂又無意義的內鬥綁得寸步難行。反觀昔日亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，哪一個不是早已飛奔向前，把台灣遠遠甩到後方？在國際競爭如此激烈、未來全球經濟前景堪憂下，台灣還有本錢耽於內耗嗎？

政治之爭常常是零和遊戲，也難怪政治人物往往不願替對手做球，朝野政黨的任何互動，都要先在政治算盤上打個仔細，看能替自己加分多少。但究竟誰真的把全民福祉置於優先，誰只顧自己利益不管國家死活，老百姓終究也會有個評價。台灣藍綠政黨激烈對立、缺乏對話、不問是非一味反對的做法，已經讓政局鎖死在惡性互動中，在這種相互糾纏乃至相互毀滅下，坦白說，誰當家都很難做事。

其實，朝野兩黨實在不必如此仇恨不共載天，我們都在同一條船上，不必鬥到不讓任何人開船。兩黨領導人如果能坐下來交換意見溝通看法，對緩和朝野對立應會有相當幫助。

過去在陳水扁擔任總統時，曾經舉行過兩次「扁馬會」。第一次是在二○○六年四月三日，國民黨主席的馬英九訪美歸來，主動要求與陳水扁會晤，希望就兩岸政策提出建言。第二次是在二○○八年四月一日，馬英九已經成了總統當選人。這兩次會晤，扁馬都對究竟有無「九二共識」針鋒相對，激辯得火花四射。不過，第一次「扁馬會」後，當時的行政院長蘇貞昌曾經表示肯定，並表示非常歡迎、鼓勵朝野常常對話，「因為大家都是為了台灣好」。

到了馬英九就任總統後，朝野政黨領導人的對話始終停擺。總統府方面曾多次表達願意與民進黨主席蔡英文會談，不過一直未獲首肯，直到雙英針對ＥＣＦＡ舉行辯論，這才算是有碰到面談上了話。不過當時採取電視辯論會的形式，宛如一場大選熱身賽，各自陳述立場爭取支持，多過於傾聽對方尋找交集。

馬英九這次大選前曾經宣示，連任後每半年將邀在野領袖共商國是。蘇貞昌當選民進黨主席當晚，就接了馬總統的道賀電話，而且對於馬總統的對話邀約，蘇貞昌在第一時間並未回絕，稍後還表示「當前國、民兩黨應該為增加社會福祉對話，馬蘇會若能達到這個目標，就不必迴避。」感覺對「馬蘇會」的態度似乎比較正面，如果能夠因此促成朝野領導人的面對面溝通，應該為民眾所樂見。

沒有人會天真到以為國、民兩黨主席碰個面就能一笑泯恩仇，從此立法院不再吵架在野黨不再罵政府。但朝野政黨都是民主政治的重要資產，也各自代表了相當的民意基礎，領導人願意見面溝通，不只是對於對手政黨的尊重，更是對對方背後的民意表示敬意。雖然必定會有許多問題無法取得共識，但也不妨聽聽對方的想法，並且承認大家都有共同的目標─台灣的生存、發展與尊嚴。既然方向一致，對於政策的溝通，其實可以做得更多。政府想推動的改革方案，也不妨先與在野黨對話，聽取對方的意見做為參考。

台灣是我們共同的命運，我們的內部沒有敵人，政黨必須競爭，但不能流於惡鬥。朝野政黨領袖應該慎重思考民意的期待，為國家發展著想，尋找一個能讓大家一起向前邁進的政黨互動機制。