Will Pummeling the Ma Administration Move Taiwan Forward?

Will Pummeling the Ma Administration Move Taiwan Forward?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 21, 2012

Summary: DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price.

Full Text below:

Ma Ying-jeou's second term has just begun. But he is already on the ground, having been beaten black and blue. The opposition DPP and TSU say no to every proposal the administration puts forth. They have sunk their teeth into the U.S. beef imports issue and refuse to let go. Nor is public opinion on Ma Ying-jeou's side. The Ma administration wants to debate the issues but lacks the energy. KMT legislators want to duke it out but lack the strength. Other economies are racing ahead. Taiwan continues to stand still. How is this good for the people?

DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. The emergency session of the legislature meanwhile, has been postponed to mid-July due to typhoons. The Food Sanitation Management Act, the capital gains tax, NCC personnel appointments, and other bills have all been delayed. When can they be reviewed? No one knows. The last time DPP legislators occupied the legislature, they won. Naturally they want to consolidate their victory. President Ma has told KMT legislators that no matter how fearful they might be, they must act. Fortunately, the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) meeting in early July will arrive at a decision regarding Ractopamine. Taiwan will then have a more objective basis for dealing with the issue. Currently there is no room for rational debate. Can chaos in the legislature be avoided? No one knows.

The Republic of China, obviously, is already a democracy. Our vote determines who will be president and which party will be in power. If candidates are willing to play, they must be willing to lose. If candidates participate in elections, they must be willing to accept the judgment of the voters. The most basic principle of democracy is that the minority must defer to the majority, the majority must respect the minority. The key to political representation is for voters to elect their representatives. The political parties will then determine whether a bill will pass by voting according to the number of seats they occupy in the legislature.

Voters elect the legislators. This determines which party will be the majority party in the Legislative Yuan and which party will be the minority party. When the ruling and opposition parties express their positions on an issue, the voters are expressing their positions. Why then, during the U.S. beef imports controversy did DPP legislators imagine they had a right to occupy the podium, seal off the hall, and ignore the voice of the people, as expressed in the number of ruling and opposition party seats in the legislature?

Votes taken by the so-called "ten thousand year parliament" lacked a public mandate. Physical conflict against the "old brigands" was to some degree understandable. But the Legislative Yuan today is popularly elected. Every legislator has a public mandate. None of them is special. None of them has the right to ignore democratic majority rule. If a political party is unable to win a vote in the legislature because it holds fewer seats, what right does it have to use brute force to prevent a vote? What right does it have to its violent behavior? Do the ballots voters cast mean nothing? Is the only thing that matters a political party's fists?

Currently the Ma administration is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. It has failed at communicating its decision-making. It has failed at explaining its policy implementation. It too needs self-examination. It cannot lay all the blame on a public backlash. Many Democratic Progressive Party officials think as long as they can bring Ma down, the DPP will benefit. In any event, they reason, it costs nothing to snipe at Ma. No matter what, they will come out ahead. As long as they can trip up Ma, that is a DPP victory. Seeing the Ma administration pummeled by the public is an opportunity too good to pass up. So why pass it up? This is why DPP legislators are taking such a tough stance. This is why they are unwilling to allow the KMT to take the next step.

But such strategies of confrontation are destructive. They are contrary to the principle of democratic elections. They are just plain irresponsible. Ractopamine has never been proven to harm human health. Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have ingested it for decades without incident. The DPP opposes Ractopamine to the bitter end. But why is it silent on the known harm from tobacco, alcohol, and betel nuts? The DPP frequently blasts the Ma administration for "leaning too far toward [Mainland] China." It claims that the Ma administration's record for signing free trade agreements (FTAs) is weak. It knows perfectly well that without U.S. beef imports the Taipei-Washington TIFA talks cannot resume. An FTA or TPP between Taipei and Washington is even more unthinkable. Yet it persists in standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. What kind of mentality is this?

In fact DPP legislators are not really standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. U.S. beef imports are merely a tool to mobilize fundamentalist supporters. The DPP's real goal is to stand in the way of Ma Ying-jeou, to bring his administration to a grinding halt. Even if it means sacrificing Taiwan's trade opportunities and economic future.

Is this a responsible attitude? Opposition parties have no ruling authority. But they have a responsibility to promote national prosperity. They may not gloat over developments that will harm the nation's future. They may not ignore Taiwan's survival merely to ensure their own political party's survival.

The people must learn to recognize responsible and irresponsible behavior. They must understand that political tactics must comport with the principles of democracy. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price. Irresponsible words and deeds, by either the ruling or opposition parties, cannot be condoned.

打趴馬政府 台灣就能前進？
2012-06-21 01:34
中國時報

馬英九的第二任期才開始，就已經幾乎被打到趴，在野黨無事不反，逮到了個美牛議題更是卯足全力大反特反，民氣也全不在馬英九身邊，政府欲辯乏力，國民黨立委欲戰無力。其他國家都在拚命往前跑，台灣卻始終原地空轉，這豈是全民之福？

立法院在民進黨立委封鎖議場五天後休會，臨時會又因颱風而延期到七月中旬，食品衛生管理法、證所稅、ＮＣＣ人事案等法案繼續耽擱下去。什麼時候能審查通過，沒人敢樂觀。民進黨立委挾上次占領議場的勝績，當然要鞏固戰果；國民黨立委奉馬主席強力指示，再腳軟也不能沒有動作。所幸的是，聯合國食品法典委員會（Codex）七月上旬的會議如果對萊克多巴胺有個結論，台灣在處理時就有個較為客觀的依據，也許不致像現在幾無理性討論的空間。但即使如此，屆時是不是能避免議事衝突混亂，猶未可知。

其實，台灣明明已經是個民主國家，由選民一票一票決定誰當總統、哪個政黨執政。願賭服輸，既從政參選，就要接受選民的裁判。而民主的最基本原則，就是少數服從多數，多數尊重少數。代議政治的重點，就是由選民選出民意代表，然後各政黨依其席次在國會透過表決來可否法案。

選民投票選出了立委，也因此決定了立法院裡的多數黨與少數黨，這種朝野態勢，其實也就是人民的意志產品，那麼，為什麼之前為了阻擋美牛案，民進黨立委認為自己有權以占領主席台、封鎖議場等極端手段，推翻基於人民意志而形成的朝野席次差距？

昔日萬年國會時立法院缺乏民意基礎，以肢體衝突對抗老賊多數暴力還說得過去，但現在立法院是民選的，每個委員都一樣有民意授權，沒有誰特別崇高到可以不遵守民主多數決原則。如果因為席次居少數，表決贏不了，就強行阻撓議事，這種行為有什麼正當性？又有什麼值得洋洋得意的？難道人民投票是投假的，只有拳頭才算數？

馬政府現在動輒得咎，似乎做什麼都會被罵，但決策溝通不力在先，政策說明無方在後，自己實在也有許多需要檢討反省的地方，不能怪民怨起反彈。而許多民進黨人士認為，把馬打下去，民進黨就會得利，反正打馬不花本錢，也不會有損失，罵到賺到，絆住馬的施政腳步，就是民進黨的勝利，眼看著馬政府被民怨叮得滿頭包，不趁這個良機窮追猛打，豈不虧到了。所以民進黨立委擺出強硬姿態，不願意給台階讓國民黨好好下。

但這種毀滅性的對抗策略，不但違背民主票決原則，也是不負責任的。萊克多巴胺從未有案例證明會影響人體健康，美國數億人口吃了幾十年也都沒出事，民進黨如果對萊克多巴胺如此抵死反對，那麼對明確為害更甚的菸、酒、檳榔，為何又默不作聲？民進黨經常批評馬政府過度傾中，指責馬政府簽署自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）的成績乏善可陳，卻又在明知美牛案不過台美ＴＩＦＡ便無法重啟、台美ＦＴＡ或ＴＰＰ更是想都別想時，仍然一味阻擋美牛案，這又是什麼心理？

其實，民進黨立委哪裡是在卡美牛，美牛只是個很好動員基本群眾的工具，真正的目的，無非是要卡馬英九，要把馬政府打到動彈不得。即使是以攸關台灣生存的經貿機會為代價，也在所不惜。

這是負責任的態度嗎？在野黨雖然沒有執政權，但對國家發展一樣應該有責任感，對於會嚴重戕害國家生機的事，絕對不該幸災樂禍，尤其不能為了自己的政治生命而不管台灣死活。

民眾必須學習認識什麼是負責任、什麼是不負責任的行為，並且了解政治運作應該遵守民主基本原則，在野黨並沒有無限制抗爭杯葛的權利，一味反對以致把執政當局綑綁得動彈不得，讓國家虛耗空轉，終將令全民付出沉重代價。不負責任的言行，無論朝野，都不應該被縱容。