Reform or Infighting: Ma Ying-jeou as Party Chairman

Reform or Infighting: Ma Ying-jeou as Party Chairman
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 23, 2013

Summary: Everywhere storm clouds are gathering. The KMT leadership has declared that it will increase the number of votes that Ma Ying-jeou receives during the July party chairman election. KMT legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan, on the other hand, has questioned the legality of a Ma Ying-jeou third term.

Full text below:

Everywhere storm clouds are gathering. The KMT leadership has declared that it will increase the number of votes that Ma Ying-jeou receives during the July party chairman election. KMT legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan, on the other hand, has questioned the legality of a Ma Ying-jeou third term.

This question has a bearing on both KMT infighting and Blue vs. Green partisan wrangling. It may be difficult to resolve, especially since it has legal implications. If Ma remains in the running until the bitter end, dissent will remain vocal. If Ma is re-elected, legal actions could follow. If Ma withdraws his candidacy, his supporters will lament his failure to live up to his potential. His political enemies will pile on. Each of these scenarios have already been scripted. The outcomes are predictable. Suppose they result in party insiders blocking Ma's reelection as party chairman. Suppose the DPP attempts to impeach the president? What will happen then?

The Ma administration finds itself in a pickle. To say that he is an inept leader of the Kuomintang may be an overstatement. Essentially Ma Ying-jeou has never been an effective leader of the KMT legislative caucus. His communicates with the KMT legislative caucus primarily as party chairman. Ma Ying-jeou is currently KMT party chairman. But suppose Ma Ying-jeou steps down? What will happen then?

The divisions between Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT legislative caucus first appeared in 2008. The legislature refused to approve his personnel appointments for the Control Yuan an the Examination Yuan. His Sunshine Bill was seriously compromised, and led to outside criticism. This forced Ma Ying-jeou to renege on his promise, and personally assume the party chairmanship. The most important task during President Ma's first term was cross-Strait relations, including issues such as ECFA. As a result, Blue vs. Green partisan wrangling overshadowed KMT infighting. But during Ma's second term, U.S. beef imports, capital gains taxes, gasoline price hikes and electricity rate hikes, year-end condolence payments for veterans, retired civil servants, retired public school teachers, and the issue of pensions, led to both KMT infighting and Blue vs. Green partisan wrangling. Ma Ying-jeou found himself faced with crises within and without. He found himself surrounded by enemies, both front and back. This and his inability to communicate and express himself, resulted in his losing the bully pulpit.

Tsai Cheng-yuan's challenge comes in "legal issue" guise. It appears to be "strictly a matter of the law." In fact, it is a plain and simple political struggle. It is KMT infighting that is certain to lead to Blue vs. Green partisan wrangling. Legal issues can be settled in court. But the KMT must clarify what this wave of anti-Ma, depose Ma sentiment is really about. At the very least, it must make clear whether the agenda is reform, or merely a pretext for infighting.

The first distinction between reform and infighting pertains to one's philosophy of governance. The Ma administration's policy theme has four parts. The first is cross-Strait relations. The second is opposition to corruption. The third is support for an independent judiciary. The fourth is responding to the pressures of history. For example, capital gains taxes, gasoline price hikes, electricity rate hikes, 12 year compulsory education, nuclear power generation, and government pensions. On the first three items, the Ma administration has demonstrated decisiveness and made visible progress. As for responding to the pressures of history, its execution may have been inadequate. Its countermeasures may have been misdirected. These errors led to chaos. But these were errors in execution, not errors in policy. KMT insiders may oppose Ma Ying-jeou. But they must not repudiate the Ma administration's basic policy.

The second distinction between reform and infighting differences is whether they divide or integrate. Divisive tactics will drag down Ma Ying-jeou. They will turn him into a lame duck. They may pave the way for "post-Ma administration." But creating a lame duck Ma administration will undermine policy. If the KMT is defeated in 2014 and 2016, how can there possibly be a "post-Ma adiminstration?" On the other hand, integration tactics would mean that Ma Ying-jeou no longer needs to be party chairman. He would only need to maintain a relationship with the party chairman. The day to day running of the party and the Legislative Yuan would be left to the party chairman. The situation would be different. When Wu Poh-hsiung was party chairman, he had credentials, respect. flexibility, and sophistication. Yet he and President Ma still had difficulty coordinating their moves. If another person is made party chairman, what will happen? Will they complement each other, or become clash with each other?

To describe this as a "divided KMT" may be overstating the problem. But alienation and confrontation between Ma Ying-jeou and a small number of legislators is the main reason the Ma administration is in chaos. Several KMT legislators are naysayers, in word and deed. Sometimes their objections are valid. But often they sing a different tune out of sheer cussedness. Tsai Cheng-yuan is doing this right now. This is trouble from within. President Ma's second term has been characterized by repeated policy flip-flops, on gasoline prices, electricity rates, U.S. beef imports, and pensions. It is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. This is in part due to the Ma administration's own lack of leadership. But it is also due to a lack of transparency in the Legislative Yuan.

Ma Ying-jeou may or may not be re-elected party chairman. Either way, it means another crisis. The objections to a Ma third term have been a legal veneer. Therefore the problem is not amenable to a purely political solution. If Ma Ying-jeou withdraws his candidacy, politically it will be perceived as a KMT vote of non-confidence. Therefore the KMT and Ma Ying-jeou must think hard. Reform and infighting are essentially different. Reform integrates. In-fighting divides. Reform focuses on policy formulation. Infighting focuses on political survival.

Consider the public perspective. Should Ma Ying-jeou continue as party chairman? The key consideration is the Ma presidency still has three more years to go. Can the KMT lead the nation out of chaos and despair? The question provokes deep concern.

改革或內鬥：馬英九是否兼任黨主席
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.23 02:55 am

無端平地起風雲。正當國民黨中央宣稱將衝高馬英九在七月黨主席選舉的得票數之際，國民黨籍立委蔡正元發文質疑馬英九「吾三連」的正當性。

這個話題，處在國民黨內鬥及藍綠互鬥的交集點，恐怕難以善了。尤其事涉法律疑義問題，馬若參選到底，質疑聲恐不會止息；馬若當選連任，亦可能捲入司法訴訟。但若馬宣布退選，支持者恨鐵不成鋼，政治對手則落井下石。這一幕一幕場景，劇本俱已備妥，皆可預見。再若演成黨內抵制連任主席，民進黨又發動罷免總統，將如何收拾？

馬政府的局面走到今日地步，若說是因他不能有效領導國民黨，也許是把範圍說得大了一些；其實，最主要的原因，在於馬英九始終不能有效領導立法院黨團，而他與黨團的聯繫管道則是透過黨主席的角色。現在，馬英九自兼黨主席，已是如此局面；則他若不兼黨主席，將會變成何種地步？

其實，馬英九與國民黨立院黨團之間的裂縫自二○○八首任伊始即告出現，監察院、考試院人事受到杯葛，及陽光法案打折扣引起外界訾議等一連串事件，使得馬英九毀諾自兼黨主席。馬總統第一任期的主要議題是兩岸關係，如ＥＣＦＡ等，使藍綠鬥爭掩蓋了國民黨內鬥；但第二任開始，美牛案、證所稅、油電雙漲，以迄現今的軍公教退休人員年終慰問金，及年金案等，卻皆是在國民黨內鬥及藍綠互鬥的交集地帶，馬英九頓臨內憂外患、腹背受敵的困境，加以不擅溝通，拙於表意，遂失主導話語權的優勢地位。

蔡正元的質疑帶著「法律」的包裝，有了「就法論法」的形貌；但此事的根本性質或必然效應仍是政治鬥爭；也就是國民黨的內鬥，而必將牽動藍綠互鬥。法律疑義或許必須由法院裁定，但國民黨內卻應當弄清楚，這一股反馬倒馬氛圍，究竟意欲何為。至少應知：這究竟是一個改革的議題，或是內鬥的題材？

改革或內鬥的分野之一，在於施政理念。馬政府的政策主軸是：一、兩岸關係；二、反貪；三、司法獨立；四、因應歷史擠兌（如證所稅、油電漲價、十二年國教、核電及年金等）。至少在前三項，皆可見馬政府的決志及成就；至於在因應歷史擠兌上，或因操作能力不足，或因對策出現偏差，以致陷入危境亂局，而難謂是理念的錯誤。所以，國民黨內可以反對馬英九兼任黨主席，卻未必能夠根本否定馬政府的施政理念。

改革或內鬥的分野之二，在於撕裂或整合。若以撕裂的手法，拉下馬英九是要製造一匹跛腳馬，並為「後馬團隊」鋪路；但跛腳馬影響施政，則國民黨若敗在二○一四及二○一六，尚有何「後馬團隊」可言？反之，若以整合的手法，則馬英九不兼黨主席，他只要維繫與黨主席的關係即可，黨務及立院的操作皆可委諸黨主席，其實亦是另一番局面。但以當年吳伯雄任黨主席的資望、柔軟、練達，與馬總統尚不能互為手足，則此番若另舉黨主席，究竟是要相輔相成或分庭抗禮？

若說這是「分裂的國民黨」，也許過甚其詞；但馬英九與少數立法委員之間的疏離與對立，卻是形成馬政府今日亂局的主因。有幾名國民黨籍唱反調的立法委員之言行，雖有時不無道理，但往往皆是「你說東來，我說西」而已；現在，蔡正元又演出這一幕，可謂禍起蕭牆之內。馬總統第二任以來，自油電雙漲、美牛案，迄今日的年金案，屢屢陷於政策反覆、父子騎驢；一方面固然是出自馬的領導失能，另一方面則亦是因立法院的生態混濁所致。

是否連任黨主席，成了馬英九的又一危機。由於有了「法律」包裝，似不易僅憑政治途徑解決；但若馬英九因此退選，在政治上即不啻象徵國民黨對他發動的不信任案。因而，國民黨及馬英九皆應深思，改革與內鬥有本質上的不同：改革可以整合，內鬥即是撕裂；改革注重理念的型塑，內鬥則著眼人物的去留。

其實，站在社會公眾的觀點，馬英九是否繼續兼任黨主席應是其次之事，主要是在馬的總統任期尚有三年多，整個國民黨能否帶領國家社會跳脫這個亂局與困境，委實令人深憂。