DPP Alternatives: Pursue Progress or Blindly Oppose Ma

DPP Alternatives: Pursue Progress or Blindly Oppose Ma
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 10, 2013

Summary: Wang Jin-pyng has caused an uproar by peddling influence in the Ker Chien-ming corruption case. Perhaps the most incomprehensible aspect of the current controversy is the DPP's self-contradictory rhetoric. One minute the Green Camp dismisses the prosecution as "political persecution." The next minute it accuses the Special Investigation Unit of "illegal wiretapping." The one aspect of the case it completely ignores is political interference in the judicial process. Does the DPP consider legislators peddling influence in court cases a matter unworthy of concern?

Full text below:

Wang Jin-pyng has caused an uproar by peddling influence in the Ker Chien-ming corruption case. Perhaps the most incomprehensible aspect of the current controversy is the DPP's self-contradictory rhetoric. One minute the Green Camp dismisses the prosecution as "political persecution." The next minute it accuses the Special Investigation Unit of "illegal wiretapping." The one aspect of the case it completely ignores is political interference in the judicial process. Does the DPP consider legislators peddling influence in court cases a matter unworthy of concern?

President Ma spoke out on the case. He said "If this is not influence peddling, what is?" "This is the most shameful day in the history of Taiwan's democracy and its rule of law." DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang ridiculed the president's statement. He said "If this is not a political power struggle, what is?" He said "This is the darkest day in the history of Taiwan's system of justice and human rights." Su's posturing reveals the DPP's lack of creativity and inability to engage in independent thought. Even worse, it reveals Su's utter befuddlement regarding his role in the matter.

President Ma's condemnation was directed primarily at Wang Jin-pying, the President of the Legislative Yuan. Ma did not even mention DPP party whip Ker Chien-ming's role in the scandal. Therefore, what precisely as Su's role when he responded? Was he speaking on behalf of Wang Jin-pying, or was he speaking on behalf of Ker Chien-ming? An opposition party chairman painted himself into a tiny corner on such an isolated issue. His rush to retort and counterattack merely made him appear confused. It made his behavior appear inappropriate. Worse still, he dragged the entire DPP down with him.

When the case first broke, the DPP flatly contradicted itself. On the one hand, it demanded that the Ma government immediately investigate Tseng Yung-fu. On the other hand, it dismissed the case as a mere "political power struggle." It accused President Ma of using the Special Investigation Unit to purge dissidents. But if DPP allegations were true, then Tseng Yung-fu would have been just another tool in the alleged "political power struggle." The DPP insists that Wang Jin-pying never peddled influence on behalf of Ker Chien-ming. But it simultaneously demands that Tseng Yung-fu resign because he allegedly succumbed to influence peddling. What is this, other than a flagrant contradiction? The DPP even argued that the executive and judicial branches cannot tolerate influence peddling, but the legislative branch must permit open and flagrant influence peddling, and that it must be immune from wiretapping. What manner of logic is this?

Even more ironically, the DPP pointed the finger at the Special Investigation Unit for "illegal wiretapping." It pointed the finger at President Ma for "unconstitutional" theft of the President of the Legislature's phone records. But from beginning to end, it never said one word about fellow comrade Ker Chien-ming or his role in the influence peddling case. Su expressed no desire to investigate the facts. Party comrades expressed no desire to ascertain whether Ker Chien-ming was in violation of party disciplinary rules. None of them questioned the seriousness of DPP legislative caucus whip Ker Chien-ming's role in influence peddling. The DPP has long been "tough on others, and easy on itself." Therefore this hypocrisy was hardly surprising. But the rationalization of Ker Chien-ming's wrongdoing reached absurd levels. Support for Ker and opposition to Ma have extended to blind favoritism toward Wang Jin-pying, and complete indifference to right and wrong. The DPP even appears indifferent to public condemnation.

The DPP is an opposition party. Its seeks to gain political advantage from each and every political incident that arises. It seizes the opportunity to bring the ruling KMT down a notch, whenever it can. These are of course, instinctive political moves. But all political moves involve costs. Even assuming one achieves one's purpose, one must never forget the price paid. Therefore even if certain individuals profit handsomely, the party as a whole may end up paying in the end.

Consider the current influence peddling case. The gist of the story is not hard to grasp. The public sees politicians interfering with the justice system on their own behalf. They see ministers and prosecutors at the politicians' beck and call. Many feel outrage at the injustice. They feel these gray areas distort democracy and the rule of law, and must be reformed. But the DPP sees things differently. It thinks that political smokescreens will allow them to muddy the waters. It thinks that lashing out at Ma will provide them with a cost effective windfall profit. As we all know, the toxic smoke of conspiracy theories can obscure the government's pursuit of justice and progress, until all that remains is unrelenting political struggle. If the DPP persists in its present course of action, what will the public make of the DPP as a party? Will it continue to perceive it as "progressive?"

We would like to remind the DPP that the current influence peddling scandal may be a major blow to the KMT. But if it uses the opportunity to address its bad habits, it can emerge as a beacon for constitutional rule and political progress. Conversely, the DPP must be wary of opposing Ma at every opportunity, of standing on the sidelines poisoning the political atmosphere, and of invoking conspiracy theories that blur the focus and obstruct justice. Doing so will only reveal its corruption, favoritism, and hypocrisy. The DPP is likely to pay a heavy price in lost ideals and eroded grassroots support. The current campaign against influence peddling may perish at the hands of the DPP. The party as a whole may be sacrificed to shield Ker Chien-ming from his wrongdoing. If so, the DPP will have pitted itself against the public.

Years ago, the DPP obstinately aided and abetted the hopelessly corrupt Chen Shui-bian. As a result, the public withdrew its support. Today the Kuomintang is willing to prosecute Wang Jin-pyng for influence peddling. Yet the DPP is obstinately aiding and abetting Ker Chien-ming. Our concern is not that the DPP is "swallowing poison to quench its thirst." Our concern is that rampant conspiracy theories and opposition party political moves will obliterate public awareness of right and wrong. They will bring the public to the brink of oblivion. We call on the DPP to consider social values and democratic progress. We call on the DPP to exercise moral courage, to call a spade a spade, and to help Taiwan in its pursuit of progress.

民進黨要追求進步或只能逢馬必反
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.10 03:17 am

王金平為柯建銘關說案，在一片沸沸揚揚之中，最令人難以理解的，是民進黨左歪右倒的言論。綠營忽而指控此事為「政治鬥爭」，忽而指控特偵組「非法監聽」，卻對此案「政治干預司法」的本質完全略而不談。難道，民進黨認為立委關說司法個案，沒有任何正當性的問題需要質疑？

就在馬總統就此案發表了：「如果這不是關說，那什麼才是關說」、「這是台灣民主法治最可恥的一天」之聲明後，民進黨主席蘇貞昌一五一十模仿了總統的句法，回應說：「如果這不是鬥爭，什麼才是鬥爭」、「這是台灣司法人權最黑暗的一天」。這種態度，不僅顯示民進黨缺乏創意與獨立思考，更暴露蘇貞昌完全站錯位置。

試想，馬總統的譴責聲明，主要是針對立法院長王金平而發，甚至無意暗示民進黨大黨鞭柯建銘難脫干係；那麼，觀察蘇貞昌的發言，他究竟是站在誰的立場回應？是代表王金平，還是柯建銘？一個在野黨主席把自己放進這樣有特定指涉的位置上，越俎代庖回擊、反嗆，不僅顯得失格與錯亂，也把民進黨一起拖進了渾水。

此案一開始，民進黨的態度就顯得自相矛盾：一方面要求馬政府要立即查辦曾勇夫，另一方面又將案件上綱為「政治鬥爭」，說這是馬總統借特偵組之手整肅異己。然而，如果「政治鬥爭」之說成立，曾勇夫亦不過是間接再間接的工具，何以民進黨為「關說」的主角王金平、柯建銘大聲喊冤，卻認定「被關說」的曾勇夫應該去職，這豈不矛盾？再說，行政和司法部門不容被關說，而立法部門的關說卻能理直氣壯、不容監聽，這又是什麼邏輯？

更諷刺的是，在民進黨把十指指向特偵組「違法監聽」、馬總統「違憲」竊取國會議長通聯內容之時，對引發此一關說案的自家人柯建銘，卻始終未置一詞。蘇貞昌既未表態要調查真相，黨內亦無任何同志質疑柯建銘的行為違反黨紀，更沒有人反省身為立院黨團大黨鞭的柯建銘關說的嚴重性。民進黨向來「嚴以律人，寬以待己」，這並不奇怪；但對柯建銘寬縱到這種地步，又因「挺柯」及「反馬」延伸出對王金平的莫名偏袒，到了顛倒是非的地步，對民眾的指指點點似乎亦無所戒懼。

從在野黨的立場，要從每一場政治事件中找到自己的利基，並趁機倒打執政黨一耙，當然是最直覺的盤算。但別忘了，任何的政治盤算，如果打到連自己從政的初衷都忘了計算成本；那麼，就算有人能從中海撈一票，對整個政黨而言，加總起來卻可能是慘賠收場。

以這次的關說案為例，整個故事的脈絡並不難懂，民眾看到的是政治人物如何為自己的案件插手司法，並任意使喚部長及檢察長；許多人除感到不公，也認為這類扭曲民主法治的灰色地帶應該清理。但在民進黨眼中，卻似乎以為用政治煙幕、烏賊戰術來模糊問題焦點，可以「打馬」兼收鬥爭漁利，似乎更為划算。殊不知，在陰謀論的毒煙中，政府追求司法進步的意義即被抹煞，剩下的只有政治的死纏爛打。如此一來，民眾會覺得民進黨的黨格和進步性在哪裡呢？

我們要提醒的是，這次的關說事件，對國民黨而言固然難免是一場大傷，但若能利用機會好好清理政治關說的陋習劣風，未始不能立下一個憲政進步的界碑。相對的，民進黨如果抱著「逢馬必反」的態度，只是一味從旁叫囂、下毒，想要用政治陰謀論來模糊焦點或阻擋處理，不僅將暴露自己的藏汙納垢和徇私矯情，更可能因喪失理想而失去基層支持。而如果這次反關說的改革契機竟葬送在民進黨手裡，只因為全黨要袒護一個柯建銘，那民進黨無異站到了人民的對立面。

當年民進黨誓死也要挺貪腐的陳水扁，結果遭人民唾棄；今天當國民黨願意處理王金平的關說，民進黨難道無論如何還要護著柯建銘？我們關心的，其實不是民進黨如何在政治上飲鴆止渴；我們關心的是，政治上過度的陰謀論和對立操作，將淹沒社會的是非黑白，會把人民帶向虛無。從關注社會價值及民主發展出發，我們呼籲民進黨拿出道德勇氣就事論事，幫助台灣追求進步。